Rubrics of the Mass

[tcraig]

LOL! (And really, I’m laughing in completely sympathy with you, rather than at you). You have received a very nice, very polite “Go hang yourself” letter from the priest.

I have received one of those, also.

Your next step, if you choose to go that far, is to reply to the priest saying that since you can draw no other conclusion from the letter other than he chooses not to obey Vatican directives, that you will referring this matter to the bishop. Give him several weeks to reply whether that is his intention, in all fairness.

Then write a letter to the bishop, explaining the problem, and include copies of (1) your first letter to the priest, (2) the priest’s reply, and (3) your letter advising the priest that you would be referring the matter to the bishop.

You will probably get a nice response from the bishop’s office vaguely thanking you for referring this matter to them, and then … nothing. If you go back to that parish in several months and the abuse is still occurring you know where your bishop stands. You can then decide whether to continue further (to the Vatican).

It can be a lonely road trying to get abuses corrected, but the Church needs people who can persist. Good luck to you!

 

[baltobetsy]

I don’t know how to take this. How can you not pay attention to the Rubrics of the Mass. I don’t know if I should be insulted or very insulted, or nothing.

Help me out

I’d say being insulted was indicated here. You’ve been called self-righteous and nit-picky. You have been accused of not knowing what’s really important. On the other hand, the priest has placed himself on a par with Christ, able to pick and choose which parts of the law he will obey. It may be helpful for you to remember that Christ came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it. Also that Christ became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

That said, it appears you may have violated one of the basic rules of writing to priests to point out errors. One should point out what was done and how it differs from the law, then respectfully ask for a clarification. All this should be done without evident emotion. The fact that the priest referred to your having said something about people who “don’t know up from down about the Mass,” indicates that perhaps your letter was a bit colorful. While that is satisfying to the writer, it seldom achieves the desired effect.

Actually, writing these letters seldom achieves the desired effect, but it does satisfy our obligation to do something about the irregularities that we notice.

May I suggest the following format for future letters:

Paragraph one: Something complimentary about the priest and the parish - something you really mean.

Paragraph two: I have noticed that A happens (with A being the irregularity, described in a factual manner, without any evaluation), while the law says B (with B being a direct quote from a church document). Is there something new that replaces B, or can you help me understand how A is permitted in light of B?

Paragraph three: I look forward to your reply, and thank you for taking the time to blah, blah, blah. All pleasant. No threats, no emotion.

If you receive an unsatisfactory reply, that is the time to let the priest know what action you will be taking next. It takes two letters or more, but is very much worth the extra effort.

God bless you for caring.

Betsy

 

[Deacon_Ed]

As Brendan has pointed out, this is a matter of canon law, not of certain bishops or priests being disobedient.

Even though the pope directed RS to be released, it was released as an “instruction” which does not override particular law since it was released with only the authority of the congregation, not the pope. Particular law is declared/approved by the pope and no congregation can override the pope.

When the bishops submitted their dubium they actually submitted it to the pope who, at the time, was very ill. The CDW looked at it and affirmed their own authority. The problem is that they are not “qualified” from a legal perspective to rule on their own ruling! This is why the bishops of the U.S. are awaiting a response from the Holy Father.

Until such a response is forthcoming, the existing particular law remains in force. That law permits the use of flaggons and pouring the Precious Blood into multiple chalices. At the same time, there are bishops who have choosen to implement RS, and that is perfectly within their rights.

Although I rarely offer my own opinion here, I believe the pope will uphold the CDW and that, eventually, the pouring of the Precious Blood will be eliminated. Of course, that does obscure the “one bread, one chalice” symbol…

Deacon Ed

 

[AlexV]

The deacon is quite incorrect here.

Popes delegate various tasks to curial congregations.

A pope can’t possibly respond to every imaginable curial question personally.

When the Congregation in charge of the particular question at hand issues a ruling, IT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.

It is not a question of the Congregation issuing it “on its own authority.” All dubia on liturgical matters are, as a matter of course, referred to the appropriate dicastery.

