RS and Canon Law

[Deacon_Ed]

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.

If presenting the truth is “arrogant” then we’re in deep trouble because the Church is here to present the truth. If explaining why people fail to understand that the Church does not run on a single instruction or document, then we’re in deep trouble. My “arrogance” to which you responded was based upon a poster who first called my ordination into question, then determined that, because I don’t agree with him or her, my formation must have been lousy. The problem is that I was simply explaining why things are what they are.

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.Well, I disagree that this is a problem of “arcane legalese” but, rather, of making sure that the Church is working correctly and doing following her own rules. But here’s where the problem lies: Americans are, in general, very good at following rules. When we see rules issued we want to follow them. Rome, however, doesn’t work that way. American law and Roman law operate in entirely different ways: the former is proscriptive the later prescriptive; the former restrictive the latter open.

And, frankly, Rome has a tendency to respond to things that aren’t happening (the Americanism Heresy for example). The bishops, who are charged with regulating the liturgy, have a right to know that the process Rome has put in place is being followed. So, they are “doing the right thing” in making sure that the rules are being properly applied.

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.

Yes, I agree that there have been (and will continue to be) liturgical problems. A study of history tells us this isn’t new and has been an ongoing problem (albeit not of this proprortion) for most of the history of the Church. What many posters here seem to want is “uniformity” – and this is not, and never has been, a part of the Church’s posture on Liturgy. She strives for “unity” – and they are not the same thing.

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…

I disagree. I will admit a bias here: I’m an optimist who always looks for the best in people and expects the best results from whatever happens. This is based upon my understanding that Jesus is in charge. Because of that, I firmly believe that most people making liturgical change, whether authorized of not, do so with the best of intentions.

At the same time, as a liturgist (hopefully in the best sense of that word) I strive always to remind people that the Mass does not belong to the priest, to the community or to the diocese. It belongs to the Church and the people have a right to have the Mass celebrated as the Church gives it to us. That means, however, that the mind of the Church must be made clear. Thus, when there is a conflict between two directives (in this case, particular law and an instruction) we must determine which is to be followed. You may call it “legalism” – but I call it playing by the rules.

Deacon Ed

 

[oat_soda]

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.

my bad, i wasn’t very tactful and i apologize. i just don’t understand why bishops and cardinals are so slow to react to directives or instructions by the pope. i still think it is not excusable. the bishops would seem to me to have the authority to comply with the instructions immediately. but maybe i’m wrong.

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.

i don’t understand this stuff and it seems very bureaucratic to me.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

my bad, i wasn’t very tactful and i apologize. i just don’t understand why bishops and cardinals are so slow to react to directives or instructions by the pope. i still think it is not excusable. the bishops would seem to me to have the authority to comply with the instructions immediately. but maybe i’m wrong.

Dear Oat, I accept your apology with great joy!

i don’t understand this stuff and it seems very bureaucratic to me.

The reason is that the instruction produced a conflict. The conflict needs to be resolved before we can proceed.

Is it bureaucratic? In part, yes! But it is also making sure that Rome understands that not all the complaints they have received are valid. Finally, it’s also about a different experience of liturgy than Rome is used to. We have to realize that most parish churches in Rome wouldn’t know what to do with a congregation of 500 people, most of whom go to communion. As a result, the American bishops spend a lot of time trying to educate Rome on what our experience is here – and that education never seems to stick.

This is why we frequently ask for indults that seem out of line with what Rome has specified. And, of course, our American tendency to follow rules often frustrates Rome. One simple example: we applied for an indult to allow the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion to consume what was left in the cup after they had given communion. Rome’s response, which was very tactful, amounted to “You idiots, no indult is necessary for what should be obvious!” Ya’ can’t win 'em all!

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

Whoaaaa! It looks like Deacon Ed may be right. I checked with a very orthodox canon lawyer friend of mine because I thought it might be good to check with one before I told Deacon Ed how crazy I thought he was and he said that except for a few minor points he might quibble on that he was correct. (sorry didn’t secify the points).

I asked him some further questions but I’m not sure when he’ll get back to me.

It’s almost like a squatters law when it comes to disobeying. Disobey for 30 years and it’s all yours. Just seems awful.

Here’s a question for you Deacon, can they ignore everything in RS or are some of the things in there considered centennial or immemorial customs?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

bear06:

Whoaaaa! It looks like Deacon Ed may be right. I checked with a very orthodox canon lawyer friend of mine because I thought it might be good to check with one before I told Deacon Ed how crazy I thought he was and he said that except for a few minor points he might quibble on that he was correct. (sorry didn’t secify the points).

