RS and Canon Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deacon_Ed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
bear06:
I think I get it but maybe it would be clearer for some if you listed those that would fall under enforcible because there is no law and those that are not enforcible because of the customary law clause.
Click to expand...
Bear,

That is precisely what I intend to do. However, it will take a little longer than I expected. I got tied up at work this morning, and I have a workshop on annulments for my Latin parish tonigh. But I will get to it, I promise!

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Bear,

That is precisely what I intend to do. However, it will take a little longer than I expected. I got tied up at work this morning, and I have a workshop on annulments for my Latin parish tonigh. But I will get to it, I promise!

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
How dare you actually do your real job rather than explain things to us in a timely manner! 😉
Thanks!
 
Looking at this from another perspective:

If I were the bishop of a diocese, and our parishes were doing something that Rome was calling “reprobate” and should “cease immediately,” I’d probably consider changing our practices, because they are obviously out-of-touch with what the Universal Church is asking for.

I mean, even if particular law within my diocese was able to be promulgated through the “back door” by way of custom, I’d say “hey, wait a minute, something’s wrong here.”

Obviously, Card. Mahony feels that it’s more important to save his reprobated practices instead of jumping on board with everyone else.

In Manibus Dei,
  • muledog
 
I’m rather ignorant of all these “rules & regulations”, but if RS cannot be implemented, why did they bother writing it and sending it to the Bishops?
 
40.png
Patsy:
I’m rather ignorant of all these “rules & regulations”, but if RS cannot be implemented, why did they bother writing it and sending it to the Bishops?
Click to expand...
If I’ve got it straight, this is not what Deacon Ed is saying. There are things that have to be implemented and are under the jurisdiction of RS and some things that take more to correct (forma specifica) because they are a kind of customary law here in the states. I’m sure the Deacon will clarify when he gets back from work!
 
Okay, a real quick clarification (now that my parish workshop on annulments is over). RS was written for the whole world, not just the US. In the US there are procedures in place that are actually particular law (and were, in fact, approved by Rome before they became particular law). Those procedures are now prohibited by RS. The problem is that RS does not have sufficient authority to make such a prohibition. Therefore, the bishops are trying to get an authentic interpretation of whether or not they are to suppress the formerly approved practices.

This has nothing to do with being disobedient for 30 years, or for trying to justify abuses. It has to do with legitimate practices that Rome approved and which were placed into particular law in the United States.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed,

Thanks again for your thorough explanation. This does seem different than the manner of justifying the intinction process you suggest, or am I not understanding correctly?

Also could you take a peek at the standing/kneeling thread, and see how or if Canon law would apply?

Thanks,
PS Are you the Deacon Ed from Prodigy years ago?
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Deacon Ed,

Thanks again for your thorough explanation. This does seem different than the manner of justifying the intinction process you suggest, or am I not understanding correctly?

Also could you take a peek at the standing/kneeling thread, and see how or if Canon law would apply?

Thanks,
PS Are you the Deacon Ed from Prodigy years ago?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s me…

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
No! I don’t know how many times this can be said. The document is legal and valid. The problem is that the document does not override particular law! Therefore, there are provisions within RS that do not have any force within the United States. The fact that the pope approved it means that the Congregation could publish it, not that it carried papal weight. He approved it in forma communi which means that it has curial authority. Curial authority is not sufficient to nullify particular law. Had the pope wanted to provide papal authority he would have needed to approve it *in forma specifica. *That’s about as simple as I can make it. RS simply does not have sufficient authority to change particular law.

However, because it is also clear that the intention was to do just that, the bishops have asked for a clarification to see in the pope really intended for it to have that level of authority. Until that is clarified the status quo will remain.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
My question is what in RS that has been reprobated is lawful? What liturgical abuses that it is intended to correct are lawful? If they are lawful, why are they referred to as abuses?
 
