RS and Canon Law

[Deacon_Ed]

Recently I was taken to task for explaining why the Bishops were not racing to embrace Redemptionis Sacramentum and to make all the Liturgical changes it calls for. I also made the comment that most people do not know how the Church actually works – and that raise the ire of a number of people here.

To put things in perspective, here’s the reason that the bishops did not race out on follow RS. It’s not that they were being disobedient (regardless of the opinion of a number of posters here) but, rather, that they were attempting to follow the rules the Church herself has laid down for us. Rules? Yes, canon law! Here’s the specific canon:

Canon 34: § 1. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. Those who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competence.

§ 2. The ordinances of instructions do not derogate from laws. If these ordinances cannot be reconciled with the prescripts of laws, they lack all force.

§ 3. Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation of the competent authority who issued them or of the superior of that authority but also by the cessation of the law for whose clarification or execution they were given.

Since the United States had particular law (achieved by 30 years of continous custom) those items in RS that were contrary to the law do not bind the United States. This was, and is, the point of contention that remains to be resolved. In checking futher, there is still a *dubium *in Rome that asks for an authentic interpretion to resolve the conflict.

This is not a case of disobedience, but rather of obedience to the full set of laws in the Church. The point I made earlier about people not understanding how the Church works is based upon the fact that people seized on RS and started calling bishops “disobedient” because they didn’t follow or implement RS. They focused on a single document, not realizing that there were other laws in place that also had to be considered.

Now, if the “authentic interpretation” comes back from Rome that the instruction is to be considered superior to the law in those cases where there is a conflict, then the instruction will gain the force of law *in those instances *and cease to be an instruction.

I don’t want to get into a long discussion on this, I’m just pointing out that the bishops are, indeed, doing what they are called to do.

Deacon Ed

 

[Mysty101]

Thank you–This is something along the lines I was thinking, but didn’t have all the facts.

I understand that the Bishops request was rejected, and many dioceses are implimenting RS for Advent. Do you think there will be more discussion?

 

[kmktexas]

Thanks for the research Deacon. I happen to live in a Diocese where the GIRM of a few years ago has not been implemented yet. When RS first come out and the word “immediately” was used, it seemed to me that it was a directive that might be especially meant for those Bishops who had not yet implemented previous changes.

Of course, RS hasn’t been implemented in our diocese yet either. The Bishop has made a statement that an “attempt” will be made to include “some” changes by Advent.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If it weren’t for the internet, we all probably would be blissfull unaware of any of this and untroubled.

A few more questions for you Deacon. RS lays out a plan for bringing abuses to the attention of the appropriate authority. How long, in your opinion, is a reasonable wait before one complains? It’s been a two year wait for GIRM implementation. Is there a period of time beyond which one really should expect the changes to be in place? Also, since RS was promulgated very publically (with a press conference) shouldn’t the USCCB prudently issue some kind of public clarification for the delay?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

kmktexas:

A few more questions for you Deacon. RS lays out a plan for bringing abuses to the attention of the appropriate authority. How long, in your opinion, is a reasonable wait before one complains? It’s been a two year wait for GIRM implementation. Is there a period of time beyond which one really should expect the changes to be in place? Also, since RS was promulgated very publically (with a press conference) shouldn’t the USCCB prudently issue some kind of public clarification for the delay?

There’s a difference between an “abuse” and not implementing the GIRM. An abuse is doing something wrong, and it’s generally something that was wrong under the previous GIRM as well as the current. If this is the case, bring it to the attention of the pastor. Explain what you think is wrong and why. Realize that there may be conflicting directives and that could be the source of the problem. If it’s really an abuse and the pastor will not address it, write him a letter keeping a copy. If you don’t get a satisfactory response, you have a right (some might even say an obligation) to raise the issue to the bishop. Do so, in writing, with a copy of the letter and any response or document the fact that there was no response to your letter to the pastor. If that fails go to the Apostolic Nuncio. If that still fails, you have the right to go to Rome (for liturgical abuse go to the Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments).

If, on the other hand, it’s simply a matter of non-implementation, you might seek find out why. As I said, there is still a question before Rome for an authentic interpretation of RS where it conflicts with particular law.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mysty101:

Thank you–This is something along the lines I was thinking, but didn’t have all the facts.