I asked him some further questions but I’m not sure when he’ll get back to me.

It’s almost like a squatters law when it comes to disobeying. Disobey for 30 years and it’s all yours. Just seems awful.

Here’s a question for you Deacon, can they ignore everything in RS or are some of the things in there considered centennial or immemorial customs?

Bear,

From my own reading of RS, there are actually only a couple of items that are in doubt: the fraction rite is the primary one. I’ll have to reread RS to make sure. I have to go do a workshop for lectors this evening, so will try to get to it in the morning.

BTW, canon lawyers can always find something to quibble about, and I’m quite willing to defer to them, especially when it comes to quibbling!

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

Deacon Ed:

Bear,

From my own reading of RS, there are actually only a couple of items that are in doubt: the fraction rite is the primary one. I’ll have to reread RS to make sure. I have to go do a workshop for lectors this evening, so will try to get to it in the morning.

BTW, canon lawyers can always find something to quibble about, and I’m quite willing to defer to them, especially when it comes to quibbling!

Deacon Ed

Well, it’s nice to know they can’t chuck the whole thing! I don’t know why it’s so hard to go with Rome!

I notice canon lawyers like to quibble. Why should we get all the fun? I trust mine and he’s highly regarded in the orthodox circles.

 

[Crusader]

bear06:

Well, it’s nice to know they can’t chuck the whole thing! I don’t know why it’s so hard to go with Rome!

I notice canon lawyers like to quibble. Why should we get all the fun? I trust mine and he’s highly regarded in the orthodox circles.

Ever notice this same group never raises and eyebrow at liturgical abuses? Scary…

 

[bear06]

Crusader:

Ever notice this same group never raises and eyebrow at liturgical abuses? Scary…

What group? Canon lawyers? The St. Joseph’s Foundation certainly does.

 

[Mysty101]

in response to
i just don’t understand why bishops and cardinals are so slow to react to directives or instructions by the pope.
Deacon Ed:

The reason is that the instruction produced a conflict. The conflict needs to be resolved before we can proceed.

Is it bureaucratic? In part, yes! But it is also making sure that Rome understands that not all the complaints they have received are valid. Finally, it’s also about a different experience of liturgy than Rome is used to. We have to realize that most parish churches in Rome wouldn’t know what to do with a congregation of 500 people, most of whom go to communion. As a result, the American bishops spend a lot of time trying to educate Rome on what our experience is here – and that education never seems to stick.

This is why we frequently ask for indults that seem out of line with what Rome has specified. And, of course, our American tendency to follow rules often frustrates Rome. One simple example: we applied for an indult to allow the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion to consume what was left in the cup after they had given communion. Rome’s response, which was very tactful, amounted to “You idiots, no indult is necessary for what should be obvious!” Ya’ can’t win 'em all!

Deacon Ed

Thank you very much for the explanation. It sure does clarify many things. I did know that there was much discussion, and did not think it was arrogance or disobedience, but did not fully understand the process.

 

[bear06]

Here’s some questions I posed and a reply from my friend. It seems like we all should get his book. It would seem there’s more to take into account but he gist of Deacon Ed’s post is correct.

So you mean to tell me that if the American bishops
disobey for X amount of years (is it 30 years or some other number?), then
it becomes a law even if it’s considered an abuse for eveyone else in the
Church?

It depends on a number of factors. This is actually a question Michael and I
deal with in “Surprised by Canon Law” when we discuss the canons on custom.

And that the Church has to come out with an “authentic”
interpretation other than RS to clarify that they are doing something wrong?

Basically, if something has the force of law (in the sense of legislation), then
a legislative authority must revoke the practice. An instruction, except on those
rare occasions when the pope approves it “in forma specifica”, carries only the
executive weight of the curial congregation.

 

[bear06]

Deacon Ed,

In regards to the ealier post, what exactly is the “weight of the curial congregation” mean? I’d ask my buddy but he’s a VERY busy man and I try and use his expertise as little as possible.

 

[buffalo]

[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

[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]

con’t

 

[buffalo]

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

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 St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Domenico Sorrentino
Archbishop Secretary

What does reprobate mean? before it can maintain the force of custom?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo,

Your question is good, but misses the point. We all know what RS says. That’s not the issue, and never has been. The issue is whether or not an *Instruction *can change particular law. According to Canon 34 it cannot. Therefore, there is a conflict between the instruction and canon law. The bishops are seeking clarification on this issue. If, in fact, RS does override particular law it has to be issued as a papal document and not a curial document.