40.png
buffalo:
My question is what in RS that has been reprobated is lawful? What liturgical abuses that it is intended to correct are lawful? If they are lawful, why are they referred to as abuses?
Click to expand...
I will provide a detailed list of places where there is a conflict between RS and particular law as soon as I can find the time to do so. The one I know for sure is the pouring of the Precious Blood. This is a practice that was approved by Rome (and, therefore, not an abuse). It was put into particular law. Therefore, RS cannot ban the practice. Note, also, that this was not called an abuse but, rather, a “practice.”

On the other hand, modifying the text of the Liturgy has always been an abuse, is not permitted under particular law, and is therefore reprobated in accordance with RS (and the GIRM!).

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
I will provide a detailed list of places where there is a conflict between RS and particular law as soon as I can find the time to do so. The one I know for sure is the pouring of the Precious Blood. This is a practice that was approved by Rome (and, therefore, not an abuse). It was put into particular law. Therefore, RS cannot ban the practice. Note, also, that this was not called an abuse but, rather, a “practice.”

On the other hand, modifying the text of the Liturgy has always been an abuse, is not permitted under particular law, and is therefore reprobated in accordance with RS (and the GIRM!).

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Fractioning of the Precious Blood by EMHC’s was approved? Do you know when that was?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Fractioning of the Precious Blood by EMHC’s was approved? Do you know when that was?
Click to expand...
What I said was pouring of the Precious Blood was approved. I never said anything about EMHCs doing the pouring. In 2002 the bishops asked for an indult to permit that, and it was denied. It is my understanding that a second request for an indult was issued. The second request was never answered, but it seems that RS addresses that and should be interpreted as a reply in the negative.

Now, to be complete, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy has posted a statement and their web site which seems to indicate that they are going to go along with the directives. That notwithstanding, there is still a canonical issue to be resolved. I anticipate that the resolution will be that the CDW has the authority to override particular law in this instance.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
What I said was pouring of the Precious Blood was approved. I never said anything about EMHCs doing the pouring. In 2002 the bishops asked for an indult to permit that, and it was denied. It is my understanding that a second request for an indult was issued. The second request was never answered, but it seems that RS addresses that and should be interpreted as a reply in the negative.

Now, to be complete, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy has posted a statement and their web site which seems to indicate that they are going to go along with the directives. That notwithstanding, there is still a canonical issue to be resolved. I anticipate that the resolution will be that the CDW has the authority to override particular law in this instance.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I am confused. Who did they allow to do the pouring? The Priest?
 
40.png
buffalo:
I am confused. Who did they allow to do the pouring? The Priest?
Click to expand...
Rome permitted the bishop, priest or deacon to do the pouring. This became particular law in 2002. They have now rescinded that permission. This is, however, where the sticky point lies: because RS is an instruction and the former permission became particular law, RS cannot revoke the law. As I said, the USCCB has asked for clarification on this juridic issue.

The suggestion now, if there is a need for more than one chalice, is that either the chalices be filled at the time the gifts are brought up and before the consecration or, in the tradition of the Eastern Churches, that the chalices be filled *before *Mass and simply brought up to the altar at the time the other gifts are brought up.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Rome permitted the bishop, priest or deacon to do the pouring. This became particular law in 2002. They have now rescinded that permission. This is, however, where the sticky point lies: because RS is an instruction and the former permission became particular law, RS cannot revoke the law. As I said, the USCCB has asked for clarification on this juridic issue.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I see. RS states any pouring whatsoever is to be avoided.
 
I’ve been following the discussions with interest. I’m glad the discussion appears to have ended with most now having gained some understanding and at peace with one another. I was disheartened at the increasing incendiary nature of allegations which flew for a while yesterday(?). I hope I don’t start any new fires by simply saying that I wish we could all try to discuss with charity. My teachers advised putting my writing to rest, particularly when it had been done iwith emotional haste. I would hope we all can remember to practice that Charity (difficult as that cross may be to carry) which is the interior law governing Eucharist, liturgy, Church, faith. May the fire of God’s spirit enlighten us all with the flame of His charity. Good night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top