I'm not much on introductions involved, but the particular topic of law and worship is really difficult to mix. It's like Hillary and Obama. It's the same thing, something or other, but it's We need some structure for some of it. But we also need some flexibility or local expedience. It's not easy to do, and we're in a difficult time at the moment. what can be church, and the worst thing you can do is get on sides, so to speak. As you know, let's call it a six-use-a-term dialogue. It has a very specific meaning.

[01:04]

It doesn't mean just to talk to each other, it means to try to understand the other, and the other is useful and worth coming for. So it's a question of listening and responding with respect, and to love and worship, have that, and all that, and we can't overdo the on to the 80, and we get over to the gym. It's so worth it. I'm really delighted and honored to have Kevin with us, who put it together, and I'm glad that it's in existence since I'm so remote. Somebody suggested that I should have created a jazzinger title for the talk, you see, and so I thought yesterday maybe I should have titled it, The Liturgical Caliphs Are Going to Get You. Thank you very much for coming.

[02:11]

It's a lovely afternoon to be up in Jordan. It's nice to have you here. In Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, there's a document that is evangelical, theological, juridical, and pastoral. It's evangelical in that it has been framed in the spirit of the New Testament, as the very words of the document are quite often simply the words of the Gospel. It's theological in that it elaborates at length on the theological foundations for the way in which the church is sanctified and worshipped, mainly in Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit.

[03:13]

It's juridical in the sense that it proposes definite practical lines of action in matters of the liturgy. And finally, it's pastoral in that its objective is, as the first paragraph of the document states, to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian lives of the faithful, to adapt more closely to the needs of our age, those institutions which are subject to change, to encourage whatever can promote the union of all who believe in Christ and to strengthen whatever serves to call all humanity into the church. Now one of the challenges confronting ministers in the church today is to keep those four characteristics in a poised tension with one another.

[04:22]

Because of background and training, some people, as we know, respond only to commands and ignore counsels. Such people then tend to give little response to the theological values that are set out in liturgical documents and often feel free then to ignore liturgical reform and renewal unless they are subject to sanctions and commands. Other people, steeped in a legalistic mentality, give a very strict juridical interpretation where it least belongs. In failing to understand the constructive nature of church law, still others manifest only contempt for practical norms in an exaggerated effort to counteract legalism.

[05:25]

In other words, they're simply antinomian. Now in Christian theology, it's the science that's founded on the Word of God, that God speaks to us, founded on the tradition of living out that Word faithfully, Canon law as a science is concerned with the practical life of the church, founded on God's word, founded also on the living tradition of the church. But as Gustav Weigel, the distinguished musician, has reportedly once said, tradition does not mean worshiping dead ashes, but rather keeping the fire alive. Although it has God's Word as a primary source, the formulation of Ken Law is the work of those human agents who are responsible for ordering the life of the Church.

[06:35]

But it's by reflecting on the Word of God and people's faithful living out of that Word If the church concludes then, how people should act. As the history of the liturgy shows, in the early centuries of the church, the practical expression of the church's worship was not at all separated from its inner spirit. The early fathers of the church were steeped in the liturgy, steeped in the theology of the church, were also responsible then for the concrete expression of the liturgy in the life of the Christian people. When the Sacred Congregation of Rites and Ceremonies was created in 1588 following the Council of Trent, Pope Sixtus V did in fact manifest a concern for the interior transformation of the faithful

[07:40]

through the church's liturgy. He stressed, in fact, that the congregation was established to put into effect and promote the theological and liturgical reforms that were announced through the Council of Trent. But due to the strong influence of nominalism, which prevailed among the fathers at Trent, An intelligent, meaningful celebration of validity tended to give way to a concern mainly for the validity of the sacraments. In no way, though, did the Council Fathers intend to set out a fully developed theology of worship. They were primarily concerned with responding to what they considered the major errors of the Protestant reformers and clarifying then the minimum requirements for the validity of the seven sacraments.

[08:44]

However, in the centuries following Trent, the rubrics governing the liturgical rites came to be interpreted simply as very rigid norms, were mere ceremonial, often devoid of any theological significance. And as a result then, there was a widening rift between the theological meaning of the church's worship and the norms that regulated the external organization and expression of that worship. Now certainly, contemporary liturgical theologians have rediscovered the fundamental theological nature of the Church and the Church's worship. Consequently, the emphasis in recent decades has not been only on the validity of the sacraments, but also and above all

[09:51]

on the meaningful celebration of the pastoral mystery of Jesus Christ. The sacraments are not magical sources where people are automatically made holy and assured salvation. They're rather rich and often very complex rituals in which women and men as body persons are transformed and sanctified by Christ in the Spirit, and in union with Christ and through the power of the Spirit, worship the Father and are transformed then in their relations with one another. Now, if people understand the true nature of liturgical law as a complex system of practical norms, ordering the rituals in and to which people are sanctified and in turn worship God.

[10:53]

Surely then, they will admit that a canonical study of the liturgy is important. But I would stress here, ministers who blindly follow the ritual directors in the reform liturgical books will run the risk of producing perhaps a new form of liturgical pageantry that might be externally correct and aesthetically quite interesting, but interiorly quite thin. To a great extent, competent canon lawyers must depend then on the insights of liturgical theologians. Canonical action should proceed from sound theology. The church is the living body of Christ.

