Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Obedience to a Priest
ROME, AUG. 16, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Several questions cropped up related to the question of the obedience due to the priest in liturgical matters (see July 19).
One reader asked: "In our local diocese the bishop has not implemented the changes found in the new General Instruction on the Roman Missal. When this document was promulgated should the changes have been put promptly into effect? What about religious orders within such a diocese? Is it a matter of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do?' While I understand the changes are not substantial, I am thinking about the instance when we are instructed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM], to stand earlier. Is it within the bishop's judgment as to when he puts these changes into effect so that proper instruction can happen?"
Other readers also asked about the obligation of religious toward the bishops in liturgical matters.
Our reader did not indicate her country of origin and this would make a difference to the reply. Although the Latin GIRM could have been applied immediately by any community, it would not normally become obligatory until the Holy See has given final recognition to the translation approved by the bishops' conference and it is duly promulgated by the conference's president.
In this, the U.S. bishops' conference moved with alacrity and was the first to have a translation approved. Other English-speaking conferences have only recently finished this task and for them the new GIRM is yet a novelty in the parishes.
With respect to the bishop's implementation of the document: Canon law sees this process as pertaining to the conference as a whole and not to individual bishops.
The bishop was involved, at the level of the conference, at all stages of the approval of the translation. Thus, no further decree of implementation is necessary from the bishop although nothing impedes his writing to the diocese informing of the changes to be made.
If he does not do so, then it simply falls upon each parish community to carry out the indications in the GIRM, which become obligatory from the date indicated in the official promulgation by the conference president.
With respect to the obedience owed to the bishop by a religious priest, "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 176, states:
"The diocesan Bishop, 'since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, is to strive constantly so that Christ's faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments, and that they may know and live the Paschal Mystery.' It is his responsibility, 'within the limits of his competence, to issue norms on liturgical matters by which all are bound' (See Canon 838,4)."
It would be beyond the scope of this reply to list all of the prerogatives of the bishop in liturgical matters. But the general principle is clear that all, including religious, are bound by universal norms and by those particular norms emanated by the bishop within his competence.
Some religious orders may have special traditions and privileges granted by the Holy See which the bishop may not abridge.
There is, for example, the centuries-old privilege of the mendicant orders and the Jesuits to lift the excommunication annexed to the sin of abortion. But these peculiarities do not provide carte blanche to religious to ignore either universal norms or episcopal authority with respect to the liturgy.
Several readers asked if one is exempt from kneeling in those churches which have been constructed without kneelers.
From the point of view of the individual believer, he or she may kneel if able to do so but the lack of kneelers could well be considered as a legitimate impediment.
However, such a structure is not furnished according to the mind of the Church and the situation should be remedied as soon as possible. In fact, several U.S. bishops have mandated the installation or restoration of kneelers in churches where they were absent and we would hope this situation will be remedied everywhere as circumstances and finances permit. Any new church project should foresee the provision of kneelers.
A related question arose regarding the incision in the GIRM: "The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise." This means that the bishop may decide, for sound pastoral reasons, to exempt his flock from this practice. If he chooses to do so, the sense of the law appears to be that he establish a diocesanwide practice and not simply leave the question to the decision of each pastor with the consequent confusion that could arise with every change.
If the bishop decides to allow the people to stand after the Agnus Dei (a common practice outside of the United States), then this decision is binding on all. The bishop is free to exempt any parishes from norms he himself has issued and could permit them to follow the U.S. norms if kneeling after the Agnus Dei is a long tradition.
This period of community kneeling or standing lasts until Communion. As clarified by a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, after receiving Holy Communion each person may kneel, stand or sit as preferred. It is not required that the faithful remain standing until all present have received Communion.
An Arizona reader asked: "Under the authority of the local bishop, could there be consequences for a priest who does not implement the GIRM into his parish? If so, what sort of consequences?"
It really depends on the bishop himself and on the objective gravity of the case.
A priest might not implement the GIRM, for multiple reasons, ranging from ignorance through laziness all the way to obstinate disobedience.
A bishop first of all encourages priests and faithful to obey the Church's norms based on supernatural faith.
In serious cases he may admonish a priest. Except in cases of grave defects that affect the dignity and even the validity of the liturgy, or of a general attitude of grave disobedience in other areas as well, it would be rare to move toward serious consequences such as suspension or removal.
In a perfect world, such cases would not arise. But, alas, we are not living in a perfect world.