On matters of liturgy, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship has the power to issue clarifications of the law and rubrical notes that have the force of law.

This has nothing to do with John Paul being ill, congregations running amok, or anything other than episcopal disobedience and prevarication.

 

[netmilsmom]

*Thanks for your comments.

God Bless you in your decision. If I remember the teaching of Jesus correctly, he did not affirm law or rubrics as the primary religious value.
While I believe that we should be faithful to the rubrics, at the same time I know that Jesus often offended those who made the law and rubrics too important…in fact he sometime when out of his way to break the rubrics about the Sabbath (one of the Ten Commandments) and ritual washing and other
religious rubrics that had the force of law among the religious people of his day.

Sometimes simple people know the values of the gospel better than those who know the rubrics. I think that is pretty clear in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Maybe the people who pay more attention to the spiritual impact of the Eucharist and worry less about rubrics know the mind and heart of Jesus better, even though you say that they do not know up from down about the Mass. Maybe that is why Jesus preferred to call sinners rather than the law abiding “self-righteous.” In the end it is not about being nit-picky.
It is about having the mind and heart of Christ in giving priority to the values of various aspects of the gospel. The gospel is always the rule of life for the Church and rubrics, while important, must not be given more importance than Jesus would give them.

I hope that you find the mind and heart of Christ, not just the
rubrics, wherever you worship.

Thanks for sharing your concerns. I do appreciate you brining this to my attention.
I don’t know how to take this. How can you not pay attention to the Rubrics of the Mass. I don’t know if I should be insulted or very insulted, or nothing.

Help me out**

Did you think of suggesting that Father move on to a nice Bible based church up the street?
(I’m kidding)

 

[netmilsmom]

Actually, writing these letters seldom achieves the desired effect, but it does satisfy our obligation to do something about the irregularities that we notice.

No but someone here got really far into solving the abuse problem with a simple video. A copy to the Bishop might be in order.

or there’s YouTube.

(I’m kidding on the YouTube as well)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The deacon is quite incorrect here.

Popes delegate various tasks to curial congregations.

A pope can’t possibly respond to every imaginable curial question personally.

When the Congregation in charge of the particular question at hand issues a ruling, IT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.

Not quite true. The pope can respond in "forma typica’ or “forma specifica.” One carries the authority of the pope the other does not. Several canon lawyers have stated the same thing here on other threads. Unfortunately, with the system crash, those topics have been lost.

I’m sure Deacon Lansing, a canon lawyer, will be happy to jump in here if you ask.

You are incorrect in asserting that I am wrong in this particular case. I’ve researched this for others and this is what my own research, and that of canon lawyers, has produced. RS does not have authority to override particular law.

We begin:

Can. 34 §1 Instructions, namely, which set out the provisions of a law and develop the manner in which it is to be put into effect, are given for the benefit of those whose duty it is to execute the law, and they bind them in executing the law. Those who have executive power may, within the limits of their competence, lawfully publish such instructions.
§2 The regulations of an instruction do not derogate from the law, and if there are any which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of the law they have no force.
§3 Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation by the competent authority who published them or by that authority’s superior, but also by the cessation of the law which they were designed to set out and execute.

Note paragraph 2 – regulations in an instruction do not derogate from the law. Thus, the instruction itself does not have the authority to change the local (particular) law.

If the pope had signed this differently then it would have carried his authority and there would be no question. As it is, he simply granted permission for it to be published and, as such, it carries only the weight of the CDW, not papal authority.

This means that anyplace there is a conflict between particular law and the instruction – particular law is to be observed. Any other place, the instruction is to be observed. And, as I said, particular law is approved by the pope. We can’t have a congregation decide to override a law approved by the pope – only the pope himself can do that and, in this case, he didn’t and that’s the reason for the dubium.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

One small correction to my last post. I said “Deacon Lansing” and the name is actually “Deacon Cameron” – he is from Lansing, MI. I apologize for the error.

Deacon Ed

 

[AlexV]

First off, the bishops and archbishops in question were (for years) violating the 1975 Missale Romanum GIRM, and going beyond the American adaptations to that GIRM, sometimes claiming that they needed to wait for the 2002 GIRM.