[11:55]

Its worship is the worship of Christ, who sanctifies the members of his body and leads them back to the Father through the outpouring of the Spirit. As I mentioned this morning in the homily, it must be remembered that the Spirit was not given once and for all at heavy cost, but is continually being poured out on all of God's people. Hence, in order that the new inspiration to the Spirit might be put into practice, the legal requirements should be formulated in such a way that there in fact is still room for growth and development. If the practical life of the Church is to reflect the ever deepening understanding of the faith and the development of doctrine, it's imperative then that the body of the Church's law should have an elastic quality so that new insights

[13:07]

may be assimilated to what is already good in the church's life. Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy established the principle of historical relevance. The document conceives of the people of God in its historical context. And as we know, that history is constantly changing revealing God to God's people in varying ways. And so the Constitution does not visualize then a fully developed form of worship that the church is to impose on all people for all time, but rather leaves open the possibility that new forms of worship may always be accepted if they are recommended as being the fruit of serious scholarship and experience and are felt then to be beneficial to the Church as it exists in concrete situations today.

[14:19]

Furthermore, the Constitution is based on the principle of personal and communal consciousness and responsibility. As we all know, ritual forms can be controlled, but worship itself cannot be legislated, because worship is the free and loving response of human persons and communities to a loving God. And so when good laws are internalized in personal and communal consciences, When people have an awareness of God's power to save them and God's desire to save them through the liturgy of the Church, the written laws of the Church then do not have to address minute details. Liturgical ministers should be aware of the canonical axiom derived from Roman law, de minimis non curat

[15:31]

The lawgiver is not concerned with minutiae. That means that sometimes matters are of such minimal significance that it's not appropriate to make them the object of a canonical norm. Likewise, symbols and rituals not explicitly authorized are sometimes introduced into celebrations, but they are of such minor importance that they really don't call for specific authorization. Examples here would be the introduction of additional popular acclamations into the structure of the Eucharistic prayer, so as to provide more active participation on the part of the community. Or, for example, the introduction of liturgical dance and gestures at various appropriate times in the course of the liturgy.

[16:41]

When consciences have been well formed and sound theological awareness has been deepened, It's best, then, that church laws emphasize only the basic norms and principles. In that way, there is room for the pre-development and assimilation of wholesome customs and usages. And this is really the best way, I think, of promoting that unity in diversity that should characterize the Church of Jesus Christ. We need to live in a dynamic relation with the church's tradition, certainly always mining it for insights and effective ways of living, but also striving to respond to the complex signs of our own times. We must be mindful then of the balance of needing to look to the past for understanding,

[17:50]

and also of responding to creative insights inspired by the presence and power of God's Spirit operating in human hearts and human communities here and now. Fifthly, Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the liturgical documents issued immediately in the decades following Vatican II were grounded in a church which sought for unity but allowed for diversity, plurality of forms in the churchical worship. Extensive power, as a matter of fact, was transferred from the Holy See and placed in the hands then of national episcopates. thus providing for more diversification in the Church's rights as determined by culture and by need. In more recent times, however, much power has been transferred back into the hands of Roman Dicasteries.

[19:01]

Options have been very limited. Cultural adaptation has been severely restricted. The primary liturgical issues that continue to challenge Catholic communities are to implement to their best advantage the before measures embodied in the revived service books, how to foster the growth of faith communities that can genuinely express their Christian faith and deepen that life in the liturgical forms approved by the church. The challenge is how to carry out the liturgical catechesis that's always essential for liturgical reform and renewal, and how to be liturgically creative and responsive to concrete pastoral needs without being antinomian, antinom, or frivolously iconoclastic.

[20:12]

These issues, however, must be confronted along with the complicated question on how to maintain fidelity to clearly establish norms while being pastorally responsible. That challenge, you know, was underlying in Article 11 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This is what it says, pastors must realize that when the liturgy is celebrated, their obligation goes further than simply ensuring that the laws governing valid and lawful celebrations are observed. They must also ensure that the faithful take part

[21:15]

fully aware of what they're doing, actively engaged in the right and above all enriched bucket. That text is clear that the responsibility of ministers is not only to the faithful observance of norms but also to the enrichment of the Christian lives of all those who take part in the celebrations. No longer may ministers feel that they've done their duty if they have carried out the norms of the liturgical books. They must go beyond the norms in the sense that they must develop a ministerial style that enables them to be aware of the pastoral needs of the people and to structure and execute the rites in such a way that they truly respond to concrete people's needs.

[22:23]

That presupposes an understanding of both the theological and aesthetic dimensions of the liturgy. Without undermining liturgical discipline, ministers may and should explore opportunities for creativity within the liturgical celebrations themselves. A pastoral, responsible, and creative approach to the interpretation of liturgical law was taken by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. in their 2005 response to the publication of the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Germ. Interestingly, the Bishops did not issue an English translation of the 2002 General Instruction until April 2005.

