Positive Affirmative rule

[De_Maria]

What is the source and authority of the “Positive Affirmative rule” which supposedly dictates that the Roman Missal,

" is written in the Positive-Affirmative style and only says what must or can be done during Mass."

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum9&recnu=21&number=421289

The EWTN experts are always full, so I thought I’d ask here.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

De Maria:

What is the source and authority of the “Positive Affirmative rule” which supposedly dictates that the Roman Missal,

" is written in the Positive-Affirmative style and only says what must or can be done during Mass."

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum9&recnu=21&number=421289

The EWTN experts are always full, so I thought I’d ask here.

I guess there is no real “source” since there are two ways to write rubrics: either you write what is permitted and, therefore, have less writing to do or you write what is prohibited and attempt to define every possible variation and aberration. It always makes more sense to define what is permitted, so it boils down to a practical matter.

As for “authority” – the authority is the Holy See.

Deacon Ed

 

[De_Maria]

Deacon,

with all due respect…

I guess there is no real “source” since there are two ways to write rubrics:

This is a false dichotomy. The only way this dichotomy were to be true, would be if such a rule actually existed, but it doesn’t. Or at least, you haven’t proven it.

However, I can find plenty of rules to the contrary.

First. Paragraph # 7 of the Directory of Popular Piety and the Liturgy says, " The expression “pious exercise” in this Directory refers to those public or private expressions of Christian piety which, although not part of the Liturgy, are considered to be in harmony with the spirit, norms, and rhythms of the Liturgy."
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdwpiety.htm

If something need not be in the Liturgy to be in harmony with it, then it need not be in the rubrics, because that is what the word “Liturgy” is referring to in this case.

Second. Sacrosanctum Conciliam # 11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain (28) . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration…

And this is as it should be because both Sacrosanctum Conciliam and the Directory go on to say that the Liturgy is in th Spirit of the Scriptures and the Scriptures say:

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

And this seemingly non existent rule is clearly a prescription to understand the Liturgy in literal fashion.

And that is why I have written to ask where the authority for this so called rule rests. If you are correct that there is no source then the rule has no authority whatsoever.

either you write what is permitted

What is permitted can not be completely inscribed because what is permitted includes those actions which are in harmony with the Spirit and Rhythm of the Liturgy.

and, therefore, have less writing to do or you write what is prohibited and attempt to define every possible variation and aberration. It always makes more sense to define what is permitted, so it boils down to a practical matter.

And yet, the 10 Commandments define what is not permitted to all of humanity in every part of life and very effectively and succinctly. Therefore, this is another false assumption. And the Holy See has expressed very well in the documents mentioned that what is prohibited in the Mass is anything that is not in the Spirit of the Liturgy, whether it be written or not.

As for “authority” – the authority is the Holy See.

No. In this case, it seems that the authority rests in those who are trying to pass this rule off as authoritative. So far, I can find no authoritative document or source nor can I find anyone else who can produce one. Iit seems more and more likely that there is none, because the Holy See doesn’t transgress its own directives and does not transgress the Holy Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[chicago]

Part of what happens in such matters is also in the manner of understanding law. In some traditions, people think of law as specifically forbidding what you can’t do and assuming that what is not strictly prohibited is implicity permitted, whereas in other traditions it is approached more in the way of stating what is normative and expecting compliance with the understanding that if it doesn’t say you can do something, you then you shouldn’t.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

De Maria,

I appreciate what you have written, but you are approaching Church Law from the wrong perspective. American law is always read in the most restrictive sense while Roman (and, therefore, Church) law is always read in the least restrictive sense.

As I said, there is no real “source” – that is, authoritative statement that prescribes this. It simply is the mindset of those who construct Church law. The general rule for liturgical law is “what is not prohibited is permitted.” Clearly, there are implicit limits to this, but that is the general interpretation.

BTW, the 10 commandments are not Roman law and do not follow Roman thinking.

Deacon Ed

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Deacon Ed:

. . .
As I said, there is no real “source” – that is, authoritative statement that prescribes this. It simply is the mindset of those who construct Church law. The general rule for liturgical law is “what is not prohibited is permitted.” Clearly, there are implicit limits to this, but that is the general interpretation.

. . .

