Who Is the Authority on the Liturgy?
After reading Tim Ryland’s interview with Cardinal Stafford (“Come with Me and See Jesus,” February 2003), I am afraid I am more perplexed than ever as to the authority we should turn to for the guidelines of the sacred liturgy. I have read and reread his answer to the question regarding certain abuses at Mass, and I am still scratching my head as to understanding where this authority lies. He seems to be saying that even if the bishop is in disobedience (i.e., committing or allowing abuses in his diocese) the priests, liturgists, and laity are to give deference and obedience to his authority.
The Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium states plainly that the Holy See is the authority that approves how the liturgy of the Mass is to be celebrated in local churches (SC 22:1–3). Now we have the Revised Version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (approved for use in the English in March 2002), and the new Lectionary. It seems to me Cardinal Stafford is saying in effect that these new documents aren’t worth the paper they were printed on.
In my diocese it is the custom of our bishop to allow a man who is in training for the priesthood or permanent deaconate to give a “practice” homily at any given parish before receiving holy orders. This without question is an abuse of the sacred liturgy. With all due respect for this prince of the Church, one must wonder what kind of advice Cardinal Stafford would give a person like me, a Joe Sixpack who sits in the pew, in regards to questioning the bishop about this abuse. According to what I saw in the interview, I am to say nothing (or to pray for a “better understanding” of the mind of the local church).
I wonder if the editor of This Rock, Tim Ryland, could expound for me his thoughts on Cardinal Stafford’s comments regarding the sacred liturgy?
Kevin Lents
via the Internet
Editor’s reply: It is not true that the Holy See is the only authority on liturgical matters. Sacrosanctum Concilium states, “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop” (SC 22:1, emphasis added). Also, “The regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops’ conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories” (22:2).
As a practical matter, if the local bishop is unwilling to take action, complaints about the number of extraordinary eucharistic ministers seem futile. (In a couple of cases of which I am aware personally, parishioners who went above their bishop to the U.S. apostolic nuncio had their complaints rerouted back to the bishop.)
If you read the interview, you know that I pressed him on the issue, and he did say that if you don’t get satisfaction from your bishop, then, in prayerful obedience, you must put up with unnecessary extraordinary ministers. The key is not to let your spiritual participation in the Mass and the Eucharist be derailed by interior fulminations.
Keep in mind too that Cardinal Stafford was addressing the specific matter of eucharistic ministers. He might have a different response regarding the “practice” homilies you mention.
Badly Flawed
I just finished reading the article by Fr. Brian Harrison entitled “Muslims and the One True God” (January 2003) and enjoyed it. In the article, he quotes the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Introducing the quote, Fr. Harrison states that both “the followers of Islam, together with Christians, worship ‘the one true God.’” My question: Can we say the same of Jehovah Witnesses?
Charles Ryan
Editor’s reply: Like Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny several essential Christian dogmas, such as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. But, also like Muslims, JWs recognize God as the one supreme and eternal Creator of the universe. Because of this, although their non-trinitarian concept of him is badly flawed, Jehovah’s Witnesses can be said to worship the one true God.
Attaboy
I must hand it to you and your staff. I just finished reading the letters section of the February 2003 issue of This Rock, and I was impressed. You guys aren’t afraid to print letters that disagree with your articles. Just about every other magazine fills their letters section with nothing but “Attaboys!” You guys must be super-confident.
Thanks for a great magazine. I especially enjoyed Fr. Dubay’s article (“Gazing on the Beauty of the Lord”). It reminded me of New Covenant magazine, which I miss. Keep those kinds of articles coming—along with your hard-hitting truth articles, of course.
Jeff Reser
Bucyrus, Ohio
P.S. I guess that this letter is one of those “attaboys,” so there is no need to print it.
Editor’s reply: Which is exactly why we choose to.
Cathedrals and Yacht Clubs
When people complain that churches are too fancy (“Quick Questions,” January 2003), I wonder what kind of homes they live in. As Haggai asked, “Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this [God’s] house lies in ruins?” (Haggai 1:4).
