Liturgy: Does it fall under the realm of doctrine or dicipline?

[Columba]

Hi all,

First, where I stand:
I love the Mass. I have a great fondness in my heart for the Tridentine and it’s richness, I also love the Novus Ordo when it is done with all due reverence and worship.

I’ve been reading up a lot on Liturgy and the Novus Ordo vs. Tridentine, also been reading the Vat II docs and some traditionalists views on the situation. This has been spurred by some abuses in my own parish (N.O.), and some of us lay men want to help set things straight.

The Question that has come to my mind while reading this stuff is this: Does the sacred liturgy and the rules and regulations around it’s execution fall under the realm of Doctrine, or Dicipline?

My personal understanding is that it is a dicipline, that it is the “language” by which we pray what we believe (ie our Doctrines), and so therefore it falls outside the realm of infallibility in regards to the Magesterium (in otherwords, it is subject to change, unlike our Catholic doctrines).

You probably can see why I’m asking the question, but the “Sdvcntst” word is an unmentionable here (which is fine by me, and I do not desire the discussion to go that direction…). I really just want to hear your thoughts about MASS = Doctrine vs. Dicipline.

Thanks and God Bless!

Your thoughts?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Columba:

Hi all,

First, where I stand:
I love the Mass. I have a great fondness in my heart for the Tridentine and it’s richness, I also love the Novus Ordo when it is done with all due reverence and worship.

I’ve been reading up a lot on Liturgy and the Novus Ordo vs. Tridentine, also been reading the Vat II docs and some traditionalists views on the situation. This has been spurred by some abuses in my own parish (N.O.), and some of us lay men want to help set things straight.

The Question that has come to my mind while reading this stuff is this: Does the sacred liturgy and the rules and regulations around it’s execution fall under the realm of Doctrine, or Dicipline?

My personal understanding is that it is a dicipline, that it is the “language” by which we pray what we believe (ie our Doctrines), and so therefore it falls outside the realm of infallibility in regards to the Magesterium (in otherwords, it is subject to change, unlike our Catholic doctrines).

You probably can see why I’m asking the question, but the “Sdvcntst” word is an unmentionable here (which is fine by me, and I do not desire the discussion to go that direction…). I really just want to hear your thoughts about MASS = Doctrine vs. Dicipline.

Thanks and God Bless!

Your thoughts?

In a sense it’s both. Just as I describe the relationship of the Catechism and Canon Law. The Catechism presents to us a means to understand the Doctrine of the Church. Canon Law presents to us the manner and form in which we apply that Doctrine in our actions. Canon Law must reflect the Doctrine and the Catechism must incorporate in it the language the Canon Law.

Liturgy must reflect the Doctrine or beliefs and must never reflect anything that may confuse what the Doctrine is.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Columba,

The RITES of the mass are discipline. The SUBSTANCE of the Mass is doctrinal

In other words, the vestments, prayers, singing, etc. are all accessories. As a matter of fact, they vary from rite to rite. The essence of the Mass, which is unchangeable is the Memorial of the Last Supper. The reason I say it this way is because the actual words that we use in the consecration (the institution narrative), and which we have been taught to be unchangeable, have been judged to be changeable or rather replaceable in at least one instance.

In the Middle East, there are Chaldean Catholics and their more or less Orthodox equivalent the Assyrian Church. In the Assyrian Church, there is a mass formula (anaphora) that does not contain the institution narrative, and Chaldean Catholics were worried that, attending such a mass (as they must often do), they would not be really receiving the Eucharist. The answer of the Catholic Church is contained in the following :

Guidelines For Admission To The Eucharist Between The Chaldean Church And The Assyrian Church Of The East

Here is a paragraph from that document:

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.

Full text at

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4168

For an article that discusses the theology, see americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2959&issueID=433

Verbum

 

[Columba]

Thanks for your replies!

Verbum, thanks for that article. The writer is correct to wonder why the decree has been such a “sleeper”. Those are profound decisions being made there.

God Bless