I'm not much of an introduction to people, but the particular topic of law and worship is really a difficult mix. It's like Bill and Obama. You're saying something about it, but it's still... We need some structure for some worship. We also need some flexibility or local significance. It's not easy to do in a difficult time and moment of the church. The worst thing we can do is get on sides, so to speak. As you know, This Paul is thick. He used the term dialogue.

[01:02]

It had a very specific meaning. It doesn't mean just to talk to each other. It means to try to understand each other and use a viewpoint in order to come at you. So it's a question of listening and responding with respect. And a lot of worship have that element that we can only do the spontaneity and we can only do it. Somebody suggested that I could have created a jazzier title for the talk, you see. And so I thought yesterday, maybe I could have finaled it. The liturgical police are going to get you.

[02:09]

Thank you very much for coming with us. A lovely afternoon. You should be out enjoying it. It's nice to have you here. In the Vatican II's Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy is 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 that 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 in worship, 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 speak in a legalistic mentality, give a very strict juridical interpretation where it leads to norms. And failing to understand the constructive nature of church law, still others manifest only contempt for practical norms in an exaggerated effort to counteract legalism.

[05:27]

In other words, they're simply antinomian. Our Christian theology is 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 Weigl, the distinguished musician, has reported to have 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 canon 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 that 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 who 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 to Fifth did in fact manifest a concern for the interior transformation of the faithful through the church's liturgy.

[07:43]

He stressed in fact that the congregation was established to put into effect and promote the theological and liturgical reforms that were an outgrowth of the Council of Trent. But due to the strong influence of nominalism which prevailed among the fathers of Trent, an intelligent, meaningful celebration of the liturgy tended to give way to a concern vainly for the validity of the sacraments. In no way, though, that 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 performers and clarifying then the minimum requirements for the validity of the seven sacraments.

[08:46]

However, in the centuries following Trent, the rubrics governing the liturgical rites came to be interpreted simply as very rigid norms for 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. Certainly, contemporary liturgical theologians have rediscovered the fundamental theological nature of the church and the church of worship. Consequently, the emphasis in recent decades has not been only on the validity of the sacraments,

[09:48]

but also and above all on the meaningful celebration of the Paschal 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 to 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, people understand the true nature of liturgical law as a complex system of practical norms ordering the rituals in and through which people are sanctified and in turn worship God.

[10:53]

Shortly then, they will admit that the canonical study of the liturgy is important. But I would stress here, ministers blindly follow the ritual directors in the Reformed liturgical works. 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 theology. canonical action should proceed from sound theology. The church is the living body of Christ, yet worship is the worship of Christ, who sanctifies the memory of his body and leads them back to the Father in the outpouring of the Spirit.

[12:07]

As I mentioned this morning in the homily, it must be remembered that the Spirit was not given once and for all at pending costs, but is continually being poured out on all of God's people. Hence, in order that the new inspirations of 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 may be assimilated to what is already good in the church's life.

[13:13]

Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Duty establishes the principle of historical relevance. The document concedes that the people of God in a 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 conferences, 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.

[15:28]

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.

[16:31]

Or, for example, the introduction of liturgical dance and gestures at various appropriate times in the course of the literature. Consciences have been well formed, and sound biological awareness has been deepened. It's best that the 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 to 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

[17:34]

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 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. Certainly, 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, for a plurality of forms in liturgical worship. Extensive power, as a matter of fact, was transferred

[18:36]

from the Holy See and placed in the hands then of National Episcopants, 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. 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 reform measures embodied in the revised 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.

[19:44]

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, anti-law, or frivolously iconoclastic. These issues, however, must be confronted along with the complicated question on how to maintain fidelity to clearly established norms while being pastorally responsible. That challenge, you know, was underlined in Article 11 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

[20:47]

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 thoughtful celebrations are observed. They must also ensure that the faithful take part, fully aware of what they're doing, actively engaged in the right, and the bubble enriched by it. 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.

[21:48]

No longer may ministers feel that they've done their duty if they have carried out the norms in 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. That presupposes an understanding of both the theological and aesthetic dimensions of the liberty. Without undermining liturgical discipline, ministers may and should explore opportunities for creativity within the liturgical celebrations themselves.