[23:26]

And at the same time that they issued the translation, They released a very carefully nuanced pastoral introduction called Celebrating the Mass. And very sound theological observations were carefully woven throughout that commentary. It is, however, the Bishop's pastoral interpretations of what otherwise might be interpreted as very restrictive directives in the General Instruction that are especially refreshing. For example, the movements and the postures of the assembly are quite carefully regulated in the General Instruction in Numbers 42 to 44. But rather than insisting on uniformity, as the American bishops have done throughout the two countries of England and Wales, those bishops allow for a variety of possibilities and for local variations in their commentaries.

[24:44]

This is what they say. Within the dioceses of England and Wales, different communities will have preference for different postures. Period. In the matter of vesture, those bishops did not insist that the chasuble be worn over the stole as indicated in the general instruction in number 337. The bishops, for example, were aware that many parishes and religious communities have, since the Second Vatican Council, purchased expensive vestments designed in such a way that the stole is to be worn over the chasuble. And so as not to insist then that such vestments be discarded, the bishops simply state in their document, the chasuble worn with alb and stole is the proper vestment of the presiding priest.

[25:52]

They likewise took a very sound pastoral approach in their commentary on the general instruction number 308, which states, there is also to be a cross with the figure of Christ crucified upon it. In celebrating the Mass, the Bishops of England and Wales state, it is usual for this cross to bear a figure of Christ crucified. However, in the tradition of the Church, the saving mystery of the crucified one has been represented in different ways. Sometimes, by a figure of the suffering or dead Christ on the cross, sometimes by a figure showing the resurrected Lord standing in triumph as king or high priest of the cross, sometimes without representation of the person of the Lord, but simply with a plain cross.

[26:58]

You see, celebrating a mass I think is an excellent example of liturgical law and flexible, pastoral, and created. You know, in the early centuries of the church, the bishops were responsible for the liturgy in their diocese, not the Bishop of Rome. Consequently, there were different liturgical practices in various dioceses, even in the West. No centralized authority attempted to impose liturgical uniformity. The local bishop was both a member of the local community and also one who had the distinctive roles of leader, teacher, and symbol of unity in the community. And so he was free then to adapt the liturgy to the needs of his local community.

[28:02]

Gradually, however, ecumenical councils began to assert authority over local liturgies. And furthermore, the gradual increase in papal authority was joined with the increase in the prestige of Roman practices, resulting in a more uniform practice of liturgy in the West. In the 8th and 9th centuries, the Carolingian emperors tried to impose the Roman practice of liturgy throughout their empires. as an effective way to establish both political and ecclesial unity. But despite this trend, many bishops continue to take responsibility for the liturgy in their respective dioceses. Charlemagne, who died in 814, asked Popadian to send him a purely Roman sacramentary.

[29:06]

That text was placed in the Royal Palace at Aachen and served as a model which was copied by many scribes and then diffused throughout the Carolingian Empire. That of course contributed then to the demise of oral traditions in liturgical matters since local oral traditions were gradually replaced by written directives, which were eventually codified and then gained in prestige. Why? Because the Roman liturgical texts were considered the work of the popes themselves, often incorrectly, including the highly respected Gregory the Great. Well, beginning in the 10th and 11th centuries then, the texts for diverse liturgical ministries were brought together in complete books. These books, however, contained not only the liturgy celebrated in Rome, but also editions from the churches of the Carolingian Empire.

[30:16]

And somewhat later, these same hybrid books were adopted by the church in Rome, especially during the reform of Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century. After this, the rights of the Roman church did not change much, but were stabilized in their principal forms. The Roman liturgy of the late Middle Ages propagated very widely by the Franciscans and other Mendicant orders of the 13th century, was essentially the rite that came then to the fathers at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and then made its way into the post-Tridentine liturgical books. Those liturgical books generally replaced all other local rites in the West. And as a result, the publication of the Tridentine liturgical books had the effect of suppressing the ancient notion that the bishop was the chief liturgical legislator of his diocese.

[31:31]

As a result then, the Holy See assumed that role for the whole Latin Church. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Only the Apostolic See could enact liturgical laws. Diocesan bishops possessed only what might be called a negative liturgical authority in liturgical matters, since they could pass only laws to enforce the observance of the canonical rules and decrees of the Apostolic See. In other words, the bishop's primary role was one of supervision, to see that canon law was faithfully observed in their dioceses and that all abuses were prevented. And in 1947, in its encyclical Mediocre Day, Pope Pius XII, accurately then reflected the bind of the 1917 Code of Law

[32:35]

when he clearly stated that the Supreme Pontiff alone has the right to permit or establish any liturgical practice, to introduce or approve new rites, or to make any changes in them he considers necessary. The bishops then were simply, and I quote, to enforce diligently the observance of the canonical rules on divine worship. Now Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy altered the law in the 1917 code by giving diocesan bishops real authority once again over the liturgy. However, Vatican II did not fully restore to diocesan bishops the wide authority that they have had over the liturgy before the Council of Trent.

[33:40]

The Constitution on the sacred liturgy gave limited authority to Episcopal conferences, which was further defined in the decree on the pastoral office of bishops in the church, Christus Dominus. This really isn't gin. Liturgical law is undoubtedly the largest body of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical law, with countless universal laws in the approved liturgical books, in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and papal laws outside the Code. There are also numerous laws regulating the liturgy that have been enacted by conferences of bishops and dioceses throughout the world. And additionally, the Roman Dicasteries have issued various documents on the liturgy.

