More on Communion from the Cup

I'm starting to regret even starting this. I have been praying about it and, let's just say God isn't giving me any idea to just give up yet.

Without rehashing my e-mail to my pastor and his reply, you can read those here and here, I decided to do some research on the whole "pouring after consecration" complaint I have.

His major argument is that the CCCB has not promulgated the Instruction from Rome.

In searching the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Website and perusing the document Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum dated, I think, April 23 2004

With the publication of the , Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum , On Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist pastors may be looking for assistance in responding to various questions.

The following are notes to help in the reflections of pastors and faithful. These have een prepared by the French Sector National Liturgy Office of the Canadian conference of Catholic Bishops, in consultation with the English Sector National liturgy Office.

When applying the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, it will be pertinent to recall the following:

The Instruction is to be read in continuity with the 17 April 2003 Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

The Instruction is accompanied by a presentation from the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze.

The implementation of the Instruction is entrusted to the bishop of the diocese who is the moderator, promoter, and custodian of the whole liturgical life of his diocese (cf. can. 835).

As recalled by the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 26, “Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the ‘sacrament of unity’, namely, a holy
people united and organized under their bishops. Therefore, liturgical services
pertain to the whole body of the Church….”

NOTES
These notes have been prepared by the French Sector National Liturgy Office of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, in consultation with the English Sector National Liturgy Office, on the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, approved on 25 March 2004 and issued 23 April 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

1. Nature of the document This is an instruction from a Roman Congregation, approved in ordinary form by the Supreme Pontiff. It resembles an act of administrative rather than legislative law. The subtitle clearly indicates its disciplinary nature: “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”.

The Instruction does not seek to provide a catechesis or a theology of the Eucharist. The vocabulary used is distinctly disciplinary; for example, the term “norm(s)” appears 67 times whereas the term “formation” appears only three times. The first chapter, “The Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy”, presents a summary of the major principles of liturgical law. The eighth and final chapter, “Remedies”, deals with applicable procedures and sanctions in cases of liturgical abuses. The reader is directed to other documents (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dies Domini and Ecclesia de Eucharistia) for a reflection on theological or catechetical aspects.

2. Objective
The objective is clearly indicated in paragraph 2: the Instruction treats “of certain matters pertaining to the discipline of the Sacrament of the Eucharist” but is not “a compendium of norms” regarding the sacrament. At the same time, it also establishes further norms “by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented”. In this regard, the Instruction is intended to serve as a reminder of pre-existing norms and to clarify their implications.

It is evident that the Congregation seeks to counter and to correct a certain number of abuses, as well as to encourage full respect for liturgical norms. “All should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority” (n. 7). Different types of abuses are dealt with more explicitly near the end of the document. The first of these to be presented are the most serious offences that violate the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist and are to be referred to the Congregation, which is the only authority competent to deal with the graviora delicta (n. 172). As for other types of abuses, there are certain serious matters that risk the validity and dignity of the sacrament (n. 173). Other abuses are characterized by the violation of norms found in liturgical books; these abuses are also to be avoided and corrected (n. 174-175). Numerous abusive practices are listed in each chapter, and the questions dealt with are evident by surveying the table of contents.

3. Intended audience
In principle, the Instruction is aimed at the entire Latin Church and, within it, all categories of the faithful. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes specific mention of the important roles of the diocesan Bishop, “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him” (n. 19); of priests, the “capable, prudent and indispensable co-workers of the order of Bishops, called to the service of the People of God” (n. 29); and of lay ministers, who “for the good of the community and of the whole Church of God … have rightly and laudably exercised ministries in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy” (n. 43).

The Instruction also makes particular note of the following:

Bishops: are reminded that by virtue of their mission as moderators, promoters and guardians of the whole liturgical life of their diocese (n. 19), they must investigate an abuse of the sacrament of the Eucharist whenever they receive plausible notice (n. 178);

Priests: as “capable, prudent and indispensable co-workers of the order of Bishops” (n. 30), are to cultivate “their liturgical knowledge and ability” (n. 33);

Deacons: are also to do their part to celebrate the liturgy according to the norms of the duly approved liturgical books (n. 35);

Lay faithful: are reminded of their right “to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline” (n. 11);

All the faithful: have a right to bring a complaint regarding liturgical abuse to the attention of the local Bishop or Apostolic See (n. 184), but at the same time the document suggests starting with the diocesan Bishop.

4. Helpful principles

The Instruction deals with diverse questions of varying importance. Occasionally, the text recalls legislative or liturgical principles that will be useful in evaluating particular situations.