[22:52]

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 Missile Journal. Interestingly, the bishops did not issue an English translation of the 2002 General Instruction until April 2005. 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 interpretation

[23:58]

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, the American bishops have done, throughout the two countries of England and Wales, those bishops allow for a variety of possibilities and for global variations in their commentary. This is what they said. 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 casual be worn over the stole, as indicated in the general instruction in number 337.

[25:13]

The bishops, for example, were aware that many parishes in this community 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 the abbot with L and stole, is the proper vestment of the presiding priest. 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.

[26:23]

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 at the cross. Sometimes without representation. representation of the person of the Lord, but simply with the plain cross. You see, celebrating the Mass I think is an excellent example of liturgical law that is flexible, pastoral, and creative. You know, in the early centuries of the Church, the bishops were responsible for the liturgy in their diocese, not the Bishop of Rome.

[27:25]

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. Gradually, however, ecumenical councils began to assert authority over local liturgy. And furthermore, the gradual increase in table authority was joined with the increase in the prestige of Roman practices, resulting in a more uniform practice of liturgy in the West.

[28:28]

In the eighth and ninth century, 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 continued to take responsibility for the liturgy in their respective dioceses. Charlemagne, who died in 814, asked Pope Adrian to send him a purely Roman sacramentary. That text was placed in the royal palace at Faulkham, and served as a model which was copied by many scribes and then diffused throughout the Keraligian 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

[29:39]

Why? Because the Roman liturgical texts were considered the work of the popes themselves, often incorrectly, including the highly respected Ricky 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 as celebrated in Rome, but also additions from the churches of the Carolingian Empire. 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. And after this, the rights of the Roman church did not change much. but were stabilized in their principal forms.

[30:42]

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-Tribentine 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 for his diocese. As a result then, the policy assumed that role for the whole Latin Church. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, only the Apostolic See could enact liturgical laws.

[31:51]

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 media of their day, Pope Pius XII, accurately then reflected the buying of the 1917 Code of Law when it clearly stated that the Supreme Pontic alone has the right to permit or establish any liturgical practice, to introduce or approve new rights, or to make any changes in them he considers necessarily.

[32:58]

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 had over the liturgy before the Council of Trent. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy gave limited authority to Episcopal Congress, which is further defined in the decree on the pastoral office of bishops in the Church, Christus Dominus. It really isn't gin.

[34:05]

Liturgical law is undoubtedly the largest body of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical law with countless universal laws in the approved liturgical books. There's a 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 of the literature. 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 liturgy.

[35:27]

Liturgical laws are subject to the same principles and 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 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 the Perdigal Law in particular.

[36:34]

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. 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.

[37:37]

Anglo-Saxon jurists, such as the 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 jurors 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, but in the adaptability of juridic principles that enable governments and other administrators to cope with current problems. 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.

[38:43]

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, Roman law is more dynamic, while Anglo-Saxon law is more static. Difficulty naturally arises for English-speaking North American 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 they are often much more rigorous than the law ever intended them to be. In other words, those influenced by 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

[39:58]

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 that hot they're all going to hell and swinging back, until I was politely told by a professor, you Americans are much more rigorous than you ought to be. And in the end of the book, especially with the way you deal with your religious nuns. Interesting point. All right, this major difference, then, between Roman law and Anglo-Saxon law must be kept in mind when discussing the various current sources of liturgical law. Vatican II's discipline regarding the competence of various authorities over the liturgy was largely incorporated in the 1983 Code of Keter Law, but diocesan bishops have limited authority over the liturgy.

[41:13]

They do have general legislative power over their diocese, however, can only make laws that are not contrary universal laws. 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 text into the vernacular and make adaptations in the liturgy that are precisely permitted by the liturgical books themselves. Now, the matter of translating liturgical texts, however, has been treated very extensively in Liturgia Mothenicum, an instruction on the use of vernacular languages in the liturgical books issued in 2001. The conferences of bishops must approve translations of liturgical texts, and for English-speaking conferences, the translations are prepared

[42:22]

by the International Commission on English in the Literary, ISIL. Once the bishops have approved the translation, however, it requires confirmation, recognition by the Holy See, before it may be used in the literature. And in addition, an international group of bishops, the Box Plara 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 but 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 full BC. 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 case. 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 the dispensation, there must be 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 would apply, for example, to matrimonial tribunals, penal laws, which lead to 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 banner 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

[45:45]

should be placed in chalices at the preparation of the gifts, rather than consecrated in a decanter on the altar. 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 Sunday until the great amen. including the Eucharistic prayer. You could dispense from them 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, mostly related to the understanding of liturgical law is the important role that custom plays in the interpretation of law.