[34:48]

These norms then constitute part of a very complex canonical system that certainly requires skills in both interpreting and applying laws. I would emphasize here though, it is a system that often lies beyond the understanding and the competence of most pastoral ministers, who are nonetheless responsible for planning and celebrating liturgies. Liturgical laws are subject to the same principles of interpretation and dispensation as other liturgical norms and other ecclesiastical laws. Now it's well known among canonists that Roman law has had a major influence on the general norms that have been incorporated

[35:58]

into the 1983 Code. There are, however, and this part of the lecture I think is important, there are two major differences between Roman law and Anglo-Saxon law that have very important implications for the way English-speaking Catholics, especially in North America, interpret canon law in general and liturgical law in particular. The first principle is that in Roman law there is very clear allowance for the progressive evolution of its institutes and the consequent necessity of keeping the law in step with the development of the institutes. In a sense, then, theory and practice in Roman law are often out in front of the law itself.

[37:06]

Roman law, therefore, would allow for the development of doctrine and also for the development of customs, even those contrary to the letter of the law. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon law does not make allowance for changed practice. The law itself must first of all be changed. Anglo-Saxon jurists, such as Justice Edmund Scalia, would maintain that they should adhere to the precise words of a legal text since the precise meaning of the words has been locked into place at the time the text was written. Roman jurists would argue that the genius of a law is that it rests not in any static meaning, it might have had in a world that is now dead and gone,

[38:15]

but in the adaptability of juridic principles that enable governments and other administrators to cope with current problems. The second principle is that in Roman law there seems to be a tension for articulating universal laws while at the same time making allowance for generous dispensation. In Anglo-Saxon law, however, the law itself must be changed if there's to be legitimate change in practice. Exceptions to the law are meant to be exceptions. In other words, Rilton law is more dynamic while Anglo-Saxon law is more static. Difficulty naturally arises for keenly speaking Northern Arabian Catholics because they tend to use the rigid principles of Anglo-Saxon law to interpret canon law in general and liturgical law in particular with the result then that they are often much more rigorous than the law ever intended them to be.

[39:36]

In other words, those innocent Anglo-Saxon worldviews. tend to give an overly literal interpretation to liturgical documents while those from various European countries whose national laws are clearly based on Roman laws have certainly developed ways of interpreting canon law in general and liturgical law in particular that are much more relaxed and much more liberating. When I was a student in Rome studying Catholic, they were all going to hell in Swinginban Street. Until I was politely told by a professor, you Americans are much more rigorous than you ought to be. At the end of the book, especially with the way you deal with your religious nuns. Interesting point, I thought. All right, this major differences in between Roman law and Anglo-Saxon law must be kept in mind when discussing the various current sources of liturgical law.

[40:53]

Vatican II's discipline regarding the competence of various authorities over the liturgy was largely incorporated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. But diocesan bishops have limited authority over the division. They do have general legislative power for their diocese. However, can only make laws that are not contrary to universal law. And as for the liturgical competence of Episcopal conferences such as the USCCB, the code mentions only that these national bodies may prepare translations of the liturgical texts into the vernacular and make adaptations in the liturgy that are precisely permitted by the liturgical books themselves. The matter of translating liturgical texts, however, has been treated very extensively in Liturgy of Authenticum and instruction on the use of vernacular languages in the liturgical books issued in 2001.

[42:08]

The conferences of bishops must approve translations of liturgical texts And for English-speaking conferences, the translations are prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, ISIL. Once the bishops have approved the translation, however, it requires confirmation, reconizio by the Holy See, before it may be used in the liturgy. And in addition, An international group of bishops, the Vox Plora Committee, advises on questions of English translation. And in cases where the universal law does not specify that Episcopal conferences may legislate, a conference must first of all obtain permission from the Holy See to do so. It all seems to be a case of overkill. Whether the permission to legislate comes by way of the law itself or from the Holy See, a two-thirds vote of the total Latin right membership of the conference is always necessary for a decision to be binding in that conference's territory.

[43:29]

However, before the decision may be promulgated, it must first of all be reviewed and then approved by the Holy See. Now, one of the useful ways that subsidiarity is fostered in the church these days is through the power of diocesan bishops to dispense from universal and particular laws. Canon 85 states that a dispensation is the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular face. Whenever the diocesan bishop then judges that it will benefit the spiritual good of the faithful, he may dispense from all disciplinary laws, whether universal or particular, except those laws whose dispensation is reserved to the apostolic see.

[44:34]

Naturally, for the validity of a dispensation, there must be a just and reasonable cause. Not all laws, however, may be dispensed. By definition, only ecclesiastical laws, church laws, may be dispensed, not divine laws. And even among merely ecclesiastical laws, there are three categories of law which can't be dispensed. procedural laws, which would apply, for example, to matrimonial tribunals, penal laws, which include penalties, and constitutive laws, which define the essential elements necessary to constitute a juridical act or institute. For example, a bishop could not dispense from the manner and form of a sacrament, because without them, there would be no sacrament. He could, however, dispense from a regulation requiring that the wine to be consecrated during the Eucharistic prayer should be placed in chalices at the preparation of the gifts, rather than consecrated in a decanter on the altar.

