Bishop Suspends Ef Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1259706581' post='2012728']
the rubrics are not immutable absolutes. This is foolish and imprudent of them. They are placing rubrics above love and obedience. Letter above the spirit.

So hypothetically let us say that the EF were the only form celebrated in Quebec or wherever, and a deadly virus plagues the city. So the bishop according to his temporal magisterial authority decides that Holy Communion should only be distrubuted hand to hand in order to avoid spreading the plague. Do you really think that it would be wise for the priests to rebel and only offer Mass privately and deny the Eucharist to the people over a measly rubric?
[/quote]
They are being obedient. They informed the bishop that they could not celebrate the Extraordinary Form (the only form they celebrate) according to his wishes. He said that in that case, they would not celebrate at all (publicly), and they are complying. Remember, these directives are only a couple weeks old. Maybe they continued to distribute on the tongue in the meantime, I'm not positive, but it was for at most a week or two in disobedience to the bishop (in the worst case scenario), and I'm quite sure that this difference in timelines is due entirely to them waiting for a reply from the bishop. (He is a busy man after all.) There is no disobedience being displayed, except perhaps to the rubrics of our Mass.

I'd also like to emphasize how very much I hate having to criticize His Excellency. I find it extremely distasteful to have to do so like this.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[kafka]

regardless of the situation I am trying to explain the principle. A successor of the Apostles has the authority to temporarily overide the rubric for a just reason.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1259706940' post='2012735']
regardless of the situation I am trying to explain the principle. A successor of the Apostles has the authority to temporarily overide the rubric for a just reason.
[/quote]
Does he? I don't know Canon Law that well. Maybe Rexi can source for us..?

[zunshynn]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1259706581' post='2012728']
the rubrics are not immutable absolutes. This is foolish and imprudent of them. They are placing rubrics above love and obedience. Letter above the spirit.

So hypothetically let us say that the EF were the only form celebrated in Quebec or wherever, and a deadly virus plagues the city. So the bishop according to his temporal magisterial authority decides that Holy Communion should only be distrubuted hand to hand in order to avoid spreading the plague. Do you really think that it would be wise for the priests to rebel and only offer Mass privately and deny the Eucharist to the people over a measly rubric?
[/quote]

It is NOT a "measly rubric". And according to the 1962 missal, priests are bound under pain of sin by the rubrics, including to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue. The bishop does not have the authority to change that.

Even when St. Isaac Jogues had the fingers that he was required to use by the rubrics of the mass to hold the Host, he was given dispensation by the Holy See, and the Holy See alone, to continue to celebrate mass. That is because no rubrics are measly rubrics.

Even in the NO, however, Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear in Paragraph 92 that "each of the faithful ALWAYS has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue."

Edited December 1, 2009 by zunshynn

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='01 December 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1259707144' post='2012738']
Does he? I don't know Canon Law that well. Maybe Rexi can source for us..?
[/quote]
I dont know Canon Law that well either, and it is not like the EF is beyond the current Canon Law.

Yet I know the basic fundamentals of how the Magisterium works. This isnt a matter of faith and morals. It is a practice. Even some canon laws have to bow down to love and justice.

[zunshynn]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/Sw60x4VU22I/AAAAAAAADCM/1VgEgwyGiek/s1600/CommLetter7-24-09.jpg[/img]

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/11/it-is-not-licit-to-deny-communion-on.html"]Source[/url]

Edited December 1, 2009 by zunshynn

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1259706940' post='2012735']
regardless of the situation I am trying to explain the principle. A successor of the Apostles has the authority to temporarily overide the rubric for a just reason.
[/quote]

No bishop has the authority to forbid the faithful from receiving Communion on the tongue in the Roman Rite since the the Roman Pontiff* has used his "full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise" to legislate that "each of the faithful [b]always[/b] has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice." ([i]Redemptionis Sacramentum[/i], 92, my emphasis)

*Indeed, [i]RS[/i] is a document of the Congregation of Divine Worship, but "This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and [b]he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned[/b]."