[46:53]

Canon 27 of the 1983 code states that custom is really the best interpreter of the law. 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 perhaps the community actually observes the law. Throughout history, local customs have exercised a greater role in the development of the liberty than has can at all. Local customs, though, have varied from one diocese to another and often from one parish to another.

[48:03]

And the role of custom in the church's worship, however, was greatly diminished following the Council of Trent and the publication of the Reformed Tridentite Liturgical Oaks. 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.

[49:04]

Customs contrary to the law are those which are against the law and clearly seem to violate the spirit and letter of the law. 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 very.

[50:06]

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, 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.

[51:11]

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. 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 the 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.

[52:24]

All laws, then, should seek to promote unity, order, and the common good. But I would stress here that the liturgical law is a unique kind of law, and so its interpretation must be rather different in some respects from that on 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.

[53:26]

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. In short, liturgical law must be pastorally oriented. It's meant to enhance the spiritual and pastoral good of the worshiping 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.

[54:30]

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 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 medieval axiom that sacraments are for people people don't exist for the sacraments the church is likewise for the people people don't exist for the church for example

[55:53]

In communities that are seeking then 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. The fight 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. What I said then, it follows, I quote, that adequate formation must be given to leaders of prayer and other ministers so they might be able to serve the community of faith well.

[57:06]

A responsible approach to liturgy and law is never fostered by an anxious, suspicious, fearful, or rigid attitude. that inhibits of the true and fruitful development of Christian faith. A mature attitude is dependent on excellence in liturgical leadership, planning, and celebration of the Catholic rights. 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.

[58:14]

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. Solace animorum est suprema flex. The salvation of souls is the primary law. Thank you very much. I hope you don't have a monopoly on this experience

[59:16]

You have lost the experience, so maybe you'd like to be strong, to share ideas with one another. Give you a little time to think. I wonder if there's a certain amount of reactionism. You know, you have Clooney, and then you have the Trappist, and it's nasturtious, it has reactions. excessiveness of Putin. I don't know what the reactions are right now. Oh my God, they're excellent. That's I'm Sam from reading a popular press and I thought about my counsel. Counsel Trent was actually doing a reaction, an overreaction to Protestantism. He said, oh, you're going to say that? Well, I'm wondering as to whether maybe what you're talking about Now, which was probably 20 years ago, is a reaction to some of the Peter, Paul, and Barry we had in the 70s.

[60:22]

I don't know that anybody knows Peter, Paul, and Barry after that. We have a tension for correcting imbalances if other ignore. or give 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.

[61:23]

I haven't taught undergrads for a long, long time, but people that they join who do teach undergrads, and I would find it even with initiating graduate students, they know little or nothing about history. Does it make a difference? little or nothing about history. You know, for them, life began in 1980. Well, there we are, there we are. And so they never experienced Latin, 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, we'd like to listen to background music, you see, when we're studying or doing the paper. So on our part, I think it requires lots and lots of patience, lots and lots of pieces, but people aren't getting that.

[62:34]

We don't really know how effectively, I think, to educate other adults. You know, and you ask people, well in the parish, we get Wednesday night, we get Thursday night, and we have Friday night, and then what do you get? Oh, I have to take the kids to basketball break, or ballet lessons, or this or that. Parents are both working now. But we had an extraordinarily complicated culture. So we're still struggling, it seems to be, to work our way through this. One father, although I worked for the National Catholic Outreach, I've been to like 800 different powers in the United States. In my experience, so much of the presider's personality has so much to do with the liturgy. I've been to sites where the priest, it's not only how it comes out at all. You simply celebrate, maybe during the reading of the announcements, you know, it comes out, but it varies.

[63:36]

you know, down the facts. And I've been to other places where, you know, his personality is just all over the place. I'm going to think, the trick is, how does one become transparent? Do I get in the road of the symbols of the ritual, or am I drawing people to the Lord Jesus Christ in the power? That's the itch. And so I think it requires then, not only on 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. My sister, Another situation also, there are so many priests from other cultures, and the language is so difficult.