I understand that the Bishops request was rejected, and many dioceses are implimenting RS for Advent. Do you think there will be more discussion?

It’s not that the bishops’ request was rejected, it’s that Cardinal Arinze responded personally to the request for clarification. Canonicially, that response is inadequate. The problem here is that we are dealing with a condition known as praeter legem or “beyond the law.” The situation is this: Cardinal Arinze is, in fact, the authority who issued the instruction. But the instruction cannot override the particular law and, in fact, neither can Cardinal Arinze *unless *the pope has specifically delegated him to do so. This is, in fact, what the *dubium *is to clarify: at what level of authority is the instruction issued? Cardinal Arinze cannot answer that question because it is his competence, if you will, that is in doubt in this case. Therefore, the *responsum *must come either from the Holy Father or from the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law.

Deacon Ed

 

[Crusader]

Deacon Ed:

Recently I was taken to task for explaining why the Bishops were not racing to embrace Redemptionis Sacramentum and to make all the Liturgical changes it calls for. I also made the comment that most people do not know how the Church actually works – and that raise the ire of a number of people here.

To put things in perspective, here’s the reason that the bishops did not race out on follow RS. It’s not that they were being disobedient (regardless of the opinion of a number of posters here) but, rather, that they were attempting to follow the rules the Church herself has laid down for us…

Deacon Ed

You need to mention the climate of the Church in the USA today. Many (certainly not all) bishops have demonstrated they do not follow the Church in many instances, long before the latest GIRM and RS were released. In brief, some bishops have horrible reputations that they earned with their dissentful actions over many years.

Now you suggest that some of the very same bishops have delayed the implementation of the GIRM and/or RS because they want to make certain they follow canon law? While that might be true of a tiny number of bishops (who likely weren’t dissenters to begin with), I don’t think that’s the rule by any means. Sadly, many bishops’ credibility are shot.

Let’s revisit this in a year and see how many (arch)dioceses have still not taken formal action to reform the liturgy based on the demands of the GIRM and RS…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It would be hard for me to accept the idea that if you break the Law long enough, the law will be changed to reflect your practice.

Many of the things addressed by RS attempt to correct incorrect practices which violated the prior GIRM and Liturgical documents.

One cannot say because we have been breaking the rules for 30 years, it’s now Ok and we now need to change the rules to reflect that!!

 

[oat_soda]

It’s not that they were being disobedient (regardless of the opinion of a number of posters here) but, rather, that they were attempting to follow the rules the Church herself has laid down for us. Rules?

give me a break, you mean to tell me they don’t know that the Pope has supreme authority over everything in the church? look at what RS says in the conclusion:

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. adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html#anchor322061

for anyone to say that it isn’t clear if we must observe RS immediately means they are either incompetent or have an agenda to be disobedient. either case is inexcusable.

 

[Mysty101]

Have you seen the Q&A on the USCCB site?usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml

1. Why did the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments revise the USCCB Norms in regard to the pouring of the Precious Blood at the time of the Lamb of God from a flagon into chalices for distribution (See BCL Newsletter, July, 2004)?

On March 22, 2002, the USCCB approved Norms which provided for the pouring of the Precious Blood during the singing of the Lamb of God into chalices for distribution to the faithful. These norms were confirmed by the Holy See on March 22, 2002. On March 25, 2004, the Congregation published an instruction under the title, Redemptionis Sacramentum [RS], which prescribed that “the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms” (RS, no. 106). On April 27, 2004 Cardinal Francis George, O.M.I., Chairman of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy, wrote to Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation, noting the discrepancy between Redemptionis Sacramentum and the USCCB Norms in regard to pouring the Precious Blood and the use of flagons. Cardinal Arinze responded on May 6, 2004 (Prot n. 660/04/L) with a letter modifying the Congregation’s “original confirmation in regard to numbers 36 and 37 of these Norms” and including an emended text of the USCCB Norms which eliminates both the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of flagons.

**

1. 
   ]Does the Congregation have the authority to change particular law in this regard?*

1. 
   

