Redemptionis Sacramentum implementation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Almeria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Almeria

Guest
I’m returning to Mass after several years of not being able to go (variety of reasons; I’ve been to confession, I’m good to go and receive now, yea!). I’ve got a bachelor’s in theology, and have read Redemptionis Sacramentum and I’m glad to see that the Vatican is trying to curb the liturgical abuses being done. I mentioned to my parish priest that I’m looking forward to seeing this parish implementing proper proceedures, since I had noticed a few times I was able to go that there were some minor things that should have been done differently. He kind of winced at that, and said that the local bishop said not to implement anything until after August 11th, and then there would be a several month period for compliance to take place. That confused me–doesn’t RS say in section 186:
This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, March 19, 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.
Click to expand...
He also mentioned that nearby bishops have given some exemptions. For instance, one bishop said that parishes didn’t have to go out and replace their glass chalices, they were fine waiting until the next time they needed replacing. I’d think that for some parishes, that might be years! I’m afraid the local bishop might follow suit with several issues as well.

Do the bishops have the ability to delay implementation? And to give such exemptions? I would think that as a parish priest you’d want to be in compliance as soon as possible!
 
Already talked to a priest at my center who won’t be implementing the changes. He has implemented all the previous changes mandated by the new GIRM, and is frankly frustrated by the lack of support from the Archdiocese, he says that there are so many parishes that just ignored the changes, while he made the changes (many of which had lots of opposition), he just isn’t up for more changes.

So frankly, I doubt implementation will go very far, regretably.
 
I just spoke to my pastor last Sunday about RS. He had not even heard about it. Considering that any liturgical changes in my diocese is controlled by the Bishop, I asked if the Bishop has mandated any changes. The pastor said no.
 
We have a similar situation in our diocese. The bishop wrote in the diocisan newspaper that he hoped that changes would take place by Advent of this year. Unfortunately, he made a similar statement about the new GIRM and there have been no visable signs of change yet. I expect we will have to wait until he retires and the current co-adjuctor steps up.

The RS document was supposed to be effective immediately. It was supposed to be a direct communication, not one for the USCCB or the Bishops’ committees to ponder and then decide how to implement it. The “how” is pretty clear in the document itself. While I would expect that some parishes in very poor parts of the country might have some difficulty replacing altarware, the rest of the changes are not financially driven or burdensome.

But there isn’t really a penalty for non-compliance. The Bishop doesn’t have to report his compliance to anyone. The document does tell the faithful that they can complain if abuses continue and gives a mechanism to do so.

The RS document was not new law, it was clarification on what already existed and an atttempt to end abuses. You would think that once something was clearly identified as an abuse, all involved would want it fixed ASAP. :confused:
 
The Instruction clarifies some things in the GIRM. IF you have implemented the GIRM you are way ahead of the process. Can Bishops make exceptions? Yes on certain things. Can they delay certain things? Yes. But as someone once said “Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic didn’t help!” They are going to have to comply sooner or later, better sooner than later in my opinion.
 
The RS document was not new law, it was clarification on what already existed and an atttempt to end abuses. You would think that once something was clearly identified as an abuse, all involved would want it fixed ASAP.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought, and I mentioned it to the priest. I know he is also concerned about people stopping coming to Mass due to the changes. I honestly don’t see that–why would you stop? In fact, I’m so much more eager to go to Mass now that I know parishes were told to get in line and that I have a directive to repot problems! That refreshes me so much, and was such a driving factor in going to confession and starting going back to Mass.
 
Hi all,
As far as I can tell, NONE of the “reforms” and “prohibitions” have been implemented in any of the Parishes where I have participated in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and there have been several since I recently moved. One can hope and pray and “endeavor” not to become discouraged but perhaps that is our Cross for the moment.
Peace on earth to men of good will.
LaVada
 
Almeria, I’m a college professor. And I have to say that if a student who hadn’t been coming to lecture or participating in discussions showed up at my office hours and told me to shape up, I think I would wince, too, no matter how good the student’s excuse for not appearing had been.

St Benedict counseled his monks about “good zeal” and less good zeal. You’ll get further with patience than you will by chiding.

Naprous
 
40.png
kmktexas:
While I would expect that some parishes in very poor parts of the country might have some difficulty replacing altarware, the rest of the changes are not financially driven or burdensome.
Click to expand...
In terms of the expense of sacred vessels, I don’t know many parishes that have any extra money right now to pay for that. With the current economy, many people have cut back their giving over the past several years, and it has not picked up yet. And in my diocese the annual “October Count” has shown a shrinking number of people at church for several years in a row now. I know several parishes that are letting go of staff, not repairing their buildings as needed, and cutting every corner they can to simply keep operating week in week out. And this is an urban area. Any additional expense is out of the question for them right now.

And changes to the Mass are almost always somewhat burdensome, even when they are good and important. I have trained liturgical ministers in a variety of ministries and for a number of years, and given liturgy workshops in different places. A small change, such as pouring the wine at the presentation of the gifts, worries and upsets people, because it is a change in their practice. They will need explanation, retraining, “practice runs,” and several times of doing it, before they are comfortable. Usually this is because they are very humble in their service, and do not want to make mistakes in the Mass or disrupt people’s prayer. I have seen this reaction in priests, deacons and lay ministers alike, over very small changes in what they do.