Some of these principles are the following:

The Bishop is to assure liberty for adapting celebrations in an intelligent manner to a particular Church building, or for the faithful present, or in accordance with particular pastoral circumstances (n. 21);

Priests are to cultivate their liturgical knowledge and ability (n. 33);
.......

The fullness of the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident when Communion is under both kinds (n. 100);
.......

5. Abuses indicated

All the abuses indicated in the Instruction are not equally serious, and so it is also
important to evaluate their gravity. In addition to those most serious cases which involve sacrilege, the simulation of the Mass, or concelebration with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have Apostolic Succession, other abuses include: ........

The pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another, which is completely to be avoided (n. 106);
.......

The celebration of the Eucharist with common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers (n. 117);
......

Could someone explain to me how the above document is NOT a defacto promulgation of the Redemptionis Sacramentum from Rome?

But the CCCB contradicts itself in the document: Communion from the Cup
in which the CCCB states:

Receiving Communion
In returning to the use of the cup along with the bread, the goal is that each communicant will be able to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ when Eucharist is celebrated.

How do we receive communion from the cup?
At the preparation of the gifts the bread and the wine to be consecrated are brought to the altar by members of the congregation. One cup filled with wine is placed on the altar (together with carafes as needed). The sign of one cup -- the cup of blessing (1 Cor 10.16) -- on the altar reflects the unity of the Church.

I can understand why Father is confused when the CCCB hasn't changed its instruction but still shouldn't the rules from Rome take precedence over the CCCB, with all due respect to the Bishops. But the date on "Restoring the Cup" is Copyrighted 1996. So it precedes Redemptionis Sacramentum, and that would suggest it has been overruled by Rome.

All this tells me is that the Archidiocese is responsible for seeing to possible abuses regarding the Liturgy. So it looks like the Archdiocese will be getting a letter.

I am NOT enjoying this.

Communion Cup

Well, Bear and I finally agreed that we should write to Bishop Boissonneau, Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs for the Archdiocese of Toronto, regarding the Redemptionis Sacramentum, and our pastor confectioning the Precious Blood of the Lord in a caraffe as well as a chalice. We decided to go ahead for different reasons, the most important because we feel that the Blessed Sacrament should not be abused even if it is unintentional. We waited until the Archbishop Collins was installed.

Here is the letter. All identifiers have been removed

Most Reverend Bishop John Boissonneau,
Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs
Catholic Pastoral Centre
1155 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1W2

February 6, 2007

Your Excellency,

We are writing you this letter in an effort to fulfill our duty as outlined in Redemptionis Sacramentum, as authorized by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. In brief, our pastor, --------------, and the other priests who celebrate the Holy Mass at --------------on (street) in the City of Toronto, consecrate the wine in a flagon as well as a chalice, and then pour the Blood into several smaller chalices for communion to the faithful. As you know this is in contradiction to the Instructions in Chapter 4 [paragraph 106] of the above document from Rome, which reads:

However, 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. 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,

Also, when cleansing the chalices he pours water into one chalice, and then pours the remains of that chalice into the next chalice and so forth until the last chalice is cleansed, when he drinks it. So the Blood of Christ is poured twice, in contravention of the above instruction.

We wrote to Father ------ first, and we received the enclosed reply. We found his reply odd, for having attended several masses at the Cathedral we have never seen this practice he describes as being performed by the Cardinal. We admit we may be mistaken in this. Though at the Installation of Archbishop Thomas Collins, we
noticed that he did not use a pitcher or carafe either. He also claims that the implementation has not been promulgated by the CCCB, but both this document and the CCCB say that implementation of the instruction is entrusted to the authority of the Diocesan Bishop.

When applying the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, it will be pertinent to recall the following:
……….
3. The implementation of the Instruction is entrusted to the bishop of the diocese who is the moderator, promoter, and custodian of the whole liturgical life of his diocese (cf. can. 835).

Furthermore he notes in his answer that the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion carry out the cleansing of the vessels after mass in the sacristy. It is our understanding that the Indult to allow Ministers of Holy Communion to cleanse the Sacred Vessels was granted, by Pope John Paul II, to the Church in the USA, not Canada, and the Indult, having expired, was not extended, therefore the Ministers of Holy Communion, in Canada should never have been cleansing the vessels, and definitely should not be doing so still.

It is with humility, and charity that we have taken the step of writing to you. We would have left the matter alone were it not for the order given to the laity in Redemptoris Sacramentum that we too are to defend the Body and Blood from all abuses.