I remember that liberal talk show host Phil Donahue claimed the reason he left the Church was that he couldn’t see spending on a church money that could have been given to the poor. Some years after that, he complained that conservatives kept him out of a yacht club he wanted to join.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the vocation of sacred art is “evoking and glorifying, in faith and adoration, the transcendent mystery of God—the surpassing invisible beauty of truth and love visible in Christ, who ‘reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.’. . . Genuine sacred art draws man to adoration, to prayer, and to the love of God” (CCC 2502). Churches are like art museums in that they provide art and beauty to people who can’t afford a rowboat, let alone membership in a yacht club.
Don Schenk
Allentown, Pennsylvania
Lefevbre’s Fatal Error
I was raised as a “Traditionalist” Catholic, taught that Vatican II is wrong and that the very validity of the Novus Ordo (the term for the liturgy of Pope Paul IV is pejorative when used by Traditionalists) is doubtful at best. My family has always been loosely associated with the Society of Saint Pius X. My brother’s family is active in our local SSPX parish, and, while my parents have cut themselves off from the SSPX (mainly due to personal differences between my mother and the SSPX priest), my mother firmly insists that the Society is not in schism. She will attend any Tridentine Mass—even that of a sedevacantist priest, though she finds it distasteful—and will skip Mass rather than attend a Novus Ordo rite. I am not sure what my father, a convert from Episcopalianism, believes, but he has grown more conservative over the years.
My husband (a recent convert from Methodism and a newly minted Knight of Columbus) and I are of one mind on the issue: We are not Traditionalists or conservatives but rather orthodox. We attend the new liturgy as well as the Tridentine Mass, and—except for weddings and other special occasions—will not attend a Mass said by a schismatic and/or heretical (e.g., sedevacantist) priest.
Even so, I find the beauty and respect for the Blessed Sacrament inherent in the Tridentine Mass too dear to give up as long as God makes it available in a way pleasing to him. We are therefore members of a Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter parish, since this group and our two priests are unwaveringly loyal to the magisterium.
Given that background, you can understand why I am itching to see an article treating Traditionalist groups in the Church. I think it is unfair to speak of the Traditionalist “movement,” as there is little unity among Traditionalist groups (they range from orthodox to schismatic to heretical). But perhaps an article about the Society of Saint Pius X (which has its own army of apologists), and how to show SSPXers the fatal error of Archbishop Lefebvre, would be appropriate. I have found some valuable information on Jimmy Akin’s web site but not much from Catholic Answers itself.
Robyn Broyles
Lakewood, Colorado
Editor’s reply: See “Holier Than Thou” on page 18.
Change Will Come from the Prisons
Perpetual fascination. That is the only phrase that comes to mind to describe my view of how the Holy Spirit moves in prison. Over the last 15 years I have witnessed or heard of countless prison conversions, but Jens Söring’s story (“Our Prisons Can Be Instruments of Grace,” “Damascus Road,” February 2003) is perhaps the most touching and amazing I have ever read. Praised be Jesus Christ, King and Creator, for Söring’s conversion, and may God use it for the conversion of millions.
I look forward to the time when my German brother and I are both free, and I can embrace him and thank him for saying yes to the conversion graces the Lord offered him—not only for his own sake but also for those who will be touched and motivated by his story.
While there have always been prison conversions, it seems to me that never before has the Holy Spirit recruited and trained an army of evangelists and apologists to go out from the prisons in a miraculous endeavor to return society to Christ and his Church. As a priest in the archdiocese of Mobile once told my godfather, “When the change comes, it will come from the prisons.” Söring’s story is evidence of the truth of that 25-year-old prediction.
Russell L. Ford
Elmore, Alabama
Editor’s reply: Russell L. Ford, a frequent contributor to this magazine and author of The Missionary’s Catechism, writes from Elmore Correctional Facility, a state penitentiary in Alabama.