[64:48]

I know parish is where people are trying to be loving and kind to their character, but they don't understand the following your part of our liturgy. That's very difficult. You know, at St. John's we have 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. The very known brings them to this country. We provide them with the scholarship 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 US. Totally worldview. And yet we have the migrations from Vietnam, from Korea, from Japan, from China, and apart from those that are coming from Latin America now, or from Africa.

[66:02]

And we expect America once again to be the great melting ball. 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, were again even extraordinary. I mean, if it was 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. It's unfair, too. My parents go to a church. I call it the friendly ice cream bar. The what? The friendly ice cream bar. As I said, I had a friendly ice cream bar in a colonial style. You can see 2,000 people. And you have a man up there speaking in a very strong Indian accent on India.

[67:08]

And my parents and my nieces and nephews, they're like, you're strangling the church. I don't think it's the illusion to be importing. Well, it has to import, but you have to, you know, What I would say, I mean, I would ask the hard question in terms of the Holy See, is the Eucharist less important than the married clergy or the women ordained with the clergy? Which is more important for the Catholic Church? I know! 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.

[68:11]

I feel very much at home as a pre-Vatican I Catholic when we're being addressed by priests from other lands and some of whom are from Europe as well. And it must be very confusing. For them, as well as therefore, for the people in the pew. It's just becoming more and more probable. And of course, this is just a risk, but I suspect this is much more common in the Midwest where I come from. The shortage of clergy, I think, is more astute there It is on the east coast at the present time. We're touching them. It is. So that's the way I've got to find you soon. One sister. Well, I just came from two weeks in Arkansas, and I've been doing that every year for 18 years now. Uh-huh. And so I'm very acquainted with the situation of especially African priests.

[69:19]

But my experience, the incredible parishes where I attended mass, and this is over the years since they started having an assistant, and none of them have yet been pastors at the Parish of the Mass. But the Mass itself, it's very transparent of the board and welcome, but the sermon is the pit, often. You can't, I mean, I have some understanding, especially of an English accent like Nairobi. Yeah. Even the content, I've heard them kind of excoriate the people in the pews the way they would to react. But the message itself is transparent of the Lord. They celebrate it beautifully and with a kind of realization, not necessarily a legalistic, you know, Calvin and et cetera. And even when they read, it's clear. But when they speak off the cuff,

[70:19]

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 a big, big sufferer. And when are the bishops going to insist that these priests, they begin, 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 that nobody's doing anyway. I suspect that it feels so desperate for bodies. But because we have classes, mandatory classes for these people, it doesn't seem like they are, just in the language. But the literature itself, I look very impressed. It's only the homily that we need to hear. We need to hear a very effective proclamation of the Eucharistic prayer, of all the rest.

[71:22]

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 of the ecumenical process. is building the documental 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 one time, and I think others, in the liturgy being part of that, or praying together between women. Anyway. Well, what is interesting, you know, how much you know about the proposed translations of the comic book by about the year 2010. We'll be back with Consubstantia with the Father, we'll be back incarnate of the Word.

[72:29]

You know, we don't talk that way. And I'm in close contact, 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 thought the other day, 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 through a couple just to see what the style was. The opening prayer was always translated as a periodic sentence. One sentence. For example, in the prayer for...

[73:34]

baptismal order, it contains 54 words and it is 11 lines long. One sentence. One sentence. You know, because Liturgy of Authenticum has insisted that we need a literal translation. Now to go back to Martin's observation, I come from Minnesota, 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. 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 we core.

[74:40]

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 divisive and naturally has an extraordinary influence. You know, they're talking about, oh, we kicked up all those pagan practices that the Catholics do. I think you stirred into the forest. Sure. One last point. I went to a Joseph's seminary in New York, and I wanted to go to the religious studies program. I had some sort of short answers in theology, and I thought, well, they don't work on it. And so as a part of that, I had to go to the dean for an interview. And he said, well, you know, we may not be able to credit your courses from the Catholic University of America because of your proficiency. And in fact, you know, and I had done some Google research, and I had to know that St.

[75:42]

Joseph's Seminary actually has some problems with interpretation because they threw out. Negan came in and said, you threw you out. She said, now I go for my studying scripture. uh... to professor but it would be a useful box and he tells us that all the state is good and with this and he loves me because i work for the wall street church and it's like i said that i have to explain to him what you know the editorial is yeah it's just and so you know what i'm trying to say is there's a new sort okay we have the gay sort but we also have the sort but you need to conserve them or you're So then when all these arch-conservative priests come to the parishes, go back 30, 40 years of post-Spatan II, and now we're going back to, you know, I'm the priest, I'm separated, I'm better than you.