[45:54]

He could dispense from that law. Likewise, he could dispense from the liturgical law in the United States that directs that the faithful should kneel during the Eucharistic prayer from the end of the sumptus until the great amen concluding the Eucharistic prayer. He could dispense from that and allow people to stand during the Eucharistic prayer. For the most part, liturgical laws are disciplinary laws, not defined, constitutive, penal, or procedural, and hence they're subject to dispensations. Now, closely related to the understanding of liturgical law is the important role that custom plays in the interpretation of law. Canon 27 of the 1983 Code states that custom is really the best interpreter of the law.

[47:04]

Adapted from Roman law, that maxim has long been an accepted principle of canonical interpretation. In other words, it shows that the church's legal system has great respect for the sound practices of a community. Hence, one of the best ways to learn how a law is to be understood and put into practice is to look at the ways a local Catholic community actually observes a law. Throughout history, local customs have exercised a greater role in the development of the liturgy than has canon law. Local customs, though, have varied from one diocese to another, and often from one parish to another. And the role of custom in the church's worship, however, was greatly diminished following the Council of Trent.

[48:12]

and the publication of the Reformed Tridentine Liturgical Books. The 1983 Code of Canon Law treats custom in Canons 23 to 28 and speaks of customs in accord with the law, customs apart from the law, and customs contrary to the law. Now, customs in accord with the law simply support and flesh out the spirit and letter of the written law. And certainly there should be no objection to such customs. Customs apart from the law are those which the law does not regulate at all, but they may be laudable or they might well be abusive. Customs contrary to the law are those which are against the law and clearly seem to violate the spirit and letter of the law.

[49:16]

Customs apart from the law or contrary to the law do not readily become recognized as legitimate in terms of canon law. However, local churches' adaptation of the liturgy to its concrete pastoral needs. For example, in most parishes in this country, it has been a common practice for the presider at the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday to wash the feet of women as well as men. though this is clearly in violation of the rubric in the sacramentary which specifies men bearing. Such a practice reminds the assembly that all in the church are called both to be served and to serve. And such a custom, even though it may be contrary to the letter of the law,

[50:24]

actually upholds the law's basic spirit and gospel purpose and therefore should both be tolerated and encouraged throughout this country. It should be noticed, however, that not all customs should be tolerated. Often there can be real abuses of the liturgy that result from negligence, from ignorance, from pastoral insensitivity or from indifference on the part of liturgical ministers. For example, it's a clear abuse for the presider to omit the homily on Sundays and holy days. Likewise, it's an abuse for the presider never to offer the chalice to the assembly. It does, however, take a well-informed interpreter to know the difference between an abuse and legitimate custom that is contrary to the law.

[51:35]

Such an interpreter knows not only what the law says, but also discerns the pastoral context and has some clear understanding of the history, structure and theology of the liturgy in general and a detailed knowledge of the pastoral context in question. The primary purpose then of liturgical law is to protect the fundamental structures of the liturgy and thereby uphold the unity and catholicity of the liturgy itself in the interest of the good order of the whole church. All laws then should seek to promote unity, order, and the common good. But I would stress here that liturgical law is a unique kind of law.

[52:39]

And so its interpretation must be rather different in some respects from that of other disciplinary laws. And the difference stems from the uniqueness of the liturgy itself. Liturgy speaks the language of symbol and mystery. A language involving dimensions that go beyond the proper realm of law. It's a living and dynamic thing, and its fundamental elements require fresh and creative expressions according to the varying cultures and particular needs of local churches. Thus, not only must liturgical law seek to protect the foundational elements of the liturgy, it must also facilitate the fruitful experience and celebration of liturgical rites by the people themselves.

[53:41]

In short, liturgical law must be pastorally oriented. meant to enhance the spiritual and pastoral good of the worshipping community by promoting effective celebrations of the Paschal Mystery. Then quickly to come to a conclusion. The Eastern Catholic Churches have very long been comfortable with the assertion that acceptance by the community is a requisite for the reasonableness and hence the authority of a church law. In other words, a law may be so far removed from the goal it intends to achieve and so foreign to the experiences and cultural situations of the community

[54:44]

that it can in no way function as an effective law for this community. I think experience teaches all of us that what might be ideal in theory is not necessarily ideal in practice. Accommodation, adaptation, and compromise often must find a place in the prudent management of church affairs. In the application of liturgical laws, these principles are in keeping with the mediaeval axiom that sacraments are for people, sacramentos sanctor homines. People don't exist for the sacraments. People don't exist for the liturgy. The church is likewise for the people.

