Absolutely incorrect - and we have no idea when that will be.
The document says that it is in effect immediately. Some priests believe that the GIRM is not in effect until it is part of the new Roman Missal which is due out shortly, this is an error I believe.At our Liturgy Committee tonight our priest said that we could not study Redemptionis Sacramentum because it is meant to be used when the new Mass translation comes out. I didn’t correct father but I wondered why it is available on the Vatican website and on EWTN if it is not to be studied until some time in the future.
Can anyone help me on this?
RS is effective immediately and all reprobated abuses are to cease immediately.
Deacon…adn the great thing is the RS said that where there is a conflict in norms in a particular area (i.e. the USA) the RS over-rides those.
The problem here is that each type of document carries a particular weight. An instruction carries less weight than particular law. Laws cannot be abbrogated by an instruction. This is why the bishops have asked for clarification from Rome. There is no disobedience here, simply a desire to stick to the appropriate canonical process.
Do you know the specific issues?
The one I am most familiar with is the issue of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion pouring from the caraf into the chalices. This, of course, means the continuation of the use of the caraf. At issue here is a perception that Rome has where few people go to Mass, and so one or two chalices are sufficient as opposed to the American experience of 300 - 900 going to communion at a single Mass and many chalices being required. Since not all Masses have a deacon to assist with the pouring, it becomes problematic for the priest to pour. It is also difficult for Rome to understand that this can be done without spilling. As a result, the instruction points to abuses that, frankly, are not happening. The bishops have asked for an indult to permit the EMHCs to continue to pour into the chalices which is, in the United States, permitted under particular law established by the National Council of Bishops who were given the faculty to make such law.
RS is very clear. Laity are not to be used for the distribution of the Eucharist. Also clear is that distribution of the Eucharist under both speices is not required. Did you even read RS? What about Ineastimable Donum?
What? Are you saying few people go to Mass in Rome? Where did you get this information if that is what you are saying?
My understanding is that this indult was not granted. See below from USCCB and EWTN (usccb.org/liturgy/innews/03042002.htm):
Small correction: the laity are not to be used in the fraction rite according to RS. However, the particular law of the United States does not hold to this and follows a previous permission granted by Rome. And, yes, I’ve read RS many times. I’ve also read IE many times. Since I’m the one my pastor turs to for liturgical advice in my Latin parish, I try to make sure I am aware of liturgical issues: both directives from Rome and the directives from the USCCB.
(emphasis mine)
No, that few people receive communion under both species in Rome. This comes from the bishops, priests, and laity who visit Rome and attend Mass there. It also corresponds to my own observations there.
Yes, the first request for the indult was denied. The bishops have repetitioned for the indult with more explanation of why they are asking for it. Because of the particular law in this country, they are also asking for clarification of the force of law present in the instruction RS.
My kids do the same thing. Eventually I usually give in too.
First, it was permitted under a previous indult that has lasted for 30 years. According to canon law, a constant practice of 30 years acquired the force of particular law. It is because of this that the bishops have returned the request to Rome. This time around Rome seems to be taking a more careful look since it has been there for two years already!My kids do the same thing. Eventually I usually give in too.
So if the indult was not granted, why has the practice persisted while they continue to ask again? Why not stop the practice since it started outside the rubrics in the first place?
I have never been a fan of the practice and am glad to see it go.
Blessings.
Actually this corresponds to my own observations here in the states in my area too. I’d say less than half receive under both species in parishes I have arttended.
I realize that the Church doesn’t cater to my whims and I don’t expect them too. I accept Church decisions, but I’m not a Canon lawyer. All this indult and particular law stuff is Greek to me.
