Thursday, March 17, 2005
Mass Abuse? Response and Rebuttal
I recently wrote about a situation at a local church that appeared to be a clear case of Mass abuse.
Here is the response of the pastor with names deleted to ensure privacy.
March 14, 2005
Dear Matthew:
Thank you for your letter inquiring about the proclamation of the Gospel by lay persons.
It has been a common practice for many years in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to proclaim the Passion Gospels on Palm Sunday and Good Friday as well as the Scrutiny Gospels on the third, fourth, and fifth Sundays of Lent in parts. Because this year's Lectionary readings are from Cycle A, we have chosen to proclaim the Gospels in parts on those designated Sundays in Lent at all liturgies. In other years (those with Cycle B or Cycle C Lectionary Readings) these special Gospel readings from Cycle A, have been proclaimed in this manner only at the liturgy where the Elect (those to be baptized at the Easter Vigil) are present.
While the text you quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum sates that "the reading of the Gospel... is reserved by the Church's tradition to an ordained minister", (sic) Cardinal Mahony in his Statement on the Implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, states that, "I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practices at this time."
If you would like to read more of his statement, you can go to the website referenced below, click on "ministries", (sic) and then click on "worship": (sic)
http://www.la-archdiocese.org
We (sic) hope that you will continue to choose to worship with the Parish Community of XXXXX. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Reverend XXXXX
Pastor
-------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2005
Dear Reverend XXXXX,
Thank you for you letter dated March 14, 2005. I appreciate your timely response. However, your response lacks any credible support for allowing lay persons to participate in the Gospel readings of the "Scrutiny Gospels on the third, fourth, and fifth Sundays of Lent in parts." You rely on a two pronged "authorization:" 1) common practice, and 2) a vague quote from Cardinal Mahony that "I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practices at this time."
1) "Common practice" as a defense is not sufficient; if common practice were sufficient, the Council of Trent (among others) would not have been necessary. Due to my father's chosen professon, I have had the opportunity to attend Masses and deal with priests all over the archdiocese for many years during Lent. Due to my own jobs, I have had the opportunity to attend Mass in many areas of the United States during Lent. Frankly, your "common practice" argument does not coincide with my own sizeable experience. (However, to rely solely on my experience, as vast as it may be, would be to rely on proof by selected instances, so I eagerly await your reply) Also, I seriously doubt that you would let me off in the confessional both if I said,"Well, I know that the act in question has been deemed wrong by the Church, but it is common practice in Los Angeles to do it."
2) My initial letter contained the request that you provide specific Church documents that allowed you to implement your changes to the Gospel readings. The website that you provided (and the links as well) direct one to a site that does not address the topic. Both my wife and I have reviewed it. I hereby ask you again to be very specific: please provide the specific document that allows for this change since Cardinal Mahony's statments are not specific on this issue. For example, if this practice has occurred since 1990, then I would request that the authorization documentation of 1990 be presented.
Unfortunately, your response glosses over key sections of Redemptionis Sacramentum including the Preamble which states:
"[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right. [18] This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority."
and
"[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ's faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church's Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community's right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]
I should also like to point out an additional part that appears after the Preamble:
"[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]"
Again, neither the source that you provided nor Cardinal Mahony's August 2004 statement provide any legal justification for the practice in question..
Once again I find the need to cite the following:
"[63.] Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is "the high point of the Liturgy of the Word," [139] is reserved by the Church's tradition to an ordained minister. [140] Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.[141]"
To date, your response appears to ignore the statement that "thus it is not permitted for a layperson..."
The powers granted to local archbishops are not strong enough to override "not permitted" without the consent of Rome. Cardinal Mahony's argument that this latest document will be included as a part of all previous documents is a dangerous dodge.
If the Southern states, after Reconstruction, claimed that the 13th and 14th Amendments would only be considered in light of previous text in the United States Constitution that allowed slavery with the intent of re-instituting the common practice in the South of slavery, they would have been using logic parallel to that of Cardinal Mahony.
If you can clearly cite a change in liturgical norms that has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, I will gladly accept it and publicly proclaim my ignorance. But I cannot find any such permission, and the sources you have provided do not grant permission.
Lastly, it is important to note that the document in question has a subtitle: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. If you continue to choose to act outside of these norms, you had better have permission from Rome. Perhaps you do, and I will support you if you can provide me with documentation granting you permission to do so. I realize that this is a very busy time of the year for you, so please do not feel any particular rush to respond. For you convenience, you may include any appropriate information in an attachment and/or cite a specific website(s) in an email sent to the email address listed above. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I really do appreciate it.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Matthew J. McKinley
----------------------
FYI:
Cardinal Mahony's response to the Vatican's directives (translation: I don't have to pay any attention) five months later!