[55:46]

People don't exist for the church. For example, in communities that are seeking men to be responsible and committed to efforts to assure justice for women and minorities in the church, The use of sexist or exclusive language in the liturgy is often both irritating and alienating. And in some instances, as we know, it arouses deep hostility. But sometimes the bias against women is built into the vernacular translations of texts, but not found in the original language. And that, by the way, is precisely what happened in the English translation of the Catholic Catechism, where the English text is much more exclusive than the French original. But what I said then, it follows, I hope, that adequate formation must be given to leaders of prayer and other ministers

[57:02]

so they might be able to serve the community of faith well. A responsible approach to liturgy and law is never fostered by an anxious, suspicious, fearful, or rigid attitude that inhibits both the true and fruitful development of Christian faith. A mature attitude is dependent on excellence in liturgical leadership, planning, and celebration of the Catholic rites. It's never fostered by untrained amateurs whose inept and haphazard efforts tend to distort the Christian mysteries and endanger the honest renewal of our Christian faith. Efforts to initiate the faithful into the meaning of the Church's liberty must be given priority so that their participation will be enlightened and the mystery of Christ interiorized in their very hearts.

[58:12]

In other words, the most profound change has to be that of the heart, which takes place through the power of the Spirit who comes to us in the celebration of the liturgy as well as in other ways. And in formulating and applying laws to the liturgy, I think the final canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law should probably be the primary principle of interpretation. Solis animorum est suprema flex. The salvation of souls is the primary law. Thank you very much. I obviously don't have a monopoly on this experience.

[59:16]

You've got lots of experience, but maybe you'd like to respond, to share ideas with one another. Take a little time to think. I wonder as to whether there's a certain amount of reactionism. You know, you have Clooney, and then you have the Trappists, and Mr. Sturgeon's reaction to the excessiveness of Clooney. I don't know what the reactions are right now. Oh, there are lots of them. As I said, I'm a really popular Protestant, and if I'm not right counsel, Counsel Trent was actually a reaction, an overreaction, to Protestants. He said, oh, you're going to say that? Well, we're going to go this way, we're going to go further this way. So I'm wondering if maybe what you're talking about Now, which was probably 20 years ago, the reaction to some of the Peter, Paul, and Mary we had in the 70s, I don't know that anybody knows who Peter, Paul, and Mary are today.

[60:25]

Or even on the tip of my tongue. I used to say that this morning in the hallway. But anyway, we have a penchant for correcting imbalances with other imbalances. we have attention. And after every major reform or renewal period in the church, there tend to be these reactions. We're obviously in the midst of one now. I find personally great consolation in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that has a few problems today. And what it calls for, it seems to me, as I tried to point out in the lecture, is intelligent formation. I haven't taught undergrads for a long, long time, but people at St.

[61:30]

John's who do teach undergrads, and I would find it even with initiating graduate students, they know little or nothing about history. Little or nothing about history. You know, for them, life began in 1980. Well, there we are, there we are. And so, they've never experienced Latin, they've never experienced Gregorian chant. You know, so it's interesting. I mean, I've had grad students say, oh, we listen to that in the same way as we'd like to listen to background music, you see, when we're studying or going to the paper. So on our part, I think it requires lots and lots of patience, lots and lots of countenances. People aren't getting that.

[62:33]

We don't really know how effectively, I think, to educate other adults. You know, and you ask people, well, in the parish, we have Wednesday night, and we have Thursday night, and we have Friday night, and then what do you get? Oh, I have to take the kids to basketball, or ballet lessons, or this or that. Parish are both working now. We have an extraordinarily complicated culture. So we're still struggling, it seems to me, to work our way through the One Father. Although I worked, of course, the International Catholic Outreach, I've been to 800 different parishes in the United States. And my experience is so much of the Translator's personality has so much to do with the liturgy. I've been to places where the priest, personally, hardly comes out at all. He simply celebrates and maybe during reading of the announcements, you know, it comes out. But it's very, you know, down the fact.

[63:38]

And I've been to other places where, you know, his personality is just all over the place. I would say the trick is, how does one become a twin spirit? Do I get in the road of the symbols of the ritual? Or am I drawing people to the Lord Jesus Christ through the power? That's the ditch. And so I think it requires then, not only in the part of the presider, but the lector, the cantor. I mean, is it a performance? Oh, I have a chance now to sing the responsorial. How do I dress? when I have these roles to draw attention to myself. That's a major problem. One sister, nice and loud, don't be in a hurry.

[64:40]

There are so many groups from other cultures and the language is so difficult. I know churches where people are trying to be loving and kind to their pastor. But they don't understand the holy norm part of our liturgy. That's a very difficult... You know, at St. John's we only have monastic seminarians, but we have a very fine group of lay master students, and they're very international. And we have taken at St. John's quite a few Chinese seminarians, you know, the Maryknoll brings them to this country, we provide them with the scholarship and all we say forth and so on. But what occurs to me over the years, I have probably taught them for 10 years now, their worldview is totally different from our worldview in the West. Totally worldview.

[65:44]

And yet we have migrations from Vietnam, from Korea, from Japan, from China, and we expect apart from those that are coming from Latin America now, or from Africa. And we expect America once again to be the great melting pot. They don't want to be melted. They don't want to be melted. It's a major, major problem. And what have we insisted in this country? Unlike the English and the, well, we're again in an extraordinary, I mean, you go to a city like London, you don't know what country you're in. I mean, the cultural diversity is extraordinary. But in this country, this very large country, we expect everybody to be right in line with the same principles and the same practices. It's unrealistic. But it's unfair, too.