Chapter VIII Par.6.
[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do ll that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism

We hope this letter fulfills our duty in this matter.

God bless you and his Excellency, the Archbishop Thomas Collins.

Yours sincerely,

Puff the Magic Dragon Bear-i-tone

encl: Copies of emails to and from pastor

Copy of Voxcantor's comment

**************************************************

My E-mail to Pastor , Pastor's Response , Voxcantor's Comment
The copy of the Pastor's response did NOT include my fisking.

My e-mail to my pastor regarding Pouring the Blood of Christ from one vessel into another.

I have been unable to set up an appointment with my pastor,( I just don't have time to make the appointment, let alone go to the appointment) regarding pouring the Blood of Christ (confectioned in a decanter?) and then poured into chalices for communion of the faithful, so I have written him an e-mail. Hopefully if the subject line reads Private: Pastor Only I might have enough luck to actually have the priest read it instead of the Pastoral Assistant.

Attn Rev. Father .
Private and Confidential

Dear Father

I recently found on the Vatican Website a statement put out by the

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

In Chapter IV regarding HOLY COMMUNION it reads

[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices.[193] For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.[106.] However, 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. 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.

This is reinforced in the CCCB statement entitled:

Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum found on the CCCB website quoted here:

5. Abuses indicated....

– The pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another, which is completely to be avoided (n. 106);

I notice every Sunday at the Preparation of the Gifts, wine is poured from a glass/crystal lidded decanter into the Chalice and water is then added, but then some water is also poured into the decanter, and and the lid is then closed, but the decanter remains on the altar thoughout the Eucharistic Prayer, and although the chalice is elevated, there is no doubt that the wine and water in the decanter has also transubstantiated into the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus. Then at the Fractioning, during the Agnus Dei, the Lord's Blood is poured from the decanter into smaller chalices for distribution to the faithful. This pouring appears to be in direct contravention of the above statement fromt the Vatican. Further, when the vessels are cleaned, water is poured into one chalice then, from that chalice poured into the second,and so on, and finally when poured into the last chalice, the celebrant drinks the remaining Blood. This method of cleaning also appears to be in contravention of the Instruction from Rome.

In bringing this to your attention, I only wish to fulfill my obligation as stated in

Redemptionis Sacramentum

Chapter VIII REMEDIES
Par.6.

Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters
[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

I would care to add that I truly appreciate Communion under Both Species and personally desire that it should continue in a manner compliant with CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT INSTRUCTION and Rome.
For easy access to both the document, and if you wish to view the documents in toto, I have included links: Click Vatican or CCCB for their respective documents.

I remain yours sincerely

a faithful parishioner

I was trying to be charitable and informative. I decided not to CC the archdiocese office of Spiritual Matters. I thought giving the pastor a chance to address my concerns would be better.

Reluctant Policing

UPDATE II: Puff has removed her final correspondence. The fact that several people suggest that it is right to attack priests and bishops, offends her. She suffered and prayed about if and how to charitably bring this to the archbishop's attention. It pained her to disobey Bishop Boissoneau, as he had said that we had fulfilled our duty in this matter, and yet, over a year later, she wrote to the Archbishop. She did not take this matter lightly, self-righteously, or angrily; but seriously, respectfully and charitably. Therefore to use her letter as a justification to attack the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form, or to suggest that the priest himself is not a good priest because he was mistaken, ( Rememeber: he thought the RS had not been promulgated- whether it needed to be promulgated is another argument) is offensive to her. When corrected by the Auxilliary Bishop, under the authority of the Archbishop, the Pastor submitted and obeyed.

--Puff writing in the Third person.

UPDATE: Puff was kind enough to post her final letter and her reply from the Archdiocese here

My wife and I never wanted to be members of the liturgical police. We started down that road some years ago, when we- well, mostly she- began helping the choir director for one of the choirs I sang with pick his music for Sundays. As we looked into the appropriate music we encountered the GIRM and other documents, and we discovered something: we really knew nothing about our faith and about the Mass, even though we both cradle Catholics, went to Catholic schools, and attended Mass all our lives. And what is more, a good percentage of what we had been told as truth at school and even at Church were flat out lies. And so, we started looking into the matter some more.

