Proper protocol for obeying in the midst of liturgical abuse?

[japhy]

More important to follow the law, than to act pastorally.

You are creating a false dichotomy. It is possible to follow liturgical law and still be pastoral. The problem is that when one breaks the law to fulfill a (supposed) pastoral need, those who try to correct the behavior are made to be the “Pharisees”. Such is the case when, in a Mass for a group of a dozen people, the priest invites the people up to the altar (and in another extreme case, to hold the paten and pray over the bread). We did not ask for the priest to invite us. Maybe he invited us up because it is the only way he knows how to fulfill some pastoral need he perceives we have? I don’t know, and won’t know until I speak with him.

Why he didn’t ask us to kneel during the Consecration and after the Angus Dei, I don’t know. I knelt anyway.

At daily Mass at that chapel, there’s probably about a dozen to two dozen people there. They’re never invited up to the altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Why not?

This was one of the reasons for Vatican II reforms, the church was acting as the Phaisees of old and not like sheperds, tending the needs of it’s people. I don’t believe the GIRM gives and exact footage to the distance that the faithfull should be from the alter.

No, the GIRM doesn’t, which is why the CDW came out with their official interpretations of the GIRM and stated that the ministers of the altar are the only ones to remain at the altar (in the presbyterium) during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the rest of the faithful are to remain in their proper place. No matter how many feet that is from the altar.

 

[Joysong]

Brendan:

And yes, I do subscribe to the english language version, which comes out quarterly. [Notitiae]

My Canon Law professor required it for our class, and I have continued the subscription because it is rather interesting.

Brendan, with due consideration, you are the exception to the norm, simply as it is required for your classes. I maintain with good reason that the majority of Catholics do not have any idea of what is in the GIRM or RS or many documents, and they are trusting the leadership of their priest. That you have a copy of this exceptional document beyond the highly visible ones on the Web, is like winning the lottery. One chance in a thousand.

It distresses me beyond words to find that armchair liturgists, who really should know better, publicly cause scandal to innocent forum members, particularly when not everything they say and write is bona fide, but falls in the class of private interpretation. Not everyone is in a Canon Law class, agree? Nor do these self-proclaimed liturgists attend the conferences between the bishop and his priests as he dispenses permissions and/or proper instructions.

God bless you in your studies.

 

[japhy]

Because, the GIRM spells out many aspects of the celebration of the Liturgy, much interpetation is also left to the local bishop, but the priest does still have a certain amount of descretion in excercising his pastoral duties.

Yes, the Bishop and the priest have certain amounts of interpretative and discretionary powers. But they do not have such powers in this case, as the CDW has given its official interpretation of the 1970 GIRM #101: only the ministers of the altar are to be in the presbyterium during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. That is what the Vatican has said since 1981. Should I adhere to a private interpretation that differs from the official interpretation?

 

[Brendan]

It distresses me beyond words to find that armchair liturgists, who really should know better, publicly cause scandal to innocent forum members, particularly when not everything they say and write is bona fide, but falls in the class of private interpretation. Not everyone is in a Canon Law class, agree? Nor do these self-proclaimed liturgists attend the conferences between the bishop and his priests as he dispenses permissions and/or proper instructions.

That does not mean that they are wrong. The Vatican documents are NOT something that are ‘hidden’. Granted, they can be a bit esoteric and hard to dig up, but they ARE published and the laity are certainly not prohibited from reading them

And, by defition, they are not a matter of ‘personal interpretion’. The judicial procedings of the CDWDS are the authentic interpretion of the law in question. In is no longer in the pervue of any Catholic, from bishops on down, to question them. The matter of questioning is officially over. The decisions carry the force of law

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

So yes, if practices are being done that are in contrast to the publications of Notatie, the faithful are fully correct to question, and have the liturgy conducted in accordance with the appropriate decrees.

God bless you in your studies.

Thanks !!

 

[benedictgal]

That does not mean that they are wrong. The Vatican documents are NOT something that are ‘hidden’. Granted, they can be a bit esoteric and hard to dig up, but they ARE published and the laity are certainly not prohibited from reading them

And, by defition, they are not a matter of ‘personal interpretion’. The judicial procedings of the CDWDS are the authentic interpretion of the law in question. In is no longer in the pervue of any Catholic, from bishops on down, to question them. The matter of questioning is officially over. The decisions carry the force of law

So yes, if practices are being done that are in contrast to the publications of Notatie, the faithful are fully correct to question, and have the liturgy conducted in accordance with the appropriate decrees.

Brendan, that was a great post. I’ll be honest with you, I don’t consider myself an armchair liturgist because I’ve been out in the trenches. The problem lies when you’re the one trying to toe the line with Rome and you get saddled with creative types who want to tinker with things. The worse part is when these types even influence the Bishop, who, should know better.

I am reminded of the time when the wife of the bishop’s executive assistant pretty much said that we would be replacing the Gloria with Angels We Have Heard on High (the carol, not the Mass setting). Much to my chagrin, it was done, and at the Cathedral in the presence of the Bishop. I was upset and, if I had paper bags in the sacristy, I would have been breathing into them. The Bishop said nothing and my worst fear was that, since this had been broadcast on our diocesan radio station, the substitution would set a bad precedent. Well, sure enough, it did. The former diocesan director of worship decided that substituting the Gloria was a nice idea so he carried it to his parish. Furthermore, not only did he substitute the Gloria with a Christmas carol, but he also substituted the penitential rite during a funeral with Amazing Grace and during Lent with the Attende Domine ( a song I truly love).

A letter was written to the bishop regading this, along with the appropriate citations from RS, but, so far, no response.

I emphasized your last point because it goes back to what RS says in that the faithful have the right to the Mass that is celebrated according to the norms of the Church.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
When Celebrating Mass Alone
ROME, 14 NOV. 2006 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Before entering into detail I wish to mention that some priests believe that this form of Mass with no faithful present is now forbidden. This is not the case. Indeed, present canon law, by requiring a just cause for celebrating alone, and no longer a grave cause as did the 1917 code, has actually made it easier to celebrate such a Mass even though it should always be seen as an exception and to be avoided whenever possible.

All the same, many priests have on some occasion been faced with the choice of celebrating alone, or not celebrating. *Both canon law and the law of grace recommend celebrating Mass as the better thing to do. *

Thanks…When my Uncle retired from his pastoral duties he moved into an apartment complex near another church. He did regularly say mass at the nearby church, but also did maintain a small private altar in his apartment. He did not let a day pass that he did not celebrate Mass, even if he was by himself.

This would have been in the late 70’s-early 80’s. In the mid-80’s we moved him to a retirement center where he celebrated daily mass in the morning in the dining room.

One morning, he didn’t show up for Mass. They went to his room and found him slumped in his chair with his breivary. He was 84.

What a way to go

 

[Brendan]

A letter was written to the bishop regading this, along with the appropriate citations from RS, but, so far, no response.

One thing to try is contacting the Judical Vicar for the diocese. That person is usually a priest who is familar with Canon law ( usually a Canonist).

The Judical Vicar is the person delegated by the bishop to make diocesan interpretations of Canon and Liturgical Law. Once this person makes a ruling, only the bishop himself can override it ( and then only by a direct decision himself)

I emphasized your last point because it goes back to what RS says in that the faithful have the right to the Mass that is celebrated according to the norms of the Church.

Yep, that’s where I got it from The faithful DO have a Canonical Right to have Mass said according to the promulgated laws of the Church, and standing up for that right is never disobedience.