Posted on 10/21/2004 1:28:05 PM PDT by nonsumdignus
The language seems sufficiently strong and clear. But not strong enough or clear enough, perhaps, for the diocese of Orange.
“This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II ... was approved by the same Pontiff ... and he ordered it to be published and to observed immediately by all concerned” [emphasis added].
The diocese of Orange, it seems, has a unique definition for “immediately” and “by all concerned.” A June 11 memo sent to “Pastors, Priests, and Deacons” by Lesa Truxaw, directress of the diocese’s office of worship, admitted that the instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship on March 25, “can offer us the opportunity to reaffirm the centrality of the Eucharist and the importance it has for our lives.” However, continued Truxaw, the instruction (which mandates correction of liturgical abuses) “needs to be viewed in the context of the recently issued General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, as well as the particular law of the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America.” Truxaw noted that it is “helpful to remember that Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws, do not make new laws, and are an act of executive power and therefore of less juridic weight than a legislative text such as the General Instruction or of particular law of an Episcopal Conference.”
In other words, a congregation of the Holy See is inferior to a national bishops conference, a Vatican instruction (even one promulgated by the pope himself) is of little weight, and the clergy of the Orange diocese can with impunity blow it off. In fact, they are ordered to, by none other than the bishop himself. Truxaw continues that Bishop Tod Brown “is waiting for the deliberation of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, the Bishops’ Conference, and subsequent consultation with the Diocesan Liturgical Commission to determine if any change is needed in the liturgical practices of our Diocese. Parishes are not to make any changes in their liturgical practices based on Redemptionis Sacramentum until this process is complete. If any changes are needed, the Office of Worship will assist you with details and appropriate catechesis for the faithful.” [Emphasis added.]
Michael Dunnigan, who works with the San Antonio, Texas-based St. Joseph Foundation, an organization dealing with canon law issues, told me he thought Truxaw’s memorandum “is not entirely clear.” To Dunnigan “it seems to imply that an instruction is in some sense optional and that a bishop may decide for himself whether or not to follow it.” Citing canon law, Dunnigan said that an instruction is “a norm that clarifies the meaning of a law and that specifies how the law is to be executed.” As such it “is binding on those whose duty it is to execute the law.
“Bishops have the responsibility to execute the liturgical law of the Church and, accordingly, the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is binding on them,” Dunnigan said.
As to an instruction’s juridic weight, Dunnigan admitted that “there is a certain sense in which an instruction is indeed ‘inferior’ to law (legislation). By its nature, an instruction is dependent on a law or on a number of laws. Thus, an instruction may not repeal a law and, if the provisions of an instruction cannot be reconciled with the law, then, according to canon law, those provisions are invalid. An instruction executes a law and, if the law in question is repealed, then the instruction too ceases to have force.
“But this fact,” said Dunnigan, “does not make Redemptionis Sacramentum any less binding.”
The problem with Truxaw’s memorandum, Dunnigan said, is that “it does not assert that the instruction contradicts the law or that there has been a repeal of any of the laws that this instruction executes. Therefore, the memorandum provides no legitimate reason for refusing to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum immediately.”
But if the instruction is binding on the bishop, can he for any reason order parishes to at least delay its implementation? “The bishop is obliged to execute the law as specified in the instruction,” Dunnigan said. “It is obvious from common sense that not everything will change in one day, but the claim that the bishop has the authority to delay implementation of the instruction is baseless.”
In fact, Dunnigan said, delaying the implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum “goes against the express wishes of the Holy Father. The instruction concludes by recalling that the Holy Father not only mandated the drafting of this instruction but that, in approving the completed document on 19 March 2004, ‘he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.’”
Truxaw’s reasons for delaying implementation of the instruction, Dunnigan said, “fall apart. She says that Redemptionis Sacramentum needs to be interpreted in the context of the pope’s 2003 encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and the U.S. norms on reception of communion under both kinds. These supposed obstacles are illusory. In Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the pope mandated the preparation of this very document and then, once it was complete, he approved it. As a result, there’s no reason to believe that a conflict between the two documents exists. By the same token, the General Instruction and the instruction both come under the purview of the same body, namely the Congregation for Divine Worship, so it seems strange to suggest that these documents need to be harmonized with each other in some way. After all, the same body drafted them within a reasonably short time, and Truxaw doesn’t assert any specific grounds of conflict between them.”