Somewhere in there we read Redemptionis Sacramentum, and there we read an instruction regarding the Blood of Christ: It was to be kept in a metal vessel, and was never to be poured. This struck us, because the practice at our church was to consecrate it in a crystal flask, and then pour it into separate chalices. On the one hand, it seemed minor. On the other hand, this is the Blood of Christ, the heart of our faith, and there is nothing minor about it. Redemptionis told us what to do: if we see any abuse of the Body and Blood, we are first to approach our priest in a gentle brotherly manner, as befits brethren in faith. If that failed, we were to go to the bishop or appropriate authority. If everything else failed, we were directed- not allowed, but directed- to inform Rome.

We have written about this many times in the blog. Our meeting with the priest was cordial and polite. He was overjoyed, he told us, to see that there are others out there who take the Blessed Sacrament as seriously as he. (In truth, he is very devoted to the sacrament. I will delete any comment from the combox that suggests otherwise.) But he had his reasons for doing what he did. Redemptionis, he told us, had not been promulgated in the diocese yet, so he was still permitted.

Next, after giving the matter some thought and prayer, we wrote to the appropriate bishop. His response to us was that he would look into the matter. His words were correct and cordial, but the tone of the letter carried with it a suggestion of "Now please go away." We waited to see what would happen. Nothing.

So we waited some more, and prayed some more, and debated some more. We could change churches. However, that was not an option from Redemptionis. This was still our church. The orders from Redemptionis were still binding. We were to do something. At that time some things changed at the Chancellery. We tried writing another letter. We got another response. Today we saw the real response: He no longer pours.

I am glad of this for many reasons, not the least of which is that our actions have not resulted in any hostility between us and the priest or any members of the parish that I am aware of. This could have become bitter so quickly. That it didn't shows that throughout all this, we were dealing with good people. Deo Gratias.

Liturgical Abuse - Pouring the Blood of Christ

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTINSTRUCTIONRedemptionis SacramentumOn certain matters to be observed or to be avoidedregarding the Most Holy Eucharist....Chapter IVHOLY COMMUNION105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices.[193] For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.[106.] However, 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. 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.

This is reinforced in the CCCB statement:
Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum5. Abuses indicated....– The pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another, which is completely to be avoided (n. 106);
My pastor breaks this every Sunday.
At the preparation of the Gifts, Wine is poured from a glass/crystal lidded decanter into the Chalice and water is then added, but then he pours some water into the decanter, and closes the lid. The decanter remains on the altar thoughout the Eucharistic Prayer, and although the chalice is elevated, there is no doubt that the wine and water in the decanter has also transmutated into the blood of Christ. Then at the Fractioning, during the Agnus Dei, the Lord's blood is poured from the decanter into smaller chalices for distribution to the faithful. Communion is under both species.
further in the Redemptionis SacramentumOn certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy EucharistChapter VIIIREMEDIES6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.So, how do I go about and lodge a complaint. Should I complain to the archdiocese about him, if so, to whose attention. what's the address, etc etc. Should I have more than one person sign the complaint. What about the other priests in residence, including one who works at the Archdiocese itself. He sees it and has apparently done nothing.Also, do I inform the pastor? He is also my confessor and it would just be weird telling him he is doing something wrong. I don't think he would listen to me, anyway. According to the Vatican, my duty is clear, my question is the logistics of performing my duty.For access to either of the two documents from which I quoted above click here:
for the Vatican document click here or for the CCCB document click here

The best statement I have read on Universae Ecclesiae yet

While doing some research for a future post, I dropped by the website of St Mary's parish in Norwalk Connecticut.  The pastor there, Father Greg J Markey, has written for his "from the pastor" column of the website the best  statement I have yet seen on Universae Ecclsiae.  I reproduce it here without comment, as I believe it speaks for itself.

This past Friday, May 13, 2011 (Our Lady of Fatima), the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei released the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (To the Universal Church), "on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum." Summorum Pontificum was Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio which, as the Instruction states, “made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church” (1).

The implementation of Summorum Pontificum in continuity with the Second Vatican Council has been a defining part of my time here as pastor at St. Mary Church and it is worth reflecting on this new Instruction in light of our experience.

In reading Universae Ecclesiae, I cannot help but think that we here at St. Mary Church are implementing the Holy Father’s liturgical vision. The heart of the Instruction states: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor” (6).

Where is this liturgical vision being carried out in the Catholic Church today? There are many parishes that will avoid any positive reference to the extraordinary form. There are also a small number of parishes, most of which are run by religious orders, that will do the extraordinary form exclusively, without the ordinary form. There are parishes that do both the ordinary and extraordinary forms, but where the extraordinary form is a fringe element, handled by an external group of priests at odd Mass times. Who, then, is going to bring the extraordinary form and ordinary form together in one parish, “alongside one another”? By the grace of God, St. Mary Church in Norwalk is doing just this.