And I can also sympathize with the priest mentioned by NWUArmyROTC. Once you have gone through this process one time, and spent the better part of a year retraining every minister, explaining every change, writing about it in every bulletin, to be asked to take it up again can seem very daunting. I don’t want to suggest that means it shouldn’t be done. But sometimes you have to let people feel comfortable again before jumping back into the fray of changes.
 
My pastor was advised by another priest to “wait until there is official word” on implementing Redemptionis Sacramentum.

You know, more official than the pope. As in, the bishop.😉
:o
:confused:
:rolleyes:
:tsktsk:
Sorry, but there is just no single emoticon to show my embarassment, confoundedness, frustration, or disgust with an excuse like that!

Pax Christi. <><
 
I have one positive note. In my parish implementation was not a serious issue because we were following the liturgical norms and did not have the proscribed abuses. It is, after all a reiteration of instructions already in place.

The only gig we got was on chalices. When I mentioned it to the priest, he had already read it and was aware. Money is an issue and it has to be addressed, but there was no question of disobeying the instructions. Yes, there are parishes so poor that money is an issue.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
We have a similar situation in our diocese. The bishop wrote in the diocisan newspaper that he hoped that changes would take place by Advent of this year. Unfortunately, he made a similar statement about the new GIRM and there have been no visable signs of change yet. I expect we will have to wait until he retires and the current co-adjuctor steps up.

The RS document was supposed to be effective immediately. It was supposed to be a direct communication, not one for the USCCB or the Bishops’ committees to ponder and then decide how to implement it. The “how” is pretty clear in the document itself. While I would expect that some parishes in very poor parts of the country might have some difficulty replacing altarware, the rest of the changes are not financially driven or burdensome.

But there isn’t really a penalty for non-compliance. The Bishop doesn’t have to report his compliance to anyone. The document does tell the faithful that they can complain if abuses continue and gives a mechanism to do so.

The RS document was not new law, it was clarification on what already existed and an atttempt to end abuses. You would think that once something was clearly identified as an abuse, all involved would want it fixed ASAP. :confused:
Click to expand...
Kristine–

Diocese of Trenton, NJ – same thing. MAYBE by Advent but don’t hold your breath!!

Micki
 
40.png
pnewton:
I have one positive note. In my parish implementation was not a serious issue because we were following the liturgical norms and did not have the proscribed abuses. It is, after all a reiteration of instructions already in place.

The only gig we got was on chalices. When I mentioned it to the priest, he had already read it and was aware. Money is an issue and it has to be addressed, but there was no question of disobeying the instructions. Yes, there are parishes so poor that money is an issue.
Click to expand...
I wish money were just the problem in my parish. Unfortunately, the problem with glass chalices is more than money. 😉 Get my drift??

MIcki
 
In the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, our Archbishop (reportedly) has also decided to “not implement” RS due to “poor catechesis”. This is true, we do need better catechesis… and our younger priests are being stragetically placed by our Archbishop so that in the coming years as they become pastors chances are good that the Twin Cities area will have better catechesis… but I am not certain that this is a valid reason to delay the implementation EVERYWHERE here.

When I suggested to our liturgist that I was not sure if the archdiocese really had the authority to delay the entire document, in the entire archdiocese, for vague reasons that have no definitive plan to be resolved (poor catechesis), I cited that same quote in RS about immediate implementation throughout the Church.

Imagine my shock when our liturgist just looked at me and said “oh, really? I haven’t read the document yet, since we’re not implementing it anyway” :eek: Good grief.

Our Archbishop is big on committees and planning actions and decision teams and the like, which generally go on for ages. When he does act, he acts well, I grant that… I just wish he’d pick up the pace a bit and not worry so much about being politically correct. 😦

+veritas+
 
Can someone explain to me why these “liturgists” are so insistent on using glass chalices and adamently opposed to precious metal (regardless of the cost).

I feel many will not implement the RS since it requires the wine to be poured before the consecration. This would offend those busybodies with priest-envy the joy “helping out” the priest by fractioning the precious blood during the “Lamb of God” at the altar.
 
  1. Sacred Vessels
[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.[205]The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,[206]so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.[207]

Reprobated - 1. To disapprove of heartily; condemn. 2. To reject. 3. In theology, to reject or abandon as hopelessly wicked or to a hopeless doom
 
40.png
Fast_ed75:
Can someone explain to me why these “liturgists” are so insistent on using glass chalices and adamently opposed to precious metal (regardless of the cost).
Click to expand...
When I was in college and served as a reader/alter server/EMHC (it was a single job), the church started using baskets for distributing communion and ceramic chalices. We were told it (Communion) was more like a meal that way. I guess the glass chalices fall under the same category. Which is why the RS speaks out against them - they are common vessels rather than noble ones.

I know someone is going to say “what about the Waterford crystal chalices?” This is a red herring argument. Most churches, in my experience use goblets that look more like Pier One aquisitions.
 
I’d say that if a parish can afford Waterford Crystal, they can afford gold, silver, or some other noble material, which would not chip, crack, or break if gets bumped.

Pax Christi. <><
 
40.png
kmktexas:
When I was in college and served as a reader/alter server/EMHC (it was a single job), the church started using baskets for distributing communion and ceramic chalices. We were told it (Communion) was more like a meal that way. I guess the glass chalices fall under the same category. Which is why the RS speaks out against them - they are common vessels rather than noble ones.
Click to expand...
Since when is Communion a meal- not the Real Presence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top