Laity Talk After the Homily?

[DeepeningFaith]

Sacrosanctum Concilium states:

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

There is no notice in the GIRM or rubrics anywhere near the area of the Homily that a Bishop has options to certain things.

Pax!

 

[SimonDodd]

I would like to hear Thomas’ answer to the points made by Canto and others. As I understand Thomas’ position, he agrees that GIRM prohibits the laity from giving the homily, but dismisses this as irrelevant because we are talking about a layman giving a talk after the homily. And he is correct that GIRM doesn’t say “no member of the laity shall give a talk after the homily.” But as Canto has pointed out, GIRM does prescribe a sequence of events: homily, reflection, creed,

Why, then, does the interposition of anything between the homily and the creed—except as otherwise specifically provided—violate GIRM’s prescription of a sequence, no less than would doing something explicitly forbidden? As others have pointed out, a five minute interval of liturgical dance is not provided for after the homily, so surely GIRM prohibits it—implicitly rather than explicitly, yes, but no one would suggest that a law must enumerate not only what it prohibits but also what it allows.

Thomas’ position seems to be built upon two convictions (although I may have misunderstood, and apologize if I have). First, that anything that the GIRM does not explicitly direct, either by mandate or prohibition, is confided to the discretion of the bishops. And second, that the sequencing in the rubrics is binding only insofar as the temporal relationships of its components are concerned. That is, Thomas seemingly posits a rubric where the homily-reflection-creed sequence is binding insofar as the homily must come before the creed, but which does not preclude other things happening in between those items. Canto, by contrast, thinks that the sequencing is binding not only as to the sequence of the stated objects vis-à-vis one another, but as to what items take place at all. (For the record, I think Canto is correct.)

Would you mind speaking to those things as a way of moving the conversation forward?

 

[MarkThompson]

Would you mind speaking to those things as a way of moving the conversation forward?

Are you pretty much asking whether someone, especially if he be a priest, may add anything to the liturgy on his own authority?

Because “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” (Source, ¶ 22, § 3).

 

[SimonDodd]

Are you pretty much asking whether someone, especially if he be a priest, may add anything to the liturgy on his own authority?

No, I’m asking if that is (in fact or upshot) Thomas’ position.

 

[benedictgal]

I would like to hear Thomas’ answer to the points made by Canto and others. As I understand Thomas’ position, he agrees that GIRM prohibits the laity from giving the homily, but dismisses this as irrelevant because we are talking about a layman giving a talk after the homily. And he is correct that GIRM doesn’t say “no member of the laity shall give a talk after the homily.” But as Canto has pointed out, GIRM does prescribe a sequence of events: homily, reflection, creed,

Why, then, does the interposition of anything between the homily and the creed—except as otherwise specifically provided—violate GIRM’s prescription of a sequence, no less than would doing something explicitly forbidden? As others have pointed out, a five minute interval of liturgical dance is not provided for after the homily, so surely GIRM prohibits it—implicitly rather than explicitly, yes, but no one would suggest that a law must enumerate not only what it prohibits but also what it allows.

Thomas’ position seems to be built upon two convictions (although I may have misunderstood, and apologize if I have). First, that anything that the GIRM does not explicitly direct, either by mandate or prohibition, is confided to the discretion of the bishops. And second, that the sequencing in the rubrics is binding only insofar as the temporal relationships of its components are concerned. That is, Thomas seemingly posits a rubric where the homily-reflection-creed sequence is binding insofar as the homily must come before the creed, but which does not preclude other things happening in between those items. Canto, by contrast, thinks that the sequencing is binding not only as to the sequence of the stated objects vis-à-vis one another, but as to what items take place at all. (For the record, I think Canto is correct.)

Would you mind speaking to those things as a way of moving the conversation forward?

However, with all due respect to Thomas, his opinion is flawed because, for one thing, just because something is absent from the GIRM, that does not give anyone, the bishop included, the authority to insert something into the Mass on his own. Sacrosanctum Concilium makes that point perfectly clear, and, it’s reinforced in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Furthermore, if the bishop wants to change something in the Mass (that does not fall within the scope of what he can do), he cannot do so on his own. He needs to introduce an amendment to to the USCCB and then, all of the Latin Rite bishops have to vote on it. If the proposal receives the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops, then, it goes to Rome so that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments can either bestow or deny recognitio to the change.

 

[diggerdomer]

As it has been said countless times, the GIRM and rubrics say what is to happen, not that which is not allowed. The GIRM says that there is to be some sacred silence. The rubrics in the Missal state:

The GIRM states:

The GIRM and rubrics must be read along side of one another and they work together. In the GIRM, the sacred silence is considered part of the Homily, as it is in the same section. So then, one would read this as: “After the homily, which includes a brief period of silence at its end, the profession of faith is said…”

There is no room or allowances given for anything else. I do not believe that a Bishop may change this. Although I am currently looking into the way authority works in the Church today, it is very interesting.

Ummm…in short, no.

The “sacred silence” is not part of the homily. Sorry. See GIRM 45. Sacred silence is to be observed regardless of whether there is a homily. It is not a part of the homily, or the readings.

You are welcome to have your opinion on the authority of Bishops, especially regarding liturgical matters, but there is clear Church teaching on what liturgical authority Bishops have.

 

[Canto]

there is clear Church teaching on what liturgical authority Bishops have.

CODE OF CANON LAW “The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them” (Canon 826.1).