But if Truxaw and Orange diocese are not asserting specific grounds of conflict between the instruction and existing Church law, the archdiocese of Los Angeles may be. According to archdiocesan sources, thus far Cardinal Roger Mahony has not issued any instructions regarding Redemptionis Sacramentum. “They’re continuing on as if nothing ever happened,” said one priest, who requested anonymity.
But, according to an e-mail message sent to one Katherine Maliglig, the archdiocese seems to be contesting the instruction behind the scenes. Sandra Dooley, directress of the archdiocese’s office for worship, told Maliglig in a July 1 e-mail reply that Redemptionis Sacramentum “was written to address various ‘liturgical abuses’ — very few of which are present in our Archdiocese, to my knowledge. The validity of some of the changes in this document is being challenged, so, for now at least, I hope your parish will not make any changes based on that document. Cardinal Mahony does not wish to make a statement at this time, and procedures at the Cathedral have not changed.”
Indeed, they have not, one source told me. Celebrants at cathedral liturgies continue to consecrate wine in glass pitchers, a practice specifically forbidden by the instruction: “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.” Elsewhere, the instruction states: “never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.” And the instruction condemns another cathedral practice: “the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery.”
Another liturgical abuse (so-called, it seems, to Dooley), common to the archdiocese and which will not change is the use of lay “eucharistic ministers,” called by the instruction, “ministers of the Eucharist.” Though, already in 1998, the Holy See issued a document saying that the use of lay ministers should be merely and truly extraordinary, Cardinal Mahony, the same year, said the ruling did not apply to the archdiocese. “There are no parishes in our Archdiocese that would have the 30 to 80 ministers—and even more—needed for each Sunday,” Mahony said in a Religious Education Congress live e-mail chat session. “Yes, we will continue to use our terrific extraordinary ministers since we do not have, nor will we ever have, enough ordinary ministers. Recall that the Church calls us to offer both the Body and the Blood of Christ under the two forms, calling for a greater number of ministers. I am very proud of ours, and pleased with their special ministry.”
But Redemptionis Sacramentum has reiterated the Vatican’s 1998 ruling, saying the use of lay ministers of communion should not be routine: “indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.” Nor is the fact that communion is given under both species sufficient reason for the use of lay ministers of communion, for the instruction allows everywhere the practice of intinction — the dipping of the Body of Christ in the chalice.
Neither the diocese of Orange nor the Los Angeles archdiocese’s reluctance to implement the liturgical norms of the Church reflect the position of the United States bishops’ conference. Since March 25, the U.S. Bishops committee on the liturgy has published a summary of Redemptionis Sacramentum and a document, “Thirty Questions on the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum for Diocesan Liturgy and Communications Personnel.” In neither publication, said Helen Hitchcock, has the bishops’ liturgy committee even suggested a delay in implementing the instruction’s norms. “There isn’t anything in the [liturgy committee’s] documents on it — their ‘Thirty Questions,’ their March-April newsletter — nothing mentions that there should be a delay,” said Hitchcock, the editor of Adoremus, the journal for the Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy.
Hitchcock noted that the Holy See’s instruction not only says that it is the duty of the bishops “to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws,” but insists that the observance of these by the clergy is a right of the faithful. “It is the right of the Christian people themselves,” the instruction says, “that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.”
But it is no surprise to Hitchcock that some prelates would ignore the express commands of the Holy See. “It has been wildly successful for 40 years to do as you please and let somebody stop you,” she said.
However, a high ranking Vatican official has called such episcopal and clerical insubordination nothing less than uncatholic. Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to an April 24 Zenit news story, said the “reception of a document” such as the instruction is “more than a media event;” it “must be seen above all as an ecclesial event of acceptance of the magisterium in communion and sharing in the most cordial way in the doctrine of the Church. It is an authoritative word that clarifies a truth of faith or some aspect of Catholic doctrine contested or misinterpreted by particular currents of thought and action. The highly pastoral character of the document is based precisely on this doctrinal work The reception becomes therefore a propitious occasion for formation, catechesis, and evangelization.”
