In the Bollettino today you will find a document, a “Note”, from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith … I’m still not used to that “dicastery” thing… why?… just, why? The Note concerns validity of the sacraments.
Before you panic, it doesn’t thrown matter and form out the door or say overly weird things (as it lately has done about blessings). In fact, it addresses the problem of priests throwing matter and form out the window in favor of their own creativity. It says that such changes “merita una pena esemplare… merits exemplary punishment” because doing so harms the faithful People of God.
Think about the harm a priest does over years of jacking around the form of baptism with his own amazing insights and alterations. Or a priest who so changes the form of absolution that he hasn’t validly absolved for who know how long.
I don’t think there is an English translation yet, but there will be very soon, I imagine.
Of course the document has a Latin name, “Gestis verbisque” but there is no Latin text in sight. Why? Just, why? Why can’t they get their act together and do this right, and in the right order? WHY?
I haven’t read the whole thing yet in Italian. A scan suggests that it isn’t dreadful. It’s longish and heavily footnoted.
Loading ...
FrZ:
I’m curious, who is typically expected to read and digest these types of communiques? Chancery bureaucrats? Bishops? Parish priests? Do they then release summaries for how it will affect diocesan policy?
“Of course the document has a Latin name, “Gestis verbisque” but there is no Latin text in sight. Why? Just, why? Why can’t they get their act together and do this right, and in the right order? WHY?”
Perhaps the next document will be entitled “Lorem Ipsum.”
But seriously, I think it’s because none of them know Latin very well, and they’ve alienated all the people who do… but in order to confer the air of solemnity required to be taken seriously, they still need to publish the documents under a Latin title.
Or, less seriously, perhaps they try to use Latin, but it refuses, and so flees from them, and they are left to babble on interminably in the vernacular. Poor Italian. You deserve better.
[Lorem ipsum…]
Exemplary… does that indicate something specific, or will some decide that a private slap on the wrist is sufficient?
Purely based on your commentary on the document it made me wonder if it could be used as a back door to abrogate traditional rites? Punish the “new” novelties, yes, but also punish any unapproved Priests from using the de facto abrogated traditional rites. In the three dioceses we frequent it’s become difficult or impossible to get anything other than “some” traditional Masses. Traditional rite everything else is banned or heavily ghettoed.
“Both matter and form, summarized in the Code of Canon Law, are established in the liturgical books promulgated by the competent authority, which must therefore be faithfully observed, without ‘adding, removing or changing anything”. So I expect the next Vatican document to clarify that liturgical books promulgated prior to c. 1969 are no longer the legitimate “form” and therefore any sacrament celebrated via an earlier liturgical book (e.g. the TLM) is not only illicit but also utterly invalid.
Something out of Rome that isn’t “dreadful.” High praise for the bunch running the show now.
Pingback: SATVRDAY EVENING EDITION • BigPulpit.com
Lorem Ipsum. That was witty.
So instead of Latin, the Universal Church publishes in what is probably one of the least common languages spoken worldwide – Italian. I mean you might as well publish in Finnish or Estonian. I have nothing against Italian it is a beautiful language but who speaks it outside of Italy, part of Switzerland, and the North End of Boston ?
christopherschaefer: “therefore any sacrament celebrated via an earlier liturgical book (e.g. the TLM) is not only illicit but also utterly invalid”.
As far as I know (not any great distance) it may be declared “illicit”, in the sense of not conforming to current “leges”, but “invalid”? I don’t think so. As Summorum Pontificum confirmed, the former Rite was never abrogated, and cannot be – whatever the fantasies of the current junta.
For some people around here, the words “form” and “matter” (together with their older sister “substance”) are viruses that transmit the virus of Thomism, or even worse, Aristotelianism, which are the cause of almost all the problems of the Church in the last three thousand years, or more.
Redemptionis Sacramentum 2: The Implicit Incipit
Aside from the trivial observation that “Gestis Verbisque” really is a title (a decent enough one, I think), rather than an actual incipit, I’m intriqued by the fact that this document is coming from the DDF rather than the DDW.
iamlucky13 says: DDF rather than the DDW
It is from the DDF because it deals with validity of sacraments. DDW deals with their celebration. So, if it is a matter of how a rite is organized, etc., that’s DDW. If it concerns the validity of a specific celebration of a sacrament, not just a liturgical abuse (unless that abuse also concerns validity) then it goes to the DDF.
Thank you Father. I appreciate the clarification about the roles of each congregation/dicastery with respect to this topic.
I admit, I had been tempted to post more overt speculation that perhaps the DDF was stepping up if the DDW was being less than enthusiastic in addressing certain liturgical matters. That temptation was founded on hasty presumption on my part, based on my impression of the priorities of the current prefect of the DDW.
I’m still not used to that “dicastery” thing… why?… just, why?
Why? Because:
1. That’s what small minds do: they can’t manage substance, so they play at changing externals and appearances. Nobody tells them that doing so is a waste of time and effort, because the people who know it’s a waste of effort don’t want the jackals even attempting to work on substance. It is the fall-back “activity” of bureaucrats around the world.
2. It’s a standard parlor trick of Satan’s forces: you keep changing the terms under which everything stands, and eventually thinking people stop trying to play the game and go home. The only people left on the field are morons who think what they are told to think, like good little children.
3. It’s part of modernism: if you change the language people use, you change how they think. Of course, nobody bothered to enlighten the bureaucrats that this particular change in language doesn’t actually help change the language or move the philosophical system a few inches leftwards, (see #1), but it’s still unsettling and that helps with #2, which is why the people (strike that: the persons) actually pushing the heavy decisions don’t mind the bureaucrats tinkering down below to their hearts’ content.
The funny thing is how hilariously and transparently goofy the claimed reason for the change was. Surprised anyone could assert it with a straight face, but that’s the bureaucratic mind for you: it’s not funny! (Best said by an enraged karen, but if you don’t have one ready to hand, a KGB-trained TC-toting jesuit will do.)
Lorem Ipsum…love it. Don’t know how many times I have used that text to fill in a spec document for comment.
One can not help but wonder if the last (how many, Lord?) decades of incessant tinkeritis with everything in the Church has brought us to this. