I would say that it is not actually reversed until it is approved by the Holy Father as a binding interpretation of the law. Or until the Legislator amends the canon. The DDW is acting outside of its competency here. Now JD Flynn wasn’t sure of that, exactly, but the burden is on Roche to explain why the canon on authentic interpretation of the law doesn’t apply.
I do not think that the explanation that the DLT failed to consult Roche et al. suffices. Maybe they did. Or Roche et al. weren’t consulted because they would give this answer and the canonists knew that.
What is interesting is the claim that Roche consulted the other (relevant) dicastery. One assumes that this is a tacit agreement and that they will let this stand as an authentic interpretation. Regardless, the lawgiver has left us in a bad spot, and the pope needs to get it together.
Go read can. 16 and tell me where the pope delegated this to the DDW.
The assertion that the DDW is acting *outside* of its competency here is...interesting, but not persuasive. (And, in case of doubt, there is no grave obligation.)
"Go read can. 16 and tell me where the pope delegated this to the DDW."
Paragraph 6 of the Note explains DDW's claim of jurisdiction (and therefore competence) over the subject matter, not only now but in the past - merely asserting it lacks the competence doesn't address that claim. (A different question concerns if each of the dicasteries in question has concurrent jurisdiction, which dicastery and what form of response takes precedence; not that the DDW is outside its jurisdiction here, but in this instance the Note claims the two dicasteries have now been in mutual consultation concerning this resolution of the question; the DLT had copied the DDW on its September letter to Bp Paprocki in response to his initial question, which would at least imply the DLT thought the DDW had a role here.)
No comment on the DDW competency, but this reminded me of one of an old professor, an elderly and very-sharp (and quite well-known in his field) Roman canonist. He often claimed that the CDW would ignore canonical niceties when issuing its decisions, which miffed him since (at that time anyway) they had trained canonists on their staff.
One of his favourite examples was Redemptionis Sacramentum which he used to say was pretending to make liturgical laws, when it was only an instruction supposed to clarify laws. Another was a response to a dubium regarding the adding of water to the wine in the chalice - the CDW had said adding water to the main chalice was sufficient which (this canonist claimed) went against the strict reading of CIC 924. He would direct all those preparing for ordination to pour the water into each chalice!
The obligation to attend mass on holy days of obligation is found in canon law, not liturgical law. Thus the interpretation of that canon is properly an interpretation of canon law, not liturgical law. The exclusive authority to interpret canon law belongs to the Pope and the Dicastery for Legislative Texts.
Now, Divine Worship has similar authority regarding liturgical law. Which feast day takes precedence over another, etc. When does the liturgical day begin and end (which may not be the same as when a canonical day begins or ends).
At this point we have an authentic interpretation of canon law that says one thing.
We have an authentic interpretation of liturgical law that says the opposite thing.
De jure, it is pretty clear that this is a canonical matter before it is a liturgical matter.
De facto, this is a turf war / Vatican politics thing (with a tie in to US episcopal politics), and Divine Worship almost certainly intervened in the way it did knowing it had the political backing both inside the walls and outside the walls to get away with it. So, this declaration from Divine Worship will stand as the de facto last word, even though in theory it shouldn’t hold any authority over canonical interpretation at all.
Meanwhile, a matter that is totally in the competence of Divine Worship, namely the divergence in national interpretation and application of the table of liturgical days as regards the Immaculate Conception, on this Divine Worship remains silent. Italy has always interpreted Immaculate Conception as trumping the Sunday of Advent, and did so again this past year. The Pope himself observed Immaculate Conception on the Sunday. Thus the universal liturgical norms of the Roman Rite are abrogated even in Rome itself, with not a word of comment from the competent Dicastery. In the USA Immaculate Conception ranks higher than it does in Italy, so if in Italy it trumps the Sunday, it certainly should in the US.
Roche, by the way, has created a new hypothetical problem that I suppose no one thought of. Let us say hypothetically in some 3rd world country a holy day of obligation coincides with some other local matter in a particularly problematic way, and so the bishops conferences writes to Rome and asks to change their particular calendar to move that feast to a different day. Great, they have moved the liturgical observance, but by the Roche interpretation the canonical obligation to attend mass remains instead on the original date and did not move with the feast, which would have been the entire point in moving it in the first place.
Theologically this is all a bit dodgy, too. Are these mysteries of the faith actually sufficiently important to go to the trouble of binding everyone to observe every year if they are also so easily set aside? You burn in hell for eternity for the mortal sin of skipping Immaculate Conception one year, but then the next year you can freely skip it because the obligation doesn’t transfer with the observance? Does anyone really want to defend that?
Thank you for that argument, which is a stab at addressing the co-existing jurisdictions of the two dicasteries, though its argued resolution is beyond any of us here to enforce!
On December 8th, finding mid-60s year-old self once again being in the roughly youngest 10% of a congregation at one of the relatively scarce Masses for holydays of obligation locally (not in my home town, but an adjacent town – finding out when Masses were going to be scheduled was often a last-minute thing depending on the parish), I could not help but wonder about what Bp Paprocki intended to achieve with his letter to the DLT.
I can imagine that there was little concern that laity caught unaware by the change would be responsible for a serious sin of failing to assist at Mass today for lack of knowledge and intent. But there is a growing disconnect – perhaps inadvertently illustrated by the decision to submit the letter – between our shepherds who make and enforce ecclesiastical legislation and the pastors who implement the same on the one hand, and the laity on the other hand.
The world (even the world of the Church) only spins forward, and the world of those Good Old Days won’t be resurrected or revived by resurrecting or reviving more obligations of precept. In the Good Old Days, we had many parochial priests (and many religious, particularly armies of women religious performing many duties of parochial service for notional stipends paid to their respective orders). Today, however, pastors schedule fewer and fewer Masses for holydays of obligation other than Christmas: in part, because of greatly reduced forces and greatly expanded logistical challenges, and in part because of dramatically declining attendance by laity. It's become a vicious circle.
Yet, it appears there is another important reason for this chasm: the clear failure of too many bishops and pastors to take seriously what it means to lay new obligations of precept upon laity, because if bishops and pastors did take it more seriously, bishops would be openly discussing (and not merely intramurally) the need and obligation for pastors to be extremely generous in scheduling Masses for holydays and for approving trination (and beyond, yes) of Masses for pastors and their curates/vicars. Instead, the silence is deafening compared to the loud confusion over the recent holyday confusion. Who does this silence serve? It should not be acceptable for law to be made and molded without proper consideration of the realities on the ground and for the daily lives of the faithful. I fail to see how this failure does honor to our Lady Immaculate or to our Lord. (Mind you, it’s not like the Catholic people of the United States of America have ever sustained a widespread civic culture of celebration of our Lady under her titular patronage of the kind that people in deeply old Catholic nations have for their patrons; one might well wonder in that context whether the patronage of our Lady Immaculate is, to that extent, more aspirational than real – one need only compare the deep cultural celebrations of La Guadalupana among Mexican-Americans three days after that holy day.) Somehow, the Eastern Churches manage to do without this extra juridical layer to their liturgical observances.
Perhaps the bishops should ask, and invite pastors to ask, themselves: should we create occasions of sin by our abstract consideration of law without considering the context on the ground in parishes?
I address the claim in a way I find sufficient and you dismissed it out of hand, Liam. Stephen goes on at length but here’s the thing: there are things that just are. One of those is this basic competency problem.
Stephen's comment tried to make something of an argument concerning the role of the DDW while your comment dismissed such a role completely; it's not clear to me that Stephen's argument is how Rome views it, but it at least tries to look at the reality of coexisting curial competencies. That's the reason for the different response on my part.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