Here is the response of the pastor with names deleted to ensure privacy.
March 14, 2005
Dear Matthew:
Thank you for your letter inquiring about the proclamation of the Gospel by lay persons.
It has been a common practice for many years in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to proclaim the Passion Gospels on Palm Sunday and Good Friday as well as the Scrutiny Gospels on the third, fourth, and fifth Sundays of Lent in parts. Because this year's Lectionary readings are from Cycle A, we have chosen to proclaim the Gospels in parts on those designated Sundays in Lent at all liturgies. In other years (those with Cycle B or Cycle C Lectionary Readings) these special Gospel readings from Cycle A, have been proclaimed in this manner only at the liturgy where the Elect (those to be baptized at the Easter Vigil) are present.
While the text you quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum sates that "the reading of the Gospel... is reserved by the Church's tradition to an ordained minister", (sic) Cardinal Mahony in his Statement on the Implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, states that, "I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practices at this time."
If you would like to read more of his statement, you can go to the website referenced below, click on "ministries", (sic) and then click on "worship": (sic)
We (sic) hope that you will continue to choose to worship with the Parish Community of XXXXX. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Reverend XXXXX
Pastor
-------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2005
Dear Reverend XXXXX,
Thank you for you letter dated March 14, 2005. I appreciate your timely response. However, your response lacks any credible support for allowing lay persons to participate in the Gospel readings of the "Scrutiny Gospels on the third, fourth, and fifth Sundays of Lent in parts." You rely on a two pronged "authorization:" 1) common practice, and 2) a vague quote from Cardinal Mahony that "I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practices at this time."
1) "Common practice" as a defense is not sufficient; if common practice were sufficient, the Council of Trent (among others) would not have been necessary. Due to my father's chosen professon, I have had the opportunity to attend Masses and deal with priests all over the archdiocese for many years during Lent. Due to my own jobs, I have had the opportunity to attend Mass in many areas of the United States during Lent. Frankly, your "common practice" argument does not coincide with my own sizeable experience. (However, to rely solely on my experience, as vast as it may be, would be to rely on proof by selected instances, so I eagerly await your reply) Also, I seriously doubt that you would let me off in the confessional both if I said,"Well, I know that the act in question has been deemed wrong by the Church, but it is common practice in Los Angeles to do it."
2) My initial letter contained the request that you provide specific Church documents that allowed you to implement your changes to the Gospel readings. The website that you provided (and the links as well) direct one to a site that does not address the topic. Both my wife and I have reviewed it. I hereby ask you again to be very specific: please provide the specific document that allows for this change since Cardinal Mahony's statments are not specific on this issue. For example, if this practice has occurred since 1990, then I would request that the authorization documentation of 1990 be presented.
Unfortunately, your response glosses over key sections of Redemptionis Sacramentum including the Preamble which states:
"[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right. [18] This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority."
and
"[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ's faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church's Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community's right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]
I should also like to point out an additional part that appears after the Preamble:
"[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]"
Again, neither the source that you provided nor Cardinal Mahony's August 2004 statement provide any legal justification for the practice in question..
Once again I find the need to cite the following:
"[63.] Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is "the high point of the Liturgy of the Word," [139] is reserved by the Church's tradition to an ordained minister. [140] Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.[141]"
To date, your response appears to ignore the statement that "thus it is not permitted for a layperson..."
The powers granted to local archbishops are not strong enough to override "not permitted" without the consent of Rome. Cardinal Mahony's argument that this latest document will be included as a part of all previous documents is a dangerous dodge.
If the Southern states, after Reconstruction, claimed that the 13th and 14th Amendments would only be considered in light of previous text in the United States Constitution that allowed slavery with the intent of re-instituting the common practice in the South of slavery, they would have been using logic parallel to that of Cardinal Mahony.
If you can clearly cite a change in liturgical norms that has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, I will gladly accept it and publicly proclaim my ignorance. But I cannot find any such permission, and the sources you have provided do not grant permission.
Lastly, it is important to note that the document in question has a subtitle: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. If you continue to choose to act outside of these norms, you had better have permission from Rome. Perhaps you do, and I will support you if you can provide me with documentation granting you permission to do so. I realize that this is a very busy time of the year for you, so please do not feel any particular rush to respond. For you convenience, you may include any appropriate information in an attachment and/or cite a specific website(s) in an email sent to the email address listed above. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I really do appreciate it.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Matthew J. McKinley
----------------------
FYI:
Cardinal Mahony's response to the Vatican's directives (translation: I don't have to pay any attention) five months later!