Well, they did wait. And it was published. And the American adaptations to it do not yet exist because they have yet to produce a vernacular version of the 2002 Missal.

But we have the GIRM of 2002, and RS.

The CDW doesn’t issue its “own opinions.” It is the dicastery specifically charged with liturgical matters.

Another point. Canon Law has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. Canon Law does not concern itself with liturgical law as a matter of regular course.

Amazing that the American bishops issued a dubium to the very Congregation some of them were trying to argue had no authority in the matter. Reminds us of that disgraced archbishop who was ticked off when the CDW told him he couldn’t maul his cathedral.

John Paul didn’t specifically authorize the particular indults in question. They were granted through the CDW. The CDW also signed off on the decrees approving the new liturgical books in Latin over the last few years (if you read the prefaces, they’re all signed and detailed not by John Paul but by CDW officials.)

That’s because the CDW rules in matters of liturgy, in the name of the Holy Father. He doesn’t have to sign every article and letter for it to have the force of law.

In any case, the so-called particular law in question here wasn’t ever signed by a pope.

On a final note, I’d be very careful about denigrating the writings of the CDW as its mere personal opinion, without the force to override other laws. Almost every Novus Ordo decree from the mid-60s through the mid-70s was issued by the CDW, without papal signature.

 

[anamchara]

Until such a response is forthcoming, the existing particular law remains in force. That law permits the use of flaggons and pouring the Precious Blood into multiple chalices.

Ok Deacon Ed, I’m going to admit total ignorance here What is a flaggon? Our priest does pour the Precious Blood into two other Chalices and this might change?

 

[AlexV]

Flagons are large-ish glass decanters. They aren’t sacred vessels, and they are mentioned in ZERO liturgical books of the Roman Rite.

They started to become all the rage probably in the mid-80s in many locales.

They didn’t suddenly become “particular law” just because they were being used widely (in violation of the norms of the existing GIRM of 1975). They remain all the rage in a few places, mercifully fewer than in c. 1987.

Some bishops/archbishops with nothing better to do have recently made statements that flagons are somehow protected vessels in their territories (like spotted owls). But they aren’t sacred vessels, they never were sacred vessels, and abuses don’t become laws just because ordinaries ignore them.

 

[anamchara]

Flagons are large-ish glass decanters. They aren’t sacred vessels, and they are mentioned in ZERO liturgical books of the Roman Rite.

Thanks Alex We have crystal decanters or at least I believe it is crystal. I will ask our Priest this question on Sunday. I would like to think we are using what we are suppose to be most of our decanters and such things laying around have been at this parish since before VACII so one would think.

Can you answer the other question I had about pouring the Precious Blood into other Chalices? This is allowed or no? I am confused…doesn’t take much

 

[Walking_Home]

vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

Secretariate of State
CongregationsTribunals
etc.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/index.htm

Congregations
------Doctrine of the Faith
------Oriental Churches
------Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments
etc.

 

[AlexV]

This is really a very simple case. Some prelates tolerated what was never allowed to begin with, and, after decades of the abuse, decided to call it “particular law” (with no Vatican recognitio, and no Vatican approval). The Vatican has, finally, explicitly condemned these abuses (flagons, pouring the Precious Blood and risking spillage). It’s over. However, some prelates now are playing the game they tried (successfully) with Communion in the hand and altar girls…claiming that the abuse has been going on so long it’s “custom” or “particular law”.

These prelates need an education in liturgy, and quickly.

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed,

Your argument might have some merit if the custom in question had, in fact, received a Papal recognito.

But it has not.

Rather, some bishops are relying on this custom having attained the “force of Particular Law”, which differs from actual Particular Law in that it never received Vatican approval.

So the CDWDS is not attempting to change a Papal approved Law, but rather the decisions of strictly local Ordinaries.

And the bishops should be aware of this, otherwise, the should be able to produce the recognito document to prove this custom has Papal approval.

I would’nt hold me breath waiting for it though.