[66:50]

My parents went to a church I called the Friendly Ice Cream Pong. The what? The Friendly Ice Cream Pong. And since I like the Friendly Ice Cream Pong, the colonial style, you can see 2,000 people. And you have a man up there speaking in a very strong Indian accent from India. And my parents and my nieces and nephews, they're like, you're strangling the church. I don't think it's the solution to be importing. What I would say, I mean, I would ask the hard question in terms of the Holy See. Is the Eucharist less important than a married clergy or which is more important for the Catholic Church? I didn't get the answer. I know you didn't get the answer.

[67:51]

But I did want to ask you, as well as the language difficulty and the cultural, the thing we have experienced more than once is the regression I feel very much at home as a pre-Vatican one Catholic when we're being addressed by priests from other lands and some of whom are from Europe as well. It must be very confusing. For them as well as for the people in the pews. It's just becoming more and more probable. This is just a risk, but I suggest this, I suspect this is much more common in the Midwest where I come from. The shortage of clergy I think is more astute there than it is on the East Coast at the present time.

[68:56]

We're touching on that. My sister. Father, I just came from two weeks in Arkansas and I've been doing that every year for 18 years now. And the So I'm really acquainted with the situation of especially African priests. But my friend, there are several parishes where I attended Mass, and this is over the years since they started having an assistant, and none of them have yet been pastor at the parishes I've been at. But the Mass itself is very transparent of the Lord and well done, but the sermon is the pits, often, because you can't, I mean, I have some understanding, especially of an English accent, like Nairobi, but even the content, I heard them kind of excoriate the people in the pews the way they would to an African one.

[70:00]

But the mass itself is transparent of the Lord, they celebrated beautifully, and with a kind of relaxation, It's very legalistic, you know, how about losing, etc. And even when they read, it's clear. But when they speak off the cuffs, what is needed, I think, is simply nobody celebrates the Eucharist with a homily until they have intensive English training. Because it is not nourishing that the homily, especially, is the big, big sufferer. And when are the bishops going to insist that these priests they bring in, and rightly so, they need them, simply learn a good way to speak English. And the content that an American audience needs to hear, which is not all the bad stuff. I suspect that Christians feel so desperate to go to bodies.

[71:01]

But they could have classes, mandatory classes for these people. It doesn't seem like they are, just in the language. So the liturgy itself, I'm very upset. It's not only the homily that we need to hear, we need to hear a very effective proclamation of the Eucharistic prayer and of all the rest. So it's very difficult, isn't it, to universalize. Well, Martin, at one time the liturgical renewal, it seems to me, played a very important part in ecumenical the building of ecumenical relationships and obviously, as you say, there's other problems, but what are the implications, the way you're describing things right now, for that kind of dialogue. There's other things that have contributed to a sort of stagnation, but speaking personally, the hopes that I saw, and I think others, in liturgy being part of that, are trained together.

[72:12]

Anyway. Well, what is interesting, you know, I don't know how much you know about the proposed translations that are coming forth, probably by about the year 2010, We'll be back of consubstantial with the Father, we'll be back incarnate of the Word. You know, we don't talk that way. But I'm in close contact with, for example, with the English scene and the Scottish scene and the Welsh scene and the Irish scene. And apart from the English, who are playing a dominant role in the kind of English that we're going to use, the others will say, we don't talk that way either. For example, I got the other day from my local bishop, who's excellent, but he sent me 700 pages and asked me if I could comment on them by the 1st of May. Well, I went to a couple just to see what the style was.

[73:20]

The opening prayer was always translated as a periodic sentence. One sentence. For example, in the prayer for baptismal water, it contains 54 words and is 11 lines long. One sentence. You know, because Liturgium Authenticum has insisted that we need a literal translation. Now to go back to Martin's observation, I come from the Mississippi, where there is an enormously large Lutheran seminary in St. Paul. They are very divided over the new ELCA book of literature. It's the same way, you know, I've done lots of work.

[74:24]

I belong to the English congregation originally, so I've done lots of work in England, the same kind of divisions there as you would know, you know. So that's what I meant when I said, you know, thank God we Roman Catholics don't have the monopoly on the problems that people are. If that's any consolation, I don't think it really is. So, I mean, the faculty down at St. Luther's Seminary is very divided. It naturally has an extraordinary influence. You know, they're talking about, oh, we kicked out all those pagan practices that the Catholics do, like the Easter vigil. Oh, it's extraordinary. One last point. I went to St. Joseph's Seminary in New York, and I wanted to go to the Religious Studies program. I had some reference in math and theology, and I thought that would make it worth it. And so as a part of that, I had to go to the dean for an interview.