   On August 2, 2004, Cardinal George wrote to Cardinal Arinze once again, noting that several Bishops “have questioned the competence of the Congregation to revise its
   recognitio of norms approved and confirmed on a prior occasion.” On August 4, 2004, Cardinal Arinze responded (Prot. n. 660/04/L) to Cardinal George’s letter, observing that while “a provision of complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised…,” it must be borne in mind that: (1) “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)…” and (2) “the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos.105-106 was to render inoperative certain elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in accord with the ius commune.” Therefore, “the Congregation has attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be implemented in the light of the new Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, maintaining insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which would conform with the general norm of law.”

   %between%
   
   And also my post about complaining?
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=21608

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

give me a break, you mean to tell me they don’t know that the Pope has supreme authority over everything in the church? look at what RS says in the conclusion: for anyone to say that it isn’t clear if we must observe RS immediately means they are either incompetent or have an agenda to be disobedient. either case is inexcusable.

As I pointed out, Canon Law says otherwise in this case. The form of the communication is specifically covered under canon law. What the pope approves does not, authomatically, carry papal authority to override both particular law and, in this case, canon 34. That’s why there was confusion.

Deacon Ed

 

[oat_soda]

Deacon Ed, assuming you are a Deacon, you probably had poor formation. No offense, but are you from a liberal diocese, like Los Angeles or something? Regardless, all you have to do is look at the Catechism.

CCC 882 reads “…For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

this is very straight forward. it doesn’t say he has supreme power except those things written in cannon law. “Vatican II and the 1983 Code of Canon Law all state that any changes in the Liturgy must come from the Holy See.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/tridentine_mass_and_disobedience.htm

for instance, SC from VII says

"22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. " vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

like i said earlier, unless you are truly ignorant of these facts, you have an agenda to be disobedient to the Pope and are letting Satan into the church.

 

[Crusader]

Br. Rich SFO:

It would be hard for me to accept the idea that if you break the Law long enough, the law will be changed to reflect your practice.

Many of the things addressed by RS attempt to correct incorrect practices which violated the prior GIRM and Liturgical documents.

One cannot say because we have been breaking the rules for 30 years, it’s now Ok and we now need to change the rules to reflect that!!

So very true…

Even if the bishops ae able to raise questions that are technically valid (although they are of no real consequence) the current state of the Church in the USA and their collective reputations should have precluded them from doing so.

From many a viewpoint it looks like nothing more than another cycle of slither/delay/slither/delay/slither/delay until the urgency dies-down and they can continue on just as they were, without making any changes…

Mark my words… This time next year. Let’s see how well some bishops have implemented the GIRM and RS…

 

[Crusader]

oat soda:

Deacon Ed, assuming you are a Deacon, you probably had poor formation. No offense, but are you from a liberal diocese, like Los Angeles or something? Regardless, all you have to do is look at the Catechism.

CCC 882 reads “…For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

this is very straight forward. it doesn’t say he has supreme power except those things written in cannon law. “Vatican II and the 1983 Code of Canon Law all state that any changes in the Liturgy must come from the Holy See.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/tridentine_mass_and_disobedience.htm

for instance, SC from VII says
like i said earlier, unless you are truly ignorant of these facts, you have an agenda to be disobedient to the Pope and are letting Satan into the church.

The more I see the bishops collectively use the slither/delay/slither/delay/slither/delay cycle, the more I wonder just how much of a role Satan does play in the leadership of the Church in the USA.

There is a time to do the right thing and not become mired down in that horribly corrosive cycle, and that time is now for the US bishops.

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

As I pointed out, Canon Law says otherwise in this case. The form of the communication is specifically covered under canon law. What the pope approves does not, authomatically, carry papal authority to override both particular law and, in this case, canon 34. That’s why there was confusion.

Deacon Ed

This is exactly correct. RS was approved in forma communi which gives it curial authority. If Pope John Paul II had wanted RS to have papal authority, he would have approved it in forma specifica, but he did not.

Fr. John Huels, J.C.D., has an article in the September 2004 issue of the journal Worship, entitled “Canonical Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum”, that discusses the canonical authority of RS.

 

[Brendan]

Since the United States had particular law (achieved by 30 years of continous custom) those items in RS that were contrary to the law do not bind the United States.

Deacon Ed,

Where in Canon Law does this concept of elevating customs of 30 years or more practice to particular law exist?

