The Bishop's Authority: What Can He Change in the Liturgy?

[malphono]

ProVobis;6770536:

Could you clarify this point, Father? I’m having a problem. Is it the Sunday obligation that’s divine law or keeping holy the Lord’s Day?

Both: because they are one and the same. The way that we “keep holy the Lord’s day” is by attending Mass. Yes, there’s more to it than that, such as we should not do unnecessary work on Sunday, etc. but attending Mass is the most important part of keeping the Lord’s day.

I only brought that part into the conversation as a way of explaining that not every
instance of the bishop’s authority to dispense will be found in canons 85 and following, so that readers understand that there are times when the bishop can dispense from other-than disciplinary laws. In other words, I didn’t want people to think that particular section of the canons gives a complete description–there’s much more to it than that.

Agreed that the “obligation” derives from the Biblical prescription, but my interpretation is that they are not quite the same. The “obligation” itself in the Roman Church is purely disciplinary, and I fully agree that it can, therefore, be dispensed as you say.

In Eastern & Oriental thought, however, the concept of an “obligation” to assist at Mass is totally alien. Yes, Rome has imposed the “obligation” law on the East and Orient, but that doesn’t mean it’s a seamless fit. Fulfilling the Biblical prescription in the East and Orient is really a matter of volition rather than one of legislation (and remains so among the EO & OO).

 

[roadsend]

HAHAHA!!! Fine! Be that way (respectfully Father)

What do other people think of the dispensation that Cardinal Mahony has given? Permissible in light of Canon Law?

The impression I am getting from this thread is that a bishop can do anything he wants. If he wants to dispense from bread and wine in favor of pretzels and beer out of paper cups, that is just fine.
Actually pretzels and beer are more in keeping with our Northern European heritage anyway.

 

[malphono]

HAHAHA!!! Fine! Be that way (respectfully Father)

What do other people think of the dispensation that Cardinal Mahony has given? Permissible in light of Canon Law?

FrDavid69 is right in invoking the 5th on that question in detail. So do I.

In general, though, I will comment that liturgical law is not exactly the same as disciplinary law. Without going into specifics (the 5th again), the precepts of liturgical law should be quite clear from MR (even the OF variety) and the IGMR.

 

[FrDavid96]

The impression I am getting from this thread is that a bishop can do anything he wants. If he wants to dispense from bread and wine in favor of pretzels and beer out of paper cups, that is just fine.
Actually pretzels and beer are more in keeping with our Northern European heritage anyway.

No. Please don’t think I’m saying that. The canons say that he can dispense from disciplinary laws. There is plenty from which he cannot dispense.

In your example, he cannot dispense from bread and wine in favor of beer and pretzels because Divine Law requires bread and wine. That’s not a matter of Church discipline.

 

[roadsend]

Sorry Padre, I got a bit carried away with the beer example but I have seen some pretty iffy altar bread from time to time over the years.
But realistically, I have seen glass and ceramic chalices and would not be surprised at some time to hear about paper cup chalices at the “parish picnic Mass”.
Do I understand correctly that it is within a bishop’s authority to dispense with the metal chalice requirements?

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry Padre, I got a bit carried away with the beer example but I have seen some pretty iffy altar bread from time to time over the years.
But realistically, I have seen glass and ceramic chalices and would not be surprised at some time to hear about paper cup chalices at the “parish picnic Mass”.
Do I understand correctly that it is within a bishop’s authority to dispense with the metal chalice requirements?

The beer & pretzels isn’t quite as funny as you might think. There are indeed some who propose changing the bread & wine to something more “modern.” I have heard that in the 60s all sorts of experiments with different elements were done, especially on college campuses. Even though you meant it to be an amusing exaggeration, there are some who seriously propose doing at least something similar.

Redemptionis Sacramentum in #173 says that what goes against #117 (illicit sacred vessels) is objectively grave matter. I cannot see any possibility for a bishop issuing a dispensation to allow an abuse that the Holy See calls objectively grave matter. So, my answer to your question here would be: no, I don’t see it as being within the authority of a bishop to dispense from “anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.”. The bishop can dispense from a matter of discipline, but grave matter goes beyond merely discipline. That’s my opinion, but at the same time I think I’ve given a fair explanation of why I came to that conclusion.

I can see a thing like glassware in place of chalices being used in a genuine emergency situation, like a prison camp or even something like a hurricane Katrina, but in a case like that it would be a situation of “impossible” to do anything else. If there’s a proper chalice available, it has to be used (and no, a parish can’t just dispose of chalices or neglect to obtain them and then claim “impossible.”)

 

[benedictgal]

The beer & pretzels isn’t quite as funny as you might think. There are indeed some who propose changing the bread & wine to something more “modern.” I have heard that in the 60s all sorts of experiments with different elements were done, especially on college campuses. Even though you meant it to be an amusing exaggeration, there are some who seriously propose doing at least something similar.

