Posted on 08/15/2004 11:42:32 AM PDT by ninenot
he Eucharist belongs to the entire church, universal as well as local. The dynamics of its structure are deeply rooted in the theology of God's grace and in the reality of human religious experience. The Eucharist, rooted in Scripture and Jewish prayer, has been shaped by centuries of tradition, and then reshaped as it was handed over from one culture to another.
As if to signal that its elements were not subject to the whim of individual congregations or presiders, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated changes could only be made by those authorized to do so (§ 22). Thus, the liturgy, belonging to the whole church, should not be arbitrarily changed. Preserving its integrity is the duty of the individual presider.
At the same time, the Council decreed the guiding goal of full, conscious and active participation for all the baptized faithful (§14), each in his/her respective role. That means every effort should be made to tailor the celebration to the mentality, culture and needs of any given community. One sign of that obligation is the explicit exhortation regularly found in the rituals themselves that presiders say something "in these or similar words." Thus, in another sense, the church's liturgy belongs in a unique manner to the local gathering of faithful and must be adapted accordingly. This is also the duty of the individual presider.
Historically the official missals and rituals of the church have been published with directions on how the sacraments should be celebrated in small red print, called "rubrics" (from the Latin word, ruber meaning "red"), and the actual words to be said by presider or congregation printed in larger black type. Thus, the word "rubrics" has come to signal attentiveness to the directions in fine print which should be followed in any sacramental celebration.
Rubrics, as I indicated above, are important because they give direction, structure and purpose to the flow of the liturgical celebration. They help prevent serious lapses or deficiencies in the sacramental sign itself. The rubrics can protect the sanctity of the ritual. They serve to keep the individual celebration of each parish's liturgy in communion with the larger church, diocesan and universal.
When I use the word "rubricism," however, I mean such an obsessive and driven preoccupation with the directives in red print as to risk losing sight of the Eucharist's main purpose. The primary goal of sacraments, especially the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the church's life (§ 10), is sharing in the death and resurrection of the Lord and in Christ's praise of the Father which accomplished the new creation of God's people by divine grace and mercy.
While rubrics are important, they can also become obstacles to God's grace if taken out of context or given exclusive attention. For that reason the Council also included a solemn warning: "Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively and fruitfully" (§ 11).
Now to the other part of my title for this column. Heresy is the deliberate and knowing denial of a divinely revealed truth. Like serious sin, formal heresy required full knowledge and a deliberate act of the human will.
There is also the type of heresy called "material," namely a de facto denial of God's truth which is not fully understood nor freely made. Such an act can be a denial of God's truth without the individual realizing it. Good and holy people can have seriously erroneous (namely, heretical) opinions. This latter sense is the notion I'm addressing, and that’s the reason for the title's use of the word in quotation marks.
There are two reasons for suggesting that total and narrowly exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics of the Eucharist might be heretical, that is, embodying a serious denial of a fundamental truth of our Catholic faith.
First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the directives governing the human actions of our Eucharistic worship could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God's grace and mercy. The error of acting as if we can achieve our own salvation by our works, howsoever holy and attentive, is a serious one, called "Pelagianism" after its fourth century proponent.
Secondly, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics might be heretical because it totters on the brink of indulging in magic. Whenever anyone thinks the blind recitation of certain words or the performance of physical actions themselves causes the effect, that is magic; hardly consistent with our faith or with our Christian recognition of God's sovereign power.
In Catholic tradition there is an historical recognition that an action can have its own immediate effect " ex opere operato " but that is by the promise of God, not the action of any human being as such.
These are things I as a bishop worry about, given today's increasing focus on correct rubrics as if they were the means to salvation, rather than an occasion for God's loving mercy. Keep an eye on the mystery, not merely the pathway to it.
That we are both have a Polish linage could be said to be the reason.
As I intimated in posts above, the concern has to do with a 'pattern of practice.' That is, a priest will use whatever he feels like as the text of the Mass repeatedly; or "forget" the Creed repeatedly, or ignore some genuflection, repeatedly--usually the one following the Consecration.
I'm more aware of liturgical regs than most people, and in Milwaukee the problems are widespread and more than casual 'forgetting.' It's downright rebellion, and everybody knows it. I don't have a problem with 'forgetfulness,' or even the occasional screwup--I did it as an altar boy, did it as a choirmaster--stuff happens.
But when it happens ALL the time, it's not a screwup and it's not forgetting. It is sinful behavior and it needs to be stopped.
Drobot's a sedevacantist.