What proof do you offer that that the custom of fractioning in now particular law in the US?

 

[Catholic2003]

See here for canon law on custom. For the 30 year rule:

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan:

Deacon Ed,

Where in Canon Law does this concept of elevating customs of 30 years or more practice to particular law exist?

What proof do you offer that that the custom of fractioning in now particular law in the US?

Brendan,

See canon 26.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

Deacon Ed, assuming you are a Deacon, you probably had poor formation. No offense, but are you from a liberal diocese, like Los Angeles or something? Regardless, all you have to do is look at the Catechism.

CCC 882 reads “…For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

this is very straight forward. it doesn’t say he has supreme power except those things written in cannon law. “Vatican II and the 1983 Code of Canon Law all state that any changes in the Liturgy must come from the Holy See.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/tridentine_mass_and_disobedience.htm

for instance, SC from VII says
like i said earlier, unless you are truly ignorant of these facts, you have an agenda to be disobedient to the Pope and are letting Satan into the church.

Dear oat,

I am, indeed, a deacon in good standing in the Diocese of Orange in California and in the Melkite Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Newton. And, contrary to your assertion, not only have I had a very good grounding in theology, I also have a better than average knowledge of canon law.

It is *precisely *the limited knowledge that you are evidencing that gets people (and especially bishops) into trouble. You are lifting discrete things out of context. All teachings from the Church fit into a composite, and no one item can be considered apart from the rest.

Once again, the Congregation for Worship and Sacraments issue a *curial *document called an “Instruction.” There is a very specific way in which an instruction is to be interpreted, and this is found in canon law. The fact that the pope approved RS does not make it a papal teaching which would, in fact, have given it more authority. It was, and remains, a curial document. It cannot override particular law.

And, no, I have no agenda except that of the Church. It is only when people like you take the Church’s teachings out of context and attempt to fabricate that which is not there that problems arise. Perhaps you might want to do a little research on this before making accusations again.

Deacon Ed

 

[Crusader]

Deacon Ed:

Dear oat,

I am, indeed, a deacon in good standing in the Diocese of Orange in California and in the Melkite Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Newton. And, contrary to your assertion, not only have I had a very good grounding in theology, I also have a better than average knowledge of canon law.

**It is *precisely ***the limited knowledge that you are evidencing that gets people (and especially bishops) into trouble. You are lifting discrete things out of context. All teachings from the Church fit into a composite, and no one item can be considered apart from the rest.

Once again, the Congregation for Worship and Sacraments issue a *curial *document called an “Instruction.” There is a very specific way in which an instruction is to be interpreted, and this is found in canon law. The fact that the pope approved RS does not make it a papal teaching which would, in fact, have given it more authority. It was, and remains, a curial document. It cannot override particular law.

And, no, I have no agenda except that of the Church. It is only when people like you take the Church’s teachings out of context and attempt to fabricate that which is not there that problems arise. Perhaps you might want to do a little research on this before making accusations again.

Deacon Ed

I would suggest that it is the precisely the arrogance you are displaying that is the prime reason for the credibility problems of so many bishops (and other clerics) in the Church today. Clerical arrogance such as your’s is also excellent ammo for those who wish to denigrate the Church.

It’s high time for the US bishops to stand-up as a group and do the right thing with respect to the liturgy – rather than hide behind arcane legalese. If you honestly cannot understand that, you’re part of the problem.

In many arch(dioceses) the celebration of the Mass has tragically been pushed into the cesspit over the past 40 years or so. The difference today is that a larger number of the faithful are fed-up, and the Church is under a critical microscope in the USA for due to homosexual rape/child molestation scandal.

It is my sincere belief that the former in the environment shaped by the latter sends shivvers down the spine of more than a few clerics who have spent a large part of their vocations introducing and nourishing liturgical abuse within their areas of influence…
.

 

[Mysty101]

Crusader:

I would suggest that it is the precisely the arrogance you are displaying that is the prime reason for the credibility problems of so many bishops (and other clerics) in the Church today. Clerical arrogance such as your’s is also excellent ammo for those who wish to denigrate the Church.
.

I would be careful here. Lay arrogance such as yours (no apostrophe–that would be your is) is also excellent ammo for those who wish to denigrate the Church.