[76:43]

It's like, I think the sad thing is that, 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 equal. And that means then we're invited to move away from the paranormal understanding of church, where the ordained are at the top, and it become channels of grace for everybody who's kind of down at the bottom. Now, unfortunately, because of the scarcity of pre-slipping, the documents that have come forward, for example, the 1997 document that was signed by eight dark estries in Rome, telling lay people what they could not do,

[77:54]

in the liturgy. What happens then is that 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 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, kiros and arche, holy order. So we need order in the community. And so the person who is ordained is primary responsibility is, I think, to facilitate the implementation of the diverse gifts in the community to provide leadership in that way.

[79:01]

I mean, I'm teaching all these lay ecclesial ministries. 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? What you get all the time? We preach justice, but do we practice it now with these ladies? And if we got rid of them in this church, especially the women, the Roman Catholic Church would utterly collapse. Anything else? What happened with the diaconate? There will be no push over the development of that. I mean, I've seen it in a couple of times, if you take the journey, it looked like it was going to be good, though.

[80:06]

What happened? There are mixed reactions to the primitive diaconate. Some national hierarchies have been very reluctant to implement the primitive diaconate. And it causes a lot of confusion. For example, in my diocese, a permanent candidate for the permanent diaconate must take a master's degree in pastoral theology, just like late ecclesial ministers. Because what's happening, late ecclesial ministers get into a parish with a 10 and 10 degree. The deacon has kind of weekend courses now and then. So it sets up an extraordinary competitive sort of situation. So the thing that we know is, and the pastor doesn't want it anyway. It's simply a plant.

[81:09]

It's simply a plant. If it was allowed to develop, 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. Now there is some very good work being done on that recently. Paulus Press, for example, had published a number of books on this. Richard Gilardi, the lay biologist, had 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 he gets taken. 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 the hospital if they're a doctor.

[82:14]

Or if they're a lawyer, it might have something to do with Catholic Charities, you know, and legal rights and so forth for the poor in the domain, rather than simply saying, well, he's ordained out to be a culty figure in the parish. One further, my experience is that the Permanent Deacutite is coercion. Oh, there's no doubt. And of course, the third choir, sometimes it's required five or six years now. theological training. It has improved under my theory in that work and the other two distinct vocations. I really think we're going to begin ordaining permanent deacon to the priesthood. God will. Then it's no longer permanent deacon. It's transitional. People have raised the question, it wouldn't really retain even transitional deaconate in the church. because I didn't place the deacons ever in Irish. I mean, oh, sure. I lived in the directory, and I'm going to use them on the weekend. So I couldn't read what we always used in the old days call it a simple actionality.

[83:20]

You know, the sad thing in that regard of Cervant and deacons running parishes, for example, in one of the diocese's neighboring nation, Bishop Lucker happened to be the bishop, who was very progressive. He had highly trained sisters basically managing parishes. The new bishop came in, they were all, and then permanent deacon's appointment in their place. But what does that say to women? What does that say to women? I know a bishop who reviewed permanent deacon could be the resource that they could put in belay the eagle, and they could all do so much that the permanent deacon could do, and he thought that was a better use of the tradition. See, I think it responds to your concern, though. There's enormous ambiguity about all this, and certainly from country to country the theological requirements vary considerably.

[84:25]

There's a whole certification process now in this country whereby people who don't like to say jump through all the right hoops, for example, get an MDiv degree or a pet master's degree, and then have experience and certification. There are regular criteria. The national hierarchy in this country has set it up with a project called Coworkers in the Vineyard. And so they are lay people who are trained now, who are doing a great variety of ministers in carriages throughout the country or in dioceses. Like what? We had Christian formation. That's right. They're often faith formation people responsible for the sick in the parish and so forth.

[85:29]

Nurses, for example, were sometimes trained to this level. But they're so underpaid. Yes, underpaid. And having the education. Often their husbands bring in the major salary while they're allowed to do their thing. It's not fair. Is there anything else? You've sat for a long time. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[86:17]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_92.73