The Instruction goes on to say that the extraordinary form is to be “considered a treasure to be preserved” (8, a) and that the bishop is “to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite” (13). Therefore, those who feel a certain hostility toward the Traditional Latin Mass need to examine their consciences as to whether they are thinking with the mind and heart of the Church, or whether more secular models of Catholicism have seeped into their thinking.

On the other hand Universae Ecclesiae wants to avoid the other extreme as well: “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (19). While some of the faithful may have a preference for the extraordinary form, groups which attack on the legitimacy of the ordinary form are not part of the Holy Father’s vision of the liturgy.

Nonetheless, the implementation of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which ultimately became the ordinary form of the Mass, is not above criticism. Speaking at an international conference on the liturgy earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the purpose of the reform, “was not mainly to change the rites and texts” but to “renew the mentality” of worshipers. But he acknowledged that the implementation fell short of this goal. “Unfortunately,” the Holy Father stated, “the liturgy has perhaps been seen – even by us, pastors and experts – more as an object to reform, than a subject capable of renewing Christian life.”

While there have always been numerous liturgical rites within the history of the Catholic Church, it is a unique and even confusing historical development to have two official forms of the one Roman Rite. How are the two forms and their respective calendars to be reconciled? As a pastor who has been actively promoting a reverent celebration of both forms for almost four years now, there have been no shortage of strong opinions directed at me from across the liturgical spectrum trying to answer this question.

I think it must be said that the people have a right to come to church and to have the same holy Mass, performed with the same rituals every week so that through the repeated gestures and symbols, the Sacred mysteries are properly communicated. However, with so many changes, and so many liturgical abuses since Vatican II, the faithful have become the arbiters of good liturgy; a position that they have historically never possessed. Perhaps, as Martin Mosebach has written, this is one of the greatest tragedies of the post-Vatican II era of liturgy: rather than coming to worship the Triune God and humbling accepting the liturgy as a gift from heaven, the people in the pews have become self-proclaimed liturgical experts. As Mosebach writes, “I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic.”

Liturgical abuses became so bad after the Council that even the Congregation for Divine Worship’s instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, advises the faithful to do, “(A)ll that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism” (183). Therefore, it is not surprising that so many of the laity have strong opinions, even if some of these opinions are uninformed.

As a priest, I have to be honest in saying that it is a challenge to offer the Roman Rite well here at the parish, with so many legitimate options: one Holy Mass I am offering the Sacrifice ad orientem, the next Mass I am offering It versus populum; one Mass is in Spanish, the next is in Latin; One Mass we are chanting the Latin Mass parts, the next we are reciting them in English; one Mass I am reciting the Canon out loud, the next the Canon is silent. This is the historical period that we are living in, and this is part of being a faithful Catholic in the year 2011.

For the future, Pope Benedict XVI has written that “the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching.” There is much speculation as to what this mutual enrichment will look like. Currently, I think the common element in both forms is what the Pope calls the ars celebrandi, or the art of proper liturgical celebration. More specifically, the ars celebrandi is the “faithful adherence to the liturgical norms” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 37), and a manner of offering which fosters “a sense of the sacred” (40) and “awe for the mystery of God” (41).

I think all of the clergy here at St. Mary Church practice this ars celebrandi well, and while we have many liturgical options here at St. Mary Church, I think this common ars celebrandi is evident. I am often told when parishioners have visited other parishes on vacation, or for various Sacramental celebrations, how they miss the reverence and devotion that goes on here during our Masses. Even our children have told me that they have been surprised by the lack of reverence when they have visited certain other parishes. I have also been told when parishioners notice this ars celebrandi in other parishes, with hope in their voice. Therefore for now, the ars celebrandi is the common bond of the two forms.

Where will this “mutual enrichment” of the two forms of the Roman Rite lead? Perhaps only the Holy Spirit knows but after the release of Universae Ecclesiae this past week, Cardinal Kurt Koch stated that the pope’s ultimate goal is not simply to allow the old and new forms to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite.”

For this to be done the Church’s liturgy must be offered in continuity with the Church’s tradition, as the Pope has made clear, and not seen as a break, where people make a distinction between a pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II liturgy. This will be difficult because there are not a small number of Catholics who seem to be embedded in the liturgical manner and music of the 1970’s and 1980’s, and unable to view the liturgy outside of this period. There are even those who have a curious self-hatred for things Catholic, like any use of Latin in the Mass. Obstacles like this must be overcome.