Several questions cropped up related to the question of the obedience due to the priest in liturgical matters (see July 19).
One reader asked: "In our local diocese the bishop has not implemented the changes found in the new General Instruction on the Roman Missal. When this document was promulgated should the changes have been put promptly into effect? What about religious orders within such a diocese? Is it a matter of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do?' While I understand the changes are not substantial, I am thinking about the instance when we are instructed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM], to stand earlier. Is it within the bishop's judgment as to when he puts these changes into effect so that proper instruction can happen?"
Other readers also asked about the obligation of religious toward the bishops in liturgical matters.
Our reader did not indicate her country of origin and this would make a difference to the reply. Although the Latin GIRM could have been applied immediately by any community, it would not normally become obligatory until the Holy See has given final recognition to the translation approved by the bishops' conference and it is duly promulgated by the conference's president.
In this, the U.S. bishops' conference moved with alacrity and was the first to have a translation approved. Other English-speaking conferences have only recently finished this task and for them the new GIRM is yet a novelty in the parishes.
With respect to the bishop's implementation of the document: Canon law sees this process as pertaining to the conference as a whole and not to individual bishops.
The bishop was involved, at the level of the conference, at all stages of the approval of the translation. Thus, no further decree of implementation is necessary from the bishop although nothing impedes his writing to the diocese informing of the changes to be made.
If he does not do so, then it simply falls upon each parish community to carry out the indications in the GIRM, which become obligatory from the date indicated in the official promulgation by the conference president.
With respect to the obedience owed to the bishop by a religious priest, "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 176, states:
"The diocesan Bishop, 'since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, is to strive constantly so that Christ's faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments, and that they may know and live the Paschal Mystery.' It is his responsibility, 'within the limits of his competence, to issue norms on liturgical matters by which all are bound' (See Canon 838,4)."
It would be beyond the scope of this reply to list all of the prerogatives of the bishop in liturgical matters. But the general principle is clear that all, including religious, are bound by universal norms and by those particular norms emanated by the bishop within his competence.
Some religious orders may have special traditions and privileges granted by the Holy See which the bishop may not abridge.
There is, for example, the centuries-old privilege of the mendicant orders and the Jesuits to lift the excommunication annexed to the sin of abortion. But these peculiarities do not provide carte blanche to religious to ignore either universal norms or episcopal authority with respect to the liturgy.
Several readers asked if one is exempt from kneeling in those churches which have been constructed without kneelers.
From the point of view of the individual believer, he or she may kneel if able to do so but the lack of kneelers could well be considered as a legitimate impediment.
However, such a structure is not furnished according to the mind of the Church and the situation should be remedied as soon as possible. In fact, several U.S. bishops have mandated the installation or restoration of kneelers in churches where they were absent and we would hope this situation will be remedied everywhere as circumstances and finances permit. Any new church project should foresee the provision of kneelers.
A related question arose regarding the incision in the GIRM: "The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise." This means that the bishop may decide, for sound pastoral reasons, to exempt his flock from this practice. If he chooses to do so, the sense of the law appears to be that he establish a diocesanwide practice and not simply leave the question to the decision of each pastor with the consequent confusion that could arise with every change.
If the bishop decides to allow the people to stand after the Agnus Dei (a common practice outside of the United States), then this decision is binding on all. The bishop is free to exempt any parishes from norms he himself has issued and could permit them to follow the U.S. norms if kneeling after the Agnus Dei is a long tradition.
This period of community kneeling or standing lasts until Communion. As clarified by a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, after receiving Holy Communion each person may kneel, stand or sit as preferred. It is not required that the faithful remain standing until all present have received Communion.
An Arizona reader asked: "Under the authority of the local bishop, could there be consequences for a priest who does not implement the GIRM into his parish? If so, what sort of consequences?"
It really depends on the bishop himself and on the objective gravity of the case.
A priest might not implement the GIRM, for multiple reasons, ranging from ignorance through laziness all the way to obstinate disobedience.
A bishop first of all encourages priests and faithful to obey the Church's norms based on supernatural faith.
In serious cases he may admonish a priest. Except in cases of grave defects that affect the dignity and even the validity of the liturgy, or of a general attitude of grave disobedience in other areas as well, it would be rare to move toward serious consequences such as suspension or removal.
In a perfect world, such cases would not arise. But, alas, we are not living in a perfect world.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home