VATICAN II “Therefore no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #22.3).

 

[diggerdomer]

CODE OF CANON LAW “The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them” (Canon 826.1).

VATICAN II “Therefore no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #22.3).

Exactly.

 

[Canto]

Exactly.

Yes. The GIRM says homily, silence, credo, prayer of the faithful. To add something after the homily is to add/change which the Code of Canon Law says is not allowed.

To add something, the competant authority, a national conference of Bishops, would need to seek approval from the Vatican for the change.

For example, the US adaptions to the GIRM had to be approved by the Vatican. An individual Bishop is not allowed to add or change things.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. The GIRM says homily, silence, credo, prayer of the faithful. To add something after the homily is to add/change which the Code of Canon Law says is not allowed.

To add something, the competant authority, a national conference of Bishops, would need to seek approval from the Vatican for the change.

For example, the US adaptions to the GIRM had to be approved by the Vatican. An individual Bishop is not allowed to add or change things.

You highlight the “grey area”.

There’s nothing in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows “additions” to the Mass/liturgy.

Certain things are required, certain things are proscribed, but a large number of things are neither, and so left to the authority of the local Ordinary (Bishop).

 

[MarkThompson]

There’s nothing in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows “additions” to the Mass/liturgy.

Actually the Council specified in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

Edited to add: sorry, that was unclear. “Other person” means other than “the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, . . . the bishop.” But the bishop has authority to alter the liturgy only where the law grants it, he cannot do so anywhere he wants except where the law specifically forbids it. It’s a pretty small number of things where this authority has been granted.

 

[Canto]

You highlight the “grey area”.

There’s nothing in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows “additions” to the Mass/liturgy.

Certain things are required, certain things are proscribed, but a large number of things are neither, and so left to the authority of the local Ordinary (Bishop).

Canon Law says you can’t add.
If it’s not there, even as an option, then it can’t be added by a Bishop.

GIRM 390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually the Council specified in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

Edited to add: sorry, that was unclear. “Other person” means other than “the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, . . . the bishop.” But the bishop has authority to alter the liturgy only where the law grants it, he cannot do so anywhere he wants except where the law specifically forbids it. It’s a pretty small number of things where this authority has been granted.

Correct in theory. But not in practice, as numerous Bishops have proven.

 

[diggerdomer]

Canon Law says you can’t add.
If it’s not there, even as an option, then it can’t be added by a Bishop.

GIRM 390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

Show me ONE U.S. Bishop who considers himself unable to adapt the liturgy, within the prescribed norms from the Vatican, to his pastoral concerns.

In other words…no Bishop would agree with you. Do you disagree?

 

[Canto]

Show me ONE U.S. Bishop who considers himself unable to adapt the liturgy, **within the prescribed norms **from the Vatican, to his pastoral concerns.

In other words…no Bishop would agree with you. Do you disagree?

Have you met every Bishop?

A Bishop may allow or not allow altar girls says the Vatican
A Bishop may have another posture other than kneeling at the Angus Dei says the GIRM
A Bishop may set norms if there is concelebration says the GIRM
etc

But…
Can a Bishop add a talk after the homily
A dance after the Our Father
Kneeling during the opening rite
The answer is no?
A Bishop does not have authority to add or change such things
The Code of Canon Law is clear cut

The GIRM 390 says it upto the Bishops with Vatican approval to make adpations NOT individual Bishops.

If the Bishops wanted to allow lay people for example to talk after the homily they would have to vote on it and then if the vote is successful get the Vatican to approve the adaption. An indivudal Bishop on his own can not make such a change, CCL, SC, GIRM, RS are clear on this.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Since threads that go off on who has authority are often closed, I made a new thread just for this issue. I think the OP’s question has been answered. (I’m simply playing devil’s advocate here) The rubrics state that the order goes: homily, silence, credo, prayers of the faithful. He asked if the Priest could allow it. We don’t know what his Bishop has said. So lets go to the otehr thread and decide if it even matters what the Bishop says!

The Bishop’s Authority: What Can He Change in the Liturgy?

 

[MarkThompson]

Correct in theory. But not in practice, as numerous Bishops have proven.

So, there’s your answer to your statement, “There’s nothing in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows ‘additions’ to the Mass/liturgy.” In fact, yes there is. “Numerous bishops ignore it” does not prove “Bishops need not follow it.”

 

[Ockham]

I love it when I agree with Mark.

 

[diggerdomer]

Canon Law says you can’t add.
If it’s not there, even as an option, then it can’t be added by a Bishop.

GIRM 390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

Where does Canon Law say that? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Have you met every Bishop?

No. So what? Have you?

But…
Can a Bishop add a talk after the homily
A dance after the Our Father
Kneeling during the opening rite
The answer is no?
A Bishop does not have authority to add or change such things
The Code of Canon Law is clear cut

The answer is not prescribed by canon law. So, in light of that…it is up to the Bishop.

The GIRM 390 says it upto the Bishops with Vatican approval to make adpations NOT individual Bishops.

GIRM 390 means there are licit adaptations that conferences of Bishops may make, with Vatican approval. Absent such approved adaptations, the local Ordinary, the Bishop, is still the primary legislator for liturgical norms in his diocese, while always acting in accord with universal and particular law. Just because a conference of Bishops does not disallow female altar servers does not mean that an individual bishop cannot prescribe the same. And so on.