In Germany that which is not permitted is forbidden.

In France that which is not forbidden is permitted.

In Russia even that which is permitted is forbidden.

In Italy even that which is forbidden is permitted.

Canon Law was written by Italians.

 

[De_Maria]

Deacon,
Deacon Ed:

I appreciate what you have written, but you are approaching Church Law from the wrong perspective. American law is always read in the most restrictive sense while Roman (and, therefore, Church) law is always read in the least restrictive sense.

Wonderful, according to whom?

As I said, there is no real “source” – that is, authoritative statement that prescribes this. It simply is the mindset of those who construct Church law. The general rule for liturgical law is “what is not prohibited is permitted.” Clearly, there are implicit limits to this, but that is the general interpretation.

I’ m sorry Deacon, but all you are saying is “this is the way I think it is done.” Your opinion is not authoritative enough to counter** Vatican II**, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, or the Scriptures.

BTW, the 10 commandments are not Roman law and do not follow Roman thinking.

BTW, Canon Law is not Roman Law but Church Law. Liturgical Law is a subset of Canon Law and is therefore not Roman Law either.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Deacon_Ed]

De Maria,

And what is your authority to disagree?

However, let’s look at canon 18: “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.” This general principle states that when a law limits, it must be narrowly interpreted. All other laws are broadly interpreted. This interpretation comes from studying canon law – and in fact is found in the commentary on canon law. Have you studied canon law? You seem unaware of how law is formulated.

Let me give you an example. Canon 1321 deals with the notion of imputability – that is, whether or not one is guilty of breaking a law. In American law the standard rule is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” That is, the fact that you did not know a law was in place does not excuse you from breaking it. According to the commentary on canon law, this is not the case with canon law which, contrary to your assertion, is based upon the same principles as Roman law. Here’s what the commentary says, “…the mere breaking of a law does not mean a delict has been committed.” That is, ignorance of the law is a defense in the Catholic Church. This is especially noted in the concept that if one does not know that a certain action is sinful no guilt is imputed for the action.

I’ m sorry Deacon, but all you are saying is “this is the way I think it is done.” Your opinion is not authoritative enough to counter** Vatican II**, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, or the Scriptures.

No, it is not my opinion – it is the result of the study of canon law. And who says I’m trying to counter a council, a curial department or Scripture? You asked a question and I gave you the answer. The fact that you don’t like the answer doesn’t make it wrong.

If you want the truth, go ask a canon lawer (there are probably a number of them at the chancery office of your diocese).

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

Deacon, very good explaination. It is difficult at times for us to see the way Canon law is presented, after being deluged with all kinds of real life and fictional crime stories in our media. The directness of the laws in our courts are totally absent in Canon Law. Also, Rome takes it’s time before getting around to revising material or issuing new directives.

May God bless you in your ministeries,
Deacon Tony

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Tony,

Thank you for your kind words.

Deacon Ed

 

[De_Maria]

Deacon,
Deacon Ed:

De Maria,

And what is your authority to disagree?

With whom, with you? Or with the Vatican? Or with the Scriptures?

My authority to disagree with you when I perceive that you are wrong concerning the Scriptures and Church Law is a God given authority.

I have no authority to disagree with the Vatican. That is the source of the problem. I see the Vatican and the Scriptures saying one thing and folks like you telling me another. Whom should I believe?

However, let’s look at canon 18: “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

What about Canon 17?

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Isn’t the Legislator the Vatican? And hasn’t the Legislator said, “something more is required than the mere observation of the laws.”?

That being the case, doesn’t Canon 10 fit much better the situation we are discussing?
.
Can. 10 Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.

So the question that must be asked is this, “Since when did Canon Law override the Vatican?”

This general principle states that when a law limits, it must be narrowly interpreted. All other laws are broadly interpreted. This interpretation comes from studying canon law – and in fact is found in the commentary on canon law. Have you studied canon law? You seem unaware of how law is formulated.

No, I haven’t studied Canon Law.

Yes, I was completely unaware that a “general principle” with no known authority was superior to the Scriptures and to the Church itself.

Yes I was unaware that “canon law … is based upon the same principles as Roman law”. Especially since I have read from various sources that Canon Law derives from and is subordinate to Church Conciliar documents and the Scriptures which were our very first source of Canon Law.