We here at St. Mary Church are seeking to implement the liturgical vision of Pope Benedict XVI, with the two forms “alongside one another.” No doubt there will be criticism of this liturgical vision as being “too conservative” or even “self-righteous,” yet our response must be in imitation of the Pascal Lamb, who “when reviled did not revile in return” (1 Peter 2:23). If we are attempting to root ourselves in the truth, we must be equally rooted in charity.

For anyone who has eyes to see, there is something quite amazing going on here at St. Mary Church. There are many gifted people who are being attracted to St. Mary Church from far and wide, and what is happening is larger than any one of us: the growing number of young families, the devoted altar boys, the student schola, the ethnic diversity – yes, there is something amazing going on here at St. Mary Church and I am very proud to be part of it.

Sincerely in Christ,

Fr. Greg J. Markey
frmarkey@hisnet.org

The Bishop Answers

Here is the letter sent to Bear and myself from the Most Reverend Bishop Boissonneau

Identifiers have been removed.

February 16, 2007

Dear Mr. and Mrs Bear-i-tone:

I wish to thank you for your letter of February 6, 2007 concerning Redemptionis Sacramentum and I assure you that you have fulfilled your duty in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

+ John A. Boissonneau (signed)

Most Reverend John A. Boissonneau
Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs

*******
Now, I think the Bishop just blew us off. Bear disagrees. He is willing to give the Bishop the benefit of the doubt.

I argue that inherent in his assurance that we have fulfilled our duty, is the unwritten statement of "and there is no reason to contact the Holy Father, as the above document says you can do, regarding this matter."

Bear says, "Let's wait and see."
Well Bear may be right (Yes a wife just admitted a husband can be correct -your point?) If he answered our letter on the 16th, he would not have had the chance to contact Father yet. So maybe ...... We'll see what happens at mass.

What's your take?

Click here for our letter to him

From the Comments Box

This was in the comments box today, and I felt I would respond to it in a post, and invite others to have their say. A reader, Anonymous American, commented on the trouble he has been having with his parish choir, the priest and the congregation. From his description, he and I may work at the same choir. He concludes:

I was optimistic when I took my job and all of last year, but after seeing the outright hostility the congregation has for good music, I think I'm just going to give up on Catholic music. I may wind up in a Catholic church later on, but it'd only be because nothing else is available (which is how I got my current job). My advice is to leave your parish if there's a better one, convert to protestantism (my route) or just accept that you're not going to see good Catholic music in your lifetime. I'm 22 and I doubt that I ever will.

I too know the frustration of feeling a calling that cannot be fulfilled, or of being in possession of talents no one wants. I know what it means to suppress my true abilities because there is no demand for them. I speak not only of my time in Church and with the choirs, I speak of Life, my own. I know what it means to be more knowledgeable, to be better informed, to be more right than those who are in charge, and to watch them repeatedly make the wrong decisions, over my objections- simply because they are in charge, and I am not- and to know that they, or someone like them shall always be in charge, and I shall not. And I know disillusionment, and bitterness, and regret, and even despair. For a long time I have wrestled with these things. They are my constant companions.

Yet in spite of all this, I will stay the course to the best of my abilities. I have many reasons. First and foremost, Catholicism is the true Church of Christ- where else shall I go? Here reside the words of Truth and Life. Anywhere else, even with a better music program, is only second best.

Secondly, those of us who know better have a responsibility to teach those who don't, or to at least bear witness to those who don't. I believe I am the only one in my choir who knows about the GIRM, and Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Summorum Pontificum, and Tra La Sollecitudini, or who knows how to read neumes. Were I to leave, the number would go to zero- who then would help them, tell them the truth, or even just occasionally let them know there are ways other than their own?

You say at twenty two you don't expect to see any changes in your life time. At forty I have seen more changes than I ever would ever have thought possible. Some were good. Some were not. Some have not played out. I will see more, as will you. There are a lot of changes in the air right now- the recent motu proprio among them. It could be an extraordinary rite comes into being near you. It may need someone with experience in chant and polyphony. At any rate, if we leave, then our talents and gifts will not have a role in helping to shape the future.

Even so, I realize my endeavors will most likely end in failure. Such is the way. So be it. I take comfort in the wisdom of my betters, and here Mother Theresa's words come to me: "I was not called to be successful, but to be faithful." St. John of the Cross wrote: "We must do not that which is easy, but that which is difficult." Being Catholic is always difficult, but even so, I will not change.

I will remember you in my prayers.