Redemptionis Sacramentum in #173 says that what goes against #117 (illicit sacred vessels) is objectively grave matter. I cannot see any possibility for a bishop issuing a dispensation to allow an abuse that the Holy See calls objectively grave matter. So, my answer to your question here would be: no, I don’t see it as being within the authority of a bishop to dispense from “anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.”. The bishop can dispense from a matter of discipline, but grave matter goes beyond merely discipline. That’s my opinion, but at the same time I think I’ve given a fair explanation of why I came to that conclusion.

I can see a thing like glassware in place of chalices being used in a genuine emergency situation, like a prison camp or even something like a hurricane Katrina, but in a case like that it would be a situation of “impossible” to do anything else. If there’s a proper chalice available, it has to be used (and no, a parish can’t just dispose of chalices or neglect to obtain them and then claim “impossible.”)

During the waves of persecution aganist Mexican Catholics at the time of that country’s revolutions, priests like Blessed Miguel Pro sometimes had to resort to glass chalices when they were celebrating Mass clandestinely. Once Mass was completed, the glassware was shattered and then reverently disposed. This was clearly an emergency situation. I believe that Pope Pius XI made many allowances for Mexican Catholics because of the bloodshed and the severe persecution.

 

[choy]

a little OT here…

to what extent is allowed during emergency situations?

for example, a town was struck with a strong earthquake and cut off from the rest of the world. given the calamity, there is a strong desire by the survivors to celebrate Mass to pray for the dead and ask for God’s help. the parish was completely destroyed but they were able to salvage paper cups, some regular wine and regular bread from a nearby convenience store. can they celebrate with these? i know these are not valid matter to begin with, but earlier concentration camps were mentioned and i wonder how valid matter is able to be brought into the camps (but that not my question).

 

[MarkThompson]

a little OT here…

to what extent is allowed during emergency situations?

for example, a town was struck with a strong earthquake and cut off from the rest of the world. given the calamity, there is a strong desire by the survivors to celebrate Mass to pray for the dead and ask for God’s help. the parish was completely destroyed but they were able to salvage paper cups, some regular wine and regular bread from a nearby convenience store. can they celebrate with these? i know these are not valid matter to begin with, but earlier concentration camps were mentioned and i wonder how valid matter is able to be brought into the camps (but that not my question).

Barring weirdness, regular wine and bread off the shelf are perfectly valid matter (though illicit, except in case of emergency). See here, e.g.

 

[FrDavid96]

a little OT here…

to what extent is allowed during emergency situations?

for example, a town was struck with a strong earthquake and cut off from the rest of the world. given the calamity, there is a strong desire by the survivors to celebrate Mass to pray for the dead and ask for God’s help. the parish was completely destroyed but they were able to salvage paper cups, some regular wine and regular bread from a nearby convenience store. can they celebrate with these? i know these are not valid matter to begin with, but earlier concentration camps were mentioned and i wonder how valid matter is able to be brought into the camps (but that not my question).

No matter what else, it must be valid matter. The priest must use true, pure grape wine and bread made from only wheat flour and water (leavened bread is also valid but illicit, yet in an emergency, it’s permitted). I don’t know exactly how it was done in the camps, but I suppose they either found a way to bake some bread (smuggle a handful of flour out of the kitchen perhaps), or used leavened bread. As for the wine, they probably had it smuggled in somehow. Remember it was the 1930s and 40s in Europe, and it would not have been all that unusual for a guard to bring a bottle or flask of wine for lunch, so it was probably possible to bribe a guard to get some, or otherwise obtain it. Back then also, they didn’t use all the preservatives and additives that we use today, so bread was probably just wheat, water, and yeast to begin with (especially since they wouldn’t have had any kind of fancy breads in the camp). As I read this paragraph, it almost sounds like I’m saying that they had it easy–far from it. I’m just being brief because of limited space here. The priests who said Mass in the camps were truly heroes, and most of them martyred for the faith.

In the earthquake scenario: they would not be able to use bread from a store because most of the bread we have today has too many additives and other ingredients to be valid matter. If one happens to find some kind of bread made from only wheat and water (and yeast) it could be used, but that’s very unlikely. As for the cup for the Precious Blood, I suppose something could be found, but your question asked “what if it can’t?” Yes, a paper cup could be used in that kind of emergency. Personally, I would burn the cup after the Mass. It’s not very likely that this would happen, so I’m only responding because you did ask.

Most “regular wine” is actually valid matter. All that’s required is that it be pure grape wine without any other ingredients added. Typical added ingredients are grape juice, sugars, spices and other fruit juices. Once we eliminate all the obvious ones (like cherry wine, or sangria, or other wines that are clearly not “just grape”), most of the wines we’re left with already don’t have these. I’ll caution readers though that the label might not necessarily indicate this one way or the other. Just because “most” wine is valid matter, does not mean that one could just pick a bottle off the shelf and use it at Mass. A “premium” wine would most likely be valid matter–but again not with any certainty. Even a convenience store would probably have some wine that would be valid.

