The Importance of Fidelity to the Rubrics

[JimR-OCDS]

The USCCB may submit a change, but the change must then be confirmed by the Holy See before it can be implemented.

and the point is that if you see a change in a word, from the Rubric, it may in fact have been approved. However, fundamentalist would still have a melt-down over it.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

This I must admit I do not know one way or the other. Seems to me the Bishop should have this kind of authority, or he is just a Monseigneur with a big hat. But given the trend to centralizing absolutely everything this would not surprise me.

Actually, quite the opposite. For a bishop to truely be a bishop, he must follow the dictates of the Church as a whole, and of his sui jusris Church. Each diocese is not it’s own seperate sui juris Church, but rather part of a larger community that expresses the same beliefes.

One of the chief ways that common belifes are expresses is in a common liturgy. And for a liturgy to be common, independant chances without approval of the body as a whole, are not permitted.

 

[TMC]

A Bishop must be in communion with the Pope on such matters. He should not have this kind of authority. Bishops are ordained to teach, govern, and sanctify within the bounds of authority granted to them. If a Bishop could just choose to do whatever he wanted regarding the liturgy, then we would be Protestants. I used to be Lutheran and that’s exactly what happens…each pastor or bishop decides what to do.

Any official change to the text of the liturgy must have the recognitio of Rome, otherwise it is gravely illicit and quite possibly an act of schism.

To be honest TMC, most of what you describe really is protestant principles of individual interpretation of texts and decision making.

Actually, quite the opposite. For a bishop to truely be a bishop, he must follow the dictates of the Church as a whole, and of his sui jusris Church. Each diocese is not it’s own seperate sui juris Church, but rather part of a larger community that expresses the same beliefes.

One of the chief ways that common belifes are expresses is in a common liturgy. And for a liturgy to be common, independant chances without approval of the body as a whole, are not permitted.

OK, to answer both of these I said that the Bishop should have this authority. If he did, then how would exercising that authority be failing to follow the dictates of the Church?

Obviously portions of the Mass should be mandated, but changes to other parts need not be. And I would think that wherever the rules say “or words to that effect” it would be within a Bishop’s authority to say that in his diocese certain other words would be used. This is fully in accord with the Church’s teachings on the liturgy which is not that it must be perfectly uniform, but that “The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples.” CC 1204.

How is any of this Protestant? Some Protestants elevate the form of words above the teachings behind the words. Catholics don’t do that. I am not suggesting that Bishops can change the faith, but they should be able to adapt rubrics to their churches and their diocese.

There seems to be an opinon here that the rubrics **are **the faith. That, for example, where and how the priest stands has a material effect on whether I or any other parishoner really believes in the Church, or Christ, or whether the Sacraments are real or at least valid. The rubrics are not the faith. The rubrics do not effect my faith. Getting them wrong, except in extremis, does not invalidate the Sacraments.

 

[dbacks5439]

OK, to answer both of these I said that the Bishop should have this authority. If he did, then how would exercising that authority be failing to follow the dictates of the Church?

Obviously portions of the Mass should be mandated, but changes to other parts need not be. And I would think that wherever the rules say “or words to that effect” it would be within a Bishop’s authority to say that in his diocese certain other words would be used. This is fully in accord with the Church’s teachings on the liturgy which is not that it must be perfectly uniform, but that “The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples.” CC 1204.

How is any of this Protestant? Some Protestants elevate the form of words above the teachings behind the words. Catholics don’t do that. I am not suggesting that Bishops can change the faith, but they should be able to adapt rubrics to their churches and their diocese.

There seems to be an opinon here that the rubrics **are **the faith. That, for example, where and how the priest stands has a material effect on whether I or any other parishoner really believes in the Church, or Christ, or whether the Sacraments are real or at least valid. The rubrics are not the faith. The rubrics do not effect my faith. Getting them wrong, except in extremis, does not invalidate the Sacraments.

So why even have a Missal!? The Mass can simply take 5 minutes to do. Priest walks in wearing normal clothing, holds up the Eucharist saying, “This is my body, this is my blood” in an almost half-heartedly way, people come up and grab (real kicker here) the host and swigs the wine down and everybody leaves. Without rubrics, there would be chaos. Scripture says that every knee will bend at the name of the Lord. Just how much more should we do in His very presence?

 

[romanholiday]

OK, to answer both of these I said that the Bishop should have this authority. If he did, then how would exercising that authority be failing to follow the dictates of the Church?