[75:27]

And he said, well, you know, we may not be able to credit your courses from the Catholic University of America, these sorts of provisions. In fact, you know, and I had done some Google research, and I happened to know that St. Joseph's Seminary actually has some problems with accreditation, because they threw out... Megan came in and said, you, you, you, out. So now I go for my literature, for my study of scripture, to Professor Gibney, who is 80 years old, and he tells us that all this data is good. And he loves me because I work for the Wall Street Journal. And it's like, and I had to explain to him, well, you know, editorial is different from news. It is? Yeah. It's just, and so anyway, what I'm trying to say is, there's a new sort. Okay, we have the gay sort, but we also have the sort where you're either conservative or you're African. And so then when all these arch-conservative priests come to the parishes, who've had 30, 40 years,

[76:33]

of post-Vatican II, and now we're going back to, you know, I'm a priest, I'm separated, I'm better than you. It's like... I think that the sad thing is that... I'm not sure how to say this... I think the Vatican II documents laid out very clearly the major significance of the sacrament of baptism. And in that sacrament, we are all basically people. And that means then we're invited to move away from the paranormal understanding of church, where the ordained are at the top, and to become channels of grace for everybody who's kind of down at the bottom. Now, unfortunately, because of the scarcity of priests, I think, the documents that have come forth, for example, the 1997 document that was signed by eight diocestaries in Rome, telling lay people what they could not do in the liturgy, what happens then is that

[78:00]

Young seminaries that I have association with see themselves once again as channels of grace for everybody else. Instead of understanding a Pauline concept, Basically, through baptism, we are all gifted in a great variety of ways. I have no problem whatsoever with Vatican II's teaching that the Church, by divine institution, is both hierarchical and charismatic. But we need to reinterpret that term, hierarchical. It comes from the two Greek words hieros and arche, holy order. So we need order in a community. And so the person who is ordained, his primary responsibility is, I think, to facilitate the implementation of the diverse gifts in the community to provide leadership in that way. I mean, I'm teaching all these lay ecclesial ministers.

[79:09]

They're extraordinarily gifted and very committed people. You know, but then you ask them, do you have insurance when you get into this job? Do you have tenure? Well, this is what you get all the time, you see. We preach justice, but do we practice it now with these ladies, these young men and women? And if we got rid of them in this church, especially the women, the Roman Catholic Church would utterly collapse. Anything else? What happens to the diaconate? There will be no push over development of that? I mean, I've seen it in a couple of parishes in New Jersey and it looked like it was going to be good, but what happens? There are mixed reactions to the primitive diaconate.

[80:14]

Some national hierarchies have been very reluctant to implement the permanent diaconate. And it causes a lot of confusion. For example, in my dioceses, candidates for the permanent diaconate must take a master's degree in pastoral theology, just like lay ecclesial ministers. Because what's happening, lay ecclesial ministers get into a parish with a definitive degree The deacon has kind of weekend courses now and then. So it sets up an extraordinary competitive sort of situation. So that he doesn't know who he is, you see. And the pastor doesn't want it anyway. It's simply a fact. It's simply a fact. I would say what happened is that we implemented or we approved the restoration of the permanent diaconate without ever thinking adequately of their theological identity.

[81:32]

Now there is some very good work being done on that recently. Paul Estres, for example, has published a number of books on this. Richard Golardy, the lay theologian, has done excellent work on this. The deacon, by nature, is supposed to be an assistant to the bishop, not to the priest, and not to the parish. So he goes wherever his gifts take him. Now I've had some very fine people trained, for example, in law, in medicine, Well, I would hope that once they're ordained, then they may have something to do with a hospital if they're a doctor. Or if they're a lawyer, it might have something to do with Catholic charities, you know, and legal rights and support for the poor. rather than simply say, well, he's ordained now to be a cultic figure in the parish. Went further. My experience is that the firm of the activists is flourishing.

[82:36]

Oh, there's no doubt. And of course that they require, sometimes it requires five or six years now, theological training. It has improved. It has improved. My theory is that we're going to another two distinct vocations. I really think we're going to begin ordaining permanent deacons to the priesthood. God will. Then it's no longer permanent, it's transitional. People have raised the question, could we retain even transitional deacon in the church? Because I've been to places where deacons are running the parish. I mean, it was a rectory and the hemorrhages were done on the weekend. It was all like that. So why couldn't we, what we used to, in the old days, call a game of simplex, you know. You know, the sad thing in that regard, of permanent deacons running parishes, for example, in one of the diocese neighboring meeting, Bishop Lucker happened to be the bishop, you know, who was very progressive. He had Highly trained sisters, basically managing parishes.

[83:41]

The new bishop came in, they were all out, and then permanent deacons appointed in their place. What does that say to women? When does that say who wins? I don't know if Bishop will refuse. Cardinal Deacon could be said to be a resource that they could put in for the lady, and they could all do so much that the Cardinal Deacon could do, and he thought that was the better use of his resource. See, I think in response to your concern, though, there's enormous ambiguity about all this. And certainly from country to country, the theological requirements vary considerably. There's a whole certification process now in this country whereby people who I don't like to say this, jump to all the right hoops, for example, get an MDiv degree or a master's and then have experience and certification.

[84:44]

There are regular criteria. The national hierarchy has, in this country, has set it up with a project called co-workers in the vineyard. And so they are lay people who are trained now who are doing a great variety of ministers in parishes throughout the country or in dioceses. Like what? We have a Christian formation. That's right. They're often they're often faith formation people responsible for The sick in the parish and so forth. Nurses, for example, are sometimes trained to this level. But they're so underpaid. That's a fact. Yes, underpaid. And they're having the education from the home shop. Often their husband brings in the major salary while they're allowed to do their thing.

[85:48]

It's unfair. Do anything else. You've sat for a long time. Thank you very much.

[85:55]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