Wickedness, Corruption, and Outright Stupidity
In “Q&A: Understanding the Priest Scandal” (November 2002), it states, “The ongoing crisis of priestly sexual abuse is the biggest scandal of our lifetime.” You can’t be serious.
Conservative Catholic apologists would get a great deal more respect from the media and the general public if they could curb their tendency to outrageous exaggeration, especially toward supposed “anti-Catholics” in the media. The Clinton-Lewinsky follies generated more media attention in one week than has the “biggest scandal of our lifetime” since the beginning. Of course, you hardly noticed that because, since Clinton is a liberal, the more the press abused Clinton, the better you liked it.
I have spent 20 years working in radio and TV, and I can assure you that the media is not anti-Catholic. The media is an omnivore, and it is always hungry. It ate Jimmy Swaggart alive for looking at naked grownup women, it helped convict Jim Bakker, and it showed both Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to be the twisted, foolish, and vain old men they are. If you screw up, or if members of the media even think you have screwed up, you’re lunch. I imagine that as the teeth chew you up it does feel as if the media is on an all-Catholic diet, as I’m sure Swaggart and Bakker thought the media was on an all-Fundamentalist diet.
The Church has been through the Avignon exile, the Crusades, the Borgia Pope and his children, the Spanish Inquisition, the involuntary conversion of Jews, and collusion with Adolf Hitler. The Church that Jesus Christ established has survived and will continue to survive despite the wickedness, corruption, and outright stupidity of layman, priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope. We’ve been through lots worse and will be through worse still. But we’ll still be here.
John Rafferty
Waymart, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply: When we called the priestly abuse scandal “the biggest scandal of our lifetime,” the “our” referred to “faithful Catholics.” You seem judge the bigness of a scandal purely in terms of media coverage, but that has nothing to do with the import of the priest scandal. It is the biggest scandal of our lifetime because it is symptomatic of a widespread spiritual malaise in the Church that was established by the Son of God. The other scandals you mention were merely fallen men (who happened to be in the public eye) doing the foolish, sinful things that fallen men do every day.
As for the other Church “scandals” you enumerate, the false charge that the Church colluded with Hitler has been disproved many times over by the historical record, and the truth about the other topics is for the most part less damning than is commonly believed.
Alert Your Kind and Jesus-Loving Readers
Prayerful greetings to you and your readers from the poor but loving and praying people of Kerala, India.
I am Fr. Thomas Thumpailchirayil, pastor of the Catholic parishes of Mamankara and Narokkavu in the diocese of Sulthan Bathery, Kerala. I am writing you this urgent plea in order that your readers may help me in my earnest evangelization efforts.
A number of non-Christians come to me with their various physical, mental, spiritual, and financial problems for my humble prayers and advice. These people will have a lasting and wonderful positive outlook and attitude toward Christianity if they get a chance to encounter and experience Jesus Christ, who can break all their bonds and render them peaceful.
At various Catholic retreat centers in Kerala, many non-Christians experience Jesus Christ through Holy Mass, hearing the word of God, counseling, and the touching testimony of Jesus experienced by the already baptized. To send someone to a weeklong retreat at one of these centers takes $12 U.S (including food and bus fare).
Kindly do alert your kind and Jesus-loving readers about my evangelization apostolate. If you help us surely you will meet these souls whom you have won for Jesus Christ in our eternal heavenly abode.
To avoid all doubt and misunderstanding, you may contact my local ordinary (i.e., bishop): H.E. Most Rev. Dr. Geevargheese Mar Divannasios, Catholic Bishop’s house, Sulthan Bathery, (P.O.)-673592, Wayanad (Dt.), Kerala, India.
Invoking the powerful intercession of our heavenly mother, Holy Virgin Mary, for you, your readers, and your mother country U.S.A.
Fr. Thomas Thumpailchirayil
St. Mary’s Malankara Catholic Church
Mamankara, Kamblakallu (P.O.)-679333
Malappuram (Dist), Kerala, India