Canon law outweighs instructions – therefore the words contained in the instruction are not sufficient for it to override canon law. if we use a poker analogy: Church teaching is done on many levels (as taught by the Second Vatican Council). That is, there is a hierarchy of teaching. The “royal flush” is an *ex cathedra *teaching. An *instruction *is, at best a pair of jacks. Canon law is a flush.

BTW, the paragraphs you cite are among those that I think are enforceable since there was never a community able to receive law (one of the requirements for a custom to become law) for these abuses. What I do not believe RS can override is anything which Rome had approved and which subsequently was made into particular law.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

bear06:

Deacon Ed,

In regards to the ealier post, what exactly is the “weight of the curial congregation” mean? I’d ask my buddy but he’s a VERY busy man and I try and use his expertise as little as possible.

Bear,

In my previous reply to buffalo I noted that Catholic teaching falls in a hierarchy of truths. This is also true of disciplines. The Curia is a collection of “departments” (not really, bit it works to think of it this way) that have specific assignments in which the work with the pope to govern the Church. In a diocese the bishop is the one who has all the authority. Priests and deacons in his diocese work as extensions of the bishop and require faculties that he grants in order to serve the People of God. In a sense, the same thing is true of the Curia. They work under the authority of the pope. However, they do not issue documents with papal authority unless specifically noted (in forma specifica). So, when someone says that document carries “curial weight” that makes it, say, a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. It will outweigh anything below a 6, but anything above a 6 is exempt from its rules.

In this case, canon 34 says that particular law cannot be overriden by an instruction. Therefore, particular law carries a higher weight (say an 8). Canon law itself is a 9. De fide teachings of the Church are 10s.

Realize that I have greatly simplified this in an effort to make it as clear as possible. Having said that, does this help?

Deacon Ed

 

[Marauder]

Deacon Ed,
Thank-you for your explanation of the inner workings of canon law and their relationship to documents coming out of the Vatican.

Hopefully it will help some of the people on here that think they know more then the Curia, magisterium, etc.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Marauder:

Deacon Ed,
Thank-you for your explanation of the inner workings of canon law and their relationship to documents coming out of the Vatican.

Hopefully it will help some of the people on here that think they know more then the Curia, magisterium, etc.

Marauder,

You’re welcome. However, I don’t believe there are people here who think they know more than the Curia or the Magisterium. Rather, there are people of good will here who really do want to see the Mass celebrated with all the dignity and mystery that the Church provides. What happens (and Crusader has twice accused me of arrogance for this statment) is that people really don’t understand the relationship between all the rules and regulations that the Church has. In fact, issues like this one usually come down to some canon lawyer trying to explain it. I am not a canon lawyer, but I have had a good foundation in canon law and I try to stay on top of things. Therefore, when confusion arises, I will attempt to present the teachings of the Church so that we can clarify the issue as much as possible.

(Crusader, I’m sorry if that is arrogant, but it is my function as a deacon.)

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

buffalo,

Your question is good, but misses the point. We all know what RS says. That’s not the issue, and never has been. The issue is whether or not an *Instruction *can change particular law. According to Canon 34 it cannot. Therefore, there is a conflict between the instruction and canon law. The bishops are seeking clarification on this issue. If, in fact, RS does override particular law it has to be issued as a papal document and not a curial document.

Canon law outweighs instructions – therefore the words contained in the instruction are not sufficient for it to override canon law. if we use a poker analogy: Church teaching is done on many levels (as taught by the Second Vatican Council). That is, there is a hierarchy of teaching. The “royal flush” is an *ex cathedra *teaching. An *instruction *is, at best a pair of jacks. Canon law is a flush.

BTW, the paragraphs you cite are among those that I think are enforceable since there was never a community able to receive law (one of the requirements for a custom to become law) for these abuses. What I do not believe RS can override is anything which Rome had approved and which subsequently was made into particular law.

Deacon Ed

What you are saying then is even though the Pope approved this there is doubt as to its legality? Doesn’t this sound as thought there are some who don’t want this to be implemented and are thus using the very same legalism they decry?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

What you are saying then is even though the Pope approved this there is doubt as to its legality? Doesn’t this sound as thought there are some who don’t want this to be implemented and are thus using the very same legalism they decry?

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

 

[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.