My Church in Milwaukee continues to use a glass chalice for the consecration of the wine. My question, and one I struggle with, is this, does the consecration of wine to blood actually occur? The Rubric requires something precious, which this oversized wine glass is not. On the other hand, hypothetically, if a precious cup were not available (as in a Military field environment) would that preclude the consecration from occuring, despite the circumstances. That being said, it annoys me that this parish won't use a acceptable chalice when they have half a dozen in the sacristy. My priest is also one of the uber libs aforementioned on this post.
Yes. The composition of the chalice does not affect the validity of the consecration in any way.
ohhhhhh. I thought I detected a bit more militancy than is found in the typical person who is merely an SSPXer.
"My question, and one I struggle with, is this, does the consecration of wine to blood actually occur?"
Providing that the form, the matter and the intent are all valid, then the consecration truly occurs - no matter what the material of the chalice consists of - although the vessel could be illicit.
However, where a violation of the rubrics is consistent, intentional and pre-mediated (rather than being a genuine cock-up as ninenot intimated above), then the priest may be in such a state of rebellion against authority that his intent is no longer to do what the Church does.
Ideally one should be able to talk to one's priest to determine their true intent, although if they are on the liberal end of things, this may be difficult.
I suggest a "playing it dumb" approach might be helpful:
"Father, someone from CCC was telling me the other day that Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation any more but we believe in consubstantiation now. Is that right? What exactly is consubstantiation?"
Why do these people even go to the trouble of being ordained? Years of school and all of that, in order to dedicate your life to serve something you disagree with. Do they think they can change the Church, once they marry her? Their mothers should have been able to tell them a thing or to about THAT idea.
Tantum,
I don't think I can play dumb anymore, because I have gripped to him before about it a couple of years ago. I have to deal with some of this same stuff at the University Center in Chicago. I am too darn outspoken, which means I can never plan dumb, as useful as it might be at times. At my UC, I know the Pastoral Associate holds Rahner in high regards, which brings up "transmystification," whatever the heck that means, all I know, is it is somewhat iffy.
"That should be: Say what's in black, and do what's in red."
Funny thing is that I knew exactly what you meant the first time round and didn't realise you had it the wrong way round until you corrected yourself!
;)
"At my UC, I know the Pastoral Associate holds Rahner in high regards, which brings up "transmystification," whatever the heck that means, all I know, is it is somewhat iffy."
Rahner is not my favourite theologian and "transmystification" is simply manure which is used to mystify people about what he really believed and disguise the fact that he was really a heretic.
In my book, anyone who wastes time trying to come up with alternatives for "transubstantiation" has probably lost their faith already.
Sounds like you might be better off looking for a Mass elsewhere and encouraging your fellow students to do the same!
I generally stick around only because someone has to scream loudly for Orthodoxy, and if necessary prevent it. Furthermore, someone has to teach CCD that actually believes the Catholic faith (my coteacher and I really want to assure that). If I had my way, I would go to St. John Cantius and its Tridetine Mass, but I want to teach Sunday School so that precludes that option. Next year, I might cut loose so to speak, and go to the Orthodox Parish near my apartment.
"Furthermore, someone has to teach CCD that actually believes the Catholic faith (my coteacher and I really want to assure that)."
Good for you! These are difficult choices that have to be made - and its not always the simplest or right answer to head straight for the nearest Old Mass - more's the pity!
given that your heretical bishops (how *do* you pronounce that guy's name?) are like our heretical bishops, everytime they use the word heresy, hit back with a half dozen or so examples of the heretical nature of their actions when compared to Holy Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, and so on. It takes a while but when you start pointing out all of the previously unanswered heresies on their part (as they try to ignor them) eventually they'll stop using the word for fear of having to actually defend themselves.
transmystfiwho?
This is absurd. He completely misses the point of attention to the rubrics: i.e., that failure to follow the rubrics often allows, or even encourages, heretical ideas to flourish.
This is transparent, "I know better than you traditionalist schmucks, so I can do the rubrics however I like" apologism for fast-and-loose liturgical modernist adaptation.
At least that's how I read it.
Ask any actual orthodox or traditional Catholic their reason for paying close attention to the rubrics. Almost all will answer that they are trying to prevent heretical ideas like denial of the Real Presence, which are encouraged by liturgical experimentation.
Sorry...he doesn't get to make up the rules as he goes.
Bet he's missing Apb. Weakland.
I'm generally not apt to going overboard on criticism of bishops, but this is a positively infantile column.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.