EDIT: Zunshynn beat me to it. She seems to be doing that a lot lately.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[kafka]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='01 December 2009 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1259707256' post='2012740']
It is NOT a "measly rubric". And according to the 1962 missal, priests are bound under pain of sin by the rubrics, including to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue. The bishop does not have the authority to change that.

Even when St. Isaac Jogues had the fingers that he was required to use by the rubrics of the mass to hold the Host, he was given dispensation by the Holy See, and the Holy See alone, to continue to celebrate mass. That is because no rubrics are measly rubrics.

Even in the NO, however, Redemptoris Sacramentum is very clear in Paragraph 92 that "each of the faithful ALWAYS has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue."
[/quote]
alright I exaggerated. I stand corrected. Still I hold that the principle I am trying to explain is true. If there is a just reason and a real threat then the faithful should obey the bishop and choose to receive Communion in the hand for the common good of everyone.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1259707382' post='2012746']
I dont know Canon Law that well either, and it is not like the EF is beyond the current Canon Law.
[/quote]

The celebration of the Mass is mainly governed by liturgical law, not canon law.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1259707609' post='2012750']
alright I exaggerated. I stand corrected. Still I hold that the principle I am trying to explain is true. If there is a just reason and a real threat then the faithful should obey the bishop and choose to receive Communion in the hand for the common good of everyone.
[/quote]
Does the 'threat' outweigh the enormous costs of disobeying a rather important rubric?

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 December 2009 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1259707660' post='2012752']
The celebration of the Mass is mainly governed by liturgical law, not canon law.
[/quote]
regardless the Law of love transcends all laws. The bishop has the authority to dispense canon or liturgical laws (not moral laws) for a just or a grave reason.

I dont know the weight of this particular situation and how it weighs against this particular rubric, so I am going to drop out of the argument.

Still I just wanted to state the principle.

[1 Corinthians]
{6:12} All is lawful to me, but not all is expedient. All is lawful to me, but I will not be driven back by the authority of anyone.

"If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law." (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 96, A. 6.)

This type of dispensation from law does not apply to the moral law, which is immutable and which falls under spiritual authority, but rather to any laws of temporal authority, such as human laws in so far as they are not direct expressions of the moral law, and to Canon Law and any other Church disciplines, rules, or rulings.

The circumstances under which a rule can be dispensed varies, depending on the weight of the rule and the weight of the reason for dispensation. Two main divisions of weight are distinguished, a just cause and a grave cause. But within each type, the weight of the reason also varies, as does the weight of the rule being dispensed. Canon Law even explicitly permits, on some lesser matters, the individual to decide, for a just reason, to dispense himself from a rule.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='01 December 2009 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1259708265' post='2012757']
regardless the Law of love transcends all laws. The bishop has the authority to dispense canon or liturgical laws (not moral laws) for a just or a grave reason.
[/quote]

No bishop has any authority to dispense from a law set forth by the authority of the Holy See, unless the Holy See has stated that such a law may be dispensed by a bishop.

[Nihil Obstat]

The 'threat' here is very, very questionable.

I mean, if distributing on the tongue was [u]guaranteed[/u] to kill X numbers of people, then [i]maybe[/i] we can talk, but I'm inclined to believe that it's more dangerous to distribute on the hand in any case.

This is no emergency though. This is preemptive action based on hysteria and very loose speculation.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[MIKolbe]

I think someone said this in a similar thread... but isn't H1N1 airborne? and if that is true, and if the concern is THIS high; why not just suspend Mass altogether?

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 December 2009 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1259708481' post='2012759']
No bishop has any authority to dispense from a law set forth by the authority of the Holy See, unless the Holy See has stated that such a law may be dispensed by a bishop.
[/quote]
he does in cases of necessity.

A bishop in Dallas, TX already decided to do this months ago.