Let me give you an example. Canon 1321 deals with the notion of imputability – that is, whether or not one is guilty of breaking a law. In American law the standard rule is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” That is, the fact that you did not know a law was in place does not excuse you from breaking it. According to the commentary on canon law, this is not the case with canon law which, contrary to your assertion, is based upon the same principles as Roman law.

What does based on the same principles as Roman Law mean? Does it mean to you that we are free to disregard what the Vatican has said?

Here’s what the commentary says, “…the mere breaking of a law does not mean a delict has been committed.” That is, ignorance of the law is a defense in the Catholic Church. This is especially noted in the concept that if one does not know that a certain action is sinful no guilt is imputed for the action.

I don’t see the relevance.

No, it is not my opinion – it is the result of the study of canon law.

Then it is your opinion.

And who says I’m trying to counter a council, a curial department or Scripture?

Apparently you didn’t read the council, the curial department or the Scripture that was quoted, because you contradicted what they said.

You asked a question and I gave you the answer. The fact that you don’t like the answer doesn’t make it wrong.

It doesn’t make it right either. Last I saw this was a discussion forum. What did you think, that anything you said would be believed automatically without question.

If you want the truth, go ask a canon lawer (there are probably a number of them at the chancery office of your diocese).

In the past, I have found that folks at my Chancery are busy and aren’t prepared to answer questions of this nature. The folks I have addressed are specifically doing this either as part of their job or in their spare time.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Deacon_Ed]

De MAria:

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Isn’t the Legislator the Vatican? And hasn’t the Legislator said, “something more is required than the mere observation of the laws.”?

That being the case, doesn’t Canon 10 fit much better the situation we are discussing?
.
Can. 10 Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.

So the question that must be asked is this, “Since when did Canon Law override the Vatican?”

Actually, the Vatican is not “the legislator” – the pope is. He is the only one who can provide an authentic interpretation although, at his discretion, another can do so.

You have also misunderstood Canon 10. According to the commentary on that canon:

Invalidating laws *(leges irritantes) *establish the necessary requirements of a juridic act, such that their non-fulfillment would render the act invalid, null and void, not recognzied as legally existing.

Again, what you think ought to be the case isn’t of any worth (any more than what I think is). However, when I studied canon law it was made clear to me the underlying premise – that the Roman approach to Law is the opposite of the American experience. What you are asking for is proof that an underlying philosophy is documented. It is, and I’ve given you the canonical basis for it – but you are apparently rejecting that.

I don’t have the time or the energy to continue to tell you what the Church herself tells us. I’ve pointed you to a local source where you can have what I told you validated. Call your local chancery office and ask to speak to a canon lawyer. You seem unwilling to take that step and to argue with me. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to teach what the Church teaches.

Deacon Ed

 

[De_Maria]

Deacon Ed:

Actually, the Vatican is not “the legislator” – the pope is. He is the only one who can provide an authentic interpretation although, at his discretion, another can do so.

Thanks. That is a good bit of info I didn’t know.

You have also misunderstood Canon 10. According to the commentary on that canon:Again, what you think ought to be the case isn’t of any worth (any more than what I think is). However, when I studied canon law it was made clear to me the underlying premise – that the Roman approach to Law is the opposite of the American experience. What you are asking for is proof that an underlying philosophy is documented. It is, and I’ve given you the canonical basis for it – but you are apparently rejecting that.

No. It just seems that if it is documented, the document should be available to review. Everyone that I’ve spoken to says its documented, but where is the document.

On the other hand, plenty of material is documented to the contrary. So why should I believe those who say its documented but can’t produce the document?

I don’t have the time or the energy to continue to tell you what the Church herself tells us.

Where? Where does the Church tell us that a Roman principle overrides the Vatican?

I’ve pointed you to a local source where you can have what I told you validated. Call your local chancery office and ask to speak to a canon lawyer.

I’ve explained why I won’t do so.

You seem unwilling to take that step and to argue with me.

I’m sorry you think I’m arguing. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Isn’t this a discussion forum?

I’m not here to argue, I’m here to teach what the Church teaches.

Deacon I thank you for responding. I have learned a little bit from your messages.

May God bless you,

Sincerely,

De Maria