Also, please note that there’s a difference between the fact that the bread & wine have to be valid matter for Mass, and the requirement that a proper chalice be used. Lack of a chalice would not make the Mass invalid, only illicit. In a true emergency, it would not even be illicit because the law doesn’t bind in an impossible situation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Barring weirdness, regular wine and bread off the shelf are perfectly valid matter (though illicit, except in case of emergency). See here, e.g.

That depends a lot upon just what kind of bread we’re talking about. It has to be wheat bread, so pumpernickle, corn, rye, oat, etc. would not be valid, even in an emergency. I’m also concerned that in our modern manufacturing of bread, there is so much “extra” added to the mix, that I’m not sure it would be valid. If one found a bakery, or a large grocery store with a good selection of fresh-baked bread, he might be able to find valid bread in there somewhere, but I’m not certain. Even the “premium” bakeries in those large grocery stores still add a lot of extra ingredients–too much for my own comfort zone.

The canons permit the use of leavened bread in the Latin Church (in an emergency at least) but the requirement of valid matter still has to be met, no matter how extreme the circumstances. That’s why I would not say that just any wine and any bread could be used. It would be much easier to find the wine than it would the bread (see my post above this one).

 

[FrDavid96]

Just for the fun of it, I did a search for the ingredients in a loaf of W–derbread (I don’t want to type the actual brand name out of respect for the company’s trademark, but everyone knows what it is)

Here are the ingredients

Made with Enriched Wheat Flour (Flour, Flour, Barley Malt, Ferrous Sulfate (Iron)B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine, Mononitrate (B1)Riboflavin (B2)Folic Acid)Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Potato Flour, Yeast, Buttermilk. contains 2% or less of: Wheat Gluten, Dough Conditioners (Potassium Bromate, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Alpha Amylase)Soy Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Monoglycerides, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Propionate (to retain freshness)
source: zeer.com/Food-Products/Wonder-Enriched-Bread/000043589

I would not attempt to consecrate that at Mass, no matter what the circumstances; not even given the fact that the other ingredients are “less than 2%.” And just how much high fructose corn syrup? I don’t know.

I just picked that brand because it’s so well-known, and because the ingredients in any other typical national brand for “regular sandwich bread” would be close enough for conversation’s sake.

Also note that the information did not come from the company’s own site (they didn’t have the ingredients listed).

 

[MarkThompson]

Just for the fun of it, I did a search for the ingredients in a loaf of W–derbread (I don’t want to type the actual brand name out of respect for the company’s trademark, but everyone knows what it is)

Here are the ingredients

Made with Enriched Wheat Flour (Flour, Flour, Barley Malt, Ferrous Sulfate (Iron)B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine, Mononitrate (B1)Riboflavin (B2)Folic Acid)Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Potato Flour, Yeast, Buttermilk. contains 2% or less of: Wheat Gluten, Dough Conditioners (Potassium Bromate, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Alpha Amylase)Soy Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Monoglycerides, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Propionate (to retain freshness)
source: zeer.com/Food-Products/Wonder-Enriched-Bread/000043589

I would not attempt to consecrate that at Mass, no matter what the circumstances; not even given the fact that the other ingredients are “less than 2%.” And just how much high fructose corn syrup? I don’t know.

I just picked that brand because it’s so well-known, and because the ingredients in any other typical national brand for “regular sandwich bread” would be close enough for conversation’s sake.

Also note that the information did not come from the company’s own site (they didn’t have the ingredients listed).

I had neglected to link to it, but I was thinking of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which explains:
The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.
I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise than that, in a pinch, your standard, ordinary (non-rye, non-cornbread) bread is fine as far as validity goes. Heck, even with fruit or nuts, RS indicates that it would still be valid matter.

 

[choy]

great read

thanks for the info. i just pray that none of us have to face the situation where we would need to make such decisions

 

[FrDavid96]

I had neglected to link to it, but I was thinking of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which explains:
The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.
I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise than that, in a pinch, your standard, ordinary (non-rye, non-cornbread) bread is fine as far as validity goes. Heck, even with fruit or nuts, RS indicates that it would still be valid matter.

I see what you’re getting at, but I wouldn’t quite say that, because I think that’s reading too much into the document.

If I were to say “never drive a car if it has 4 flat tires” that doesn’t mean that I am saying it is okay to drive a car with 2 flat tires, or even 1.

R.S. still says “purely of wheat” so how can we say that RS permits the commercial bread? RS was addressing the practice of intentionally using other forms of bread, or intentionally adding other substances (like sugar or honey), or even the extreme of using something that would not be commonly considered bread (like a pretzel or cheese danish). RS simply wasn’t addressing the issue of what might or might not be used in an extreme emergency, so we can’t read into the document any statements about what would be valid.

It could very well be that the Church has addressed this issue elsewhere, and quite possibly provides some guidance on what would be acceptable in an emergency. I’m completely open to that possibility, however at the same time I’m unaware of any such instruction or interpretation. It might be out there, but RS would not be the source because that letter only says what “may not” be used, it says nothing about what “may” be used in an emergency.