Obviously portions of the Mass should be mandated, but changes to other parts need not be. And I would think that wherever the rules say “or words to that effect” it would be within a Bishop’s authority to say that in his diocese certain other words would be used. This is fully in accord with the Church’s teachings on the liturgy which is not that it must be perfectly uniform, but that “The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples.” CC 1204.

How is any of this Protestant? Some Protestants elevate the form of words above the teachings behind the words. Catholics don’t do that. I am not suggesting that Bishops can change the faith, but they should be able to adapt rubrics to their churches and their diocese.

There seems to be an opinon here that the rubrics **are **the faith. That, for example, where and how the priest stands has a material effect on whether I or any other parishoner really believes in the Church, or Christ, or whether the Sacraments are real or at least valid. The rubrics are not the faith. The rubrics do not effect my faith. Getting them wrong, except in extremis, does not invalidate the Sacraments.

It is protestant in principle because of the issue of faithful obedience. The Church has the authority given by Christ to govern and guide the faithful. It is not a matter of making the rubrics the faith, it is a matter of obedience to the rubrics showing obedience to the rightful authority of Rome. That is what protestants do, they uphold individual opinion of a person, whether a pastor, bishop, or lay person over the authority of the Church.

Can you explain which parts of the Mass you think need to be mandated and which parts you think should be able to change? Isn’t it for the Church to decide those things and not you or a local bishop?

 

[TMC]

So why even have a Missal!? The Mass can simply take 5 minutes to do. Priest walks in wearing normal clothing, holds up the Eucharist saying, “This is my body, this is my blood” in an almost half-heartedly way, people come up and grab (real kicker here) the host and swigs the wine down and everybody leaves. Without rubrics, there would be chaos. Scripture says that every knee will bend at the name of the Lord. Just how much more should we do in His very presence?

You seem to think that without extraordinarily strict rubrics, our priests and bishops will be suddenly transformed into irreverant heathens that will actively work to destroy the faith. I think that giving some more leeway in the rubrics will not cause such a catastrophic melt-down. Do our priest and bishops only love and revere the Lord because the missal tells them to??

 

[TMC]

It is protestant in principle because of the issue of faithful obedience. The Church has the authority given by Christ to govern and guide the faithful. It is not a matter of making the rubrics the faith, it is a matter of obedience to the rubrics showing obedience to the rightful authority of Rome. That is what protestants do, they uphold individual opinion of a person, whether a pastor, bishop, or lay person over the authority of the Church.

Can you explain which parts of the Mass you think need to be mandated and which parts you think should be able to change? Isn’t it for the Church to decide those things and not you or a local bishop?

Again, if the Bishops are given leeway with the rubrics by Rome, they would not be out of obedience with Rome.

I don’t have a firm idea on what parts of the Mass should be set, I have said all along I leave such things up to the clergy. If I had to give my opinion I would say the general order is important – an introductory rite that includes a penitential prayer, the Word, the Eucharist. I am sure there are certain things within the Eucharistic prayer that should always be there - the words of consecration for sure, but probably other things. the Creed has to be the Creed, of course. I don’t know what else, but I’m sure there is room for variation. I mean, we have like ten different liturgies in use right now. I’m not sure what all the differences are, but there must be some room for differences or there wouldn’t be so many.

 

[Brendan]

You seem to think that without extraordinarily strict rubrics, our priests and bishops will be suddenly transformed into irreverant heathens that will actively work to destroy the faith.

I don’t see what exactly is wrong with having leeway in certain parts, but strict requirements in others, like we have now.

If a bishop feels the need to have something changed, there is a procedure for that.

The fact is, an indiviual bishop may recieve bad advice, might have a mistaken take on an aspect of theology or decide to act without sufficent reflection, so it’s a good idea to have some oversight, both in the USCCB and the Holy See.

The Church has put in place certain standards for placement of staff and clergy after some bishops made some really bone headed decisions on parish assignments. So we know it most certainly IS possible for bishops to make some really dense decisions. so oversight is a good idea, both to protect the physical sanctity of the faithful as well as liturgical sanctitity.

 

[TMC]

I don’t see what exactly is wrong with having leeway in certain parts, but strict requirements in others, like we have now.

If a bishop feels the need to have something changed, there is a procedure for that.

The fact is, an indiviual bishop may recieve bad advice, might have a mistaken take on an aspect of theology or decide to act without sufficent reflection, so it’s a good idea to have some oversight, both in the USCCB and the Holy See.

The Church has put in place certain standards for placement of staff and clergy after some bishops made some really bone headed decisions on parish assignments. So we know it most certainly IS possible for bishops to make some really dense decisions. so oversight is a good idea, both to protect the physical sanctity of the faithful as well as liturgical sanctitity.