But, said Hitchcock, “bad guy liturgists” and their bishops will pass up this propitious occasion. “They are going to say, ‘well, this is going to take a lot of nuancing. We certainly don’t want a confrontation at the altar over anything that might not be really a matter of faith, so we have to nuance, and nuance, and be sensitive and forgiving....’ You can write their script for them,” said Hitchcock.
You can't cooperate in the destruction of your own soul.
No Catholic does. But you have a number of 'reformist' sects, extending to the Adoremans at EWTN and assorted, who in their misguided zeal or outright malice demand that you follow illegal orders - as if Nuremberg never happened. Doesn't matter what the Pope says, it's always right and never in error. It's such an evil and patently diabolical exaggeration by these people that it's a wonder anyone still listens to them.
They think, by this, that they are combatting the leftist errors promoted by the selfsame Vatican, as influenced and directed by bishops, worldwide (but partcularly in 'euro'), preaching in a manner like Mahony. The only way to stop a Mahony, say, is to demand he obey unconditionally. But that's not how it's done. You combat a Mahony in the same way you combat an EWTN, at least on this - by dogma, by the Catholic standard. One has to know what The Church teaches. Then when churchmen insist such has changed, one can remind them that - no, it hasn't, can't, and never will. Truth is the truth. And it's easy for any of us to get it wrong on our own. But in its Magisterium, it's dogmatic pronouncements, The Church doesn't err because God The Holy Spirit does not. That's how you fight Mahony, and 'reformists' of all stripes.
Proverbs 21:28 A lying witness shall perish: an obedient man shall speak of victory.
You desire to excuse your disobedience by aping the disobedience of your Bishop?
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 23
Christ admonishes the people to follow the good doctrine, not the bad example of the scribes and Pharisees. He warns his disciples not to imitate their ambition and denounces divers woes against them for their hypocrisy and blindness.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
LOL!!! God, this place is being overrun by sedevacantist flakes!
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them.
This article isn't about Mahony preaching a different Gospel.
However, the willful will catch at any straw to defend disobedience if it suits their own personal agenda - which is exactly what Mahony is doing; and which indefensible actions you want to ape
My initial post had to do with citing another's disobedience as a reason to justify one's own disobedience. That doesn't wash. Period.
Obviously these two are not part of the "good guys".
"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops." ~St. John Chryssotom
You either belong wholly to the world or wholly to God. -St. John Vianney
I hope you believe in God and His Church. You seem like one, rather, who is not eager to believe nor defend the Faith.
Perhaps you really do not disagree when I say - But you have a number of 'reformist' sects, extending to the Adoremans at EWTN and assorted, who in their misguided zeal or outright malice demand that you follow illegal orders - as if Nuremberg never happened.
What shameless evil is EWTN now guilty of? Perhaps it gave Cardinal Rigali a stage on which to shoot "The Catholic Faith and Vatican II?" The horror, the horror.
Go read Patrick Madrid's new book. He's got you pegged.
But it would wash, period, if the one in authority giving the command was unjust and wrong in his order--ie, that no one shall attend the Traditional Latin Mass (or making it very hard to access it). Worse, there are hardly any reverant or orthodox Novus Ordo Masses are said here, thanks to the bishop--and yet, you expect me to follow his order, to march with the rest New Order to the beat of secular humanism and pride. This of course has nothing to do with the kind of Catholicism that inspires and charges all to the duty of becoming Saints, sanctifying our Souls, and worshipping Our Lord (and not the People of God, which subsist in the Body, which is who the new Church worships).
You are correct to explain and expound upon the Catholic concept of true moral obedience. Nobody can compel you to do what is against your training/education as a Catholic.
Mahoney has clearly showed himself to be grossly disobedient, in material schism, and frankly a hgeretic for the screed he wrote for his diocese a few years back in reference to how mass shall be celebrated there. he clearly is outside the faith, by his words and actions.
By that fact alone, he should not be obeyed. By his very obvious thumbing of his nose at the Holy Father, he shows himself not to be in communion with him. There is absolutely nothing to justify him. He may still be the legal occupant of his office (for the moment), but is not a valid one, as he is not of the faith.
So he should not be followed - in particular if he is doing things, or directing that things be done which are in conflict with Peter, andwhich are obviously wrong.
He is moot!
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.