I think that no matter what level you place approval authority at, there is a chance that a bad decision will be made. I would think that Bishops could be trusted to know the faith, and in a better place to understand the reason for the request. But I don’t disagree that you have to put the approval authority somewhere.

But we are really drifting from what I thought the topic was. I think we all agree that the priests should conform to the rules. It seems to me that the real points of discussion are: 1) what does it mean if he does not, and 2) does it matter what the rubrics are? As to 1, we have discussed quite a bit. What we got into on the other thread was more into 2.

Why does it even matter what the rubrics are? I understand that certain prayers have theological significance, and that we cannot just change the meaning of the Creed or the Lord’s Prayer.

But I cannot for the life of me understand why some things make any difference - like the color of the vestments, the type of candles, placement of flowers, and so forth. Those to me are just appurtenances that may have some limited symbolic meaning but don’t really matter. If the Church sees fit to mandate these things, the priest should follow the rules, but beyond that they don’t mean anything.

Slightly more important, I suppose, are the more controversial topics like where the homily is given and what way the priest faces. To me these are mere preferences that have one meaning to one person, and another to another. I don’t see why they make any real difference. So if there are certain of these things that anyone thinks has real theological or sacramental impact, can you say what it is and why?

 

[zagjames]

No, I am not aware, nor is it true, that varying a single word of the Eucharist Prayer renders the Eucharist invalid. The words of consecration are to be spoken correctly, but even if they are not as long as they express “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” the consecration is valid.

My whole point is that I don’t second guess the priest on things like vestments, so I cannot be sure that he is “disobeying Rome.” If he thinks he is not, maybe he’s not. And even if he is, why do I have to flee? He can’t lead me away from Christ. Christ has a pretty firm hold on me.

Rome has the power to bind and loose, the Church says you cant change one letter or it is not valid. So if the Church says it it is so.

 

[benedictgal]

Rome has the power to bind and loose, the Church says you cant change one letter or it is not valid. So if the Church says it it is so.

Actually, the power to bind and loose belongs to Peter. But, who gave Peter this authority? “Tu es Petrus”! None other than Jesus, Himself! I realize that it’s grammatically incorrect to have a dangling phrase. However, we need to remember that we are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church.

Today, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran (and no, there’s no such St. John Lateran, as the Lateran name comes from the family who donated something to build the church). Because St. John Lateran is the mother church of the all of the churches of Rome and around the world, we celebrate this feast as a Church to show forth our unity with the Chair of Peter.

The rubrics we follow didn’t just fall out of the sky. These have been handed down to us by way of Tradition. For those who claim that the Mass had no real rubrics, all they have to do is look through the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers.

 

[zagjames]

Actually, the power to bind and loose belongs to Peter. But, who gave Peter this authority? “Tu es Petrus”! None other than Jesus, Himself! I realize that it’s grammatically incorrect to have a dangling phrase. However, we need to remember that we are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church.

Today, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran (and no, there’s no such St. John Lateran, as the Lateran name comes from the family who donated something to build the church). Because St. John Lateran is the mother church of the all of the churches of Rome and around the world, we celebrate this feast as a Church to show forth our unity with the Chair of Peter.

The rubrics we follow didn’t just fall out of the sky. These have been handed down to us by way of Tradition. For those who claim that the Mass had no real rubrics, all they have to do is look through the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers.

By Rome I of course mean the Cathedra of Peter. The Pope.

The missal was never codified into a book that dealt soley with the mass till 1570, but there were missals all along. It was exactly because local bishops had been changing the Rubrics in their area with out papal approval and because of organic changes that had occured without approval that Pius V decided to codify the Missal in 1570. The Modern Idea of the Missal which contains the Rubrics of the Mass was invented to stop such changes and also to stop Priests to just say a prayer to that effect. Pius V had such respect for the Mass he could not bear to see it weakened by changes so he wrote the 1570 missal to set out Rubrics for the Mass and restore the reverence due to the Most Holy Sacrafice of the Mass.

Rubrics are important and should be followed to the t.

 

[benedictgal]

By Rome I of course mean the Cathedra of Peter. The Pope.

The missal was never codified into a book that dealt soley with the mass till 1570, but there were missals all along. It was exactly because local bishops had been changing the Rubrics in their area with out papal approval and because of organic changes that had occured without approval that Pius V decided to codify the Missal in 1570. The Modern Idea of the Missal which contains the Rubrics of the Mass was invented to stop such changes and also to stop Priests to just say a prayer to that effect. Pius V had such respect for the Mass he could not bear to see it weakened by changes so he wrote the 1570 missal to set out Rubrics for the Mass and restore the reverence due to the Most Holy Sacrafice of the Mass.

Rubrics are important and should be followed to the t.

Thank you. And, forgive me for being facetious.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

The rubrics we follow didn’t just fall out of the sky. These have been handed down to us by way of Tradition. For those who claim that the Mass had no real rubrics, all they have to do is look through the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers.

If you’re trying to say that the rubrics never changed, this would not be true. The Mass we’ve had since Trent is different than the Mass of the 1st centuries of the Church. The Mass we have today would not be recognizable by the Apostles.

My point isn’t and never has been, that we should not be following the rubrics. My biggest argument is against taking the GIRM literally and applying it to ever little difference that people see a priest doing, in the Mass. The GIRM and the norms established by the USCCB, may have some slight variance and I leave that decision up to my Bishop.

I think you can lose the entire focus of the Mass, if you spend your time looking for every little infraction against the GIRM.

It almost looks psychotic to read some of the complaints being made at times in this forum.

Jim

 

[Micki]

My pastor has referred to the rubrics as “whims and fancies.” You can just imagine the liturgical abuses we have in our parish. He just likes to do what he wants. I once asked him if he thought he was improving the Mass by doing things his own way. He shrugged his shoulders and walked away.

It’s very frustrating.

Micki

 

[TMC]

Rome has the power to bind and loose, the Church says you cant change one letter or it is not valid. So if the Church says it it is so.

I really don’t think this is true. Is there something in the Canon or somewhere else you can’t point me to?

 

[sphilomena]

“Whims and fancies” - gosh, another priest who really needs prayer!

Why would Jim say that the GIRM is not to be taken literally? It seems that is exactly why there are instructions. Because they aren’t taken literally is why we have the problem of some priests adding and subtracting wherever they want!

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

If you’re trying to say that the rubrics never changed, this would not be true. The Mass we’ve had since Trent is different than the Mass of the 1st centuries of the Church. The Mass we have today would not be recognizable by the Apostles.

My point isn’t and never has been, that we should not be following the rubrics. My biggest argument is against taking the GIRM literally and applying it to ever little difference that people see a priest doing, in the Mass. The GIRM and the norms established by the USCCB, may have some slight variance and I leave that decision up to my Bishop.

I think you can lose the entire focus of the Mass, if you spend your time looking for every little infraction against the GIRM.

It almost looks psychotic to read some of the complaints being made at times in this forum.

Jim

Jim:

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. It is the right of every Catholic that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be celebrated in accordance with the norms and rubrics prescribed by the Church. The Mass is not a free for all.

When you leave it up to the whims of the priest or bishop, then you’ll have the kind of chaos that Pope St. Pius V had to correct during the council of Trent. Unfortunately, because of the “mass” experimentation following the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI has had to start pulling the reigns in order to repair this huge liturgical train wreck.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. It is the right of every Catholic that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be celebrated in accordance with the norms and rubrics prescribed by the Church. The Mass is not a free for all.

And who is advocating for the Mass to be a free for all?

When you leave it up to the whims of the priest or bishop, then you’ll have the kind of chaos that Pope St. Pius V had to correct during the council of Trent.

Back then, there was a lot more going on which prompted Pius V to act, than what is generally complained about in this forum. Back before Trent, people literally paid for front row seats at Mass. So, the wealthy sat up front and the poor sat out in the back. But thats really another topic.

Unfortunately, because of the “mass” experimentation following the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI has had to start pulling the reigns in order to repair this huge liturgical train wreck.

Mass of experimentation?

Also, so far, Pope Benedict XVI hasn’t pulled in any reigns. There has been clarification of various points, but I haven’t seen anything reverting the Mass to something other than what we’ve been celebrating for the past 40 years.

I think that the idea that the Pope is going to crack the whip, is a pipe dream of fundamentalist. It really isn’t going to happen as they would like to see it happen.

Jim

 

[TMC]

Jim:

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. It is the right of every Catholic that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be celebrated in accordance with the norms and rubrics prescribed by the Church. The Mass is not a free for all.

When you leave it up to the whims of the priest or bishop, then you’ll have the kind of chaos that Pope St. Pius V had to correct during the council of Trent. Unfortunately, because of the “mass” experimentation following the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI has had to start pulling the reigns in order to repair this huge liturgical train wreck.

Everyone asserts that there is so much more abuse today than in the past. Is that even true? An older priest posted on one thread that in the ‘good old days’ some of his brethern would whip through Mass in 15 minutes, mumble through the prayers, skip parts, etc. Is there an objective measure that things are worse, or is the new access to on-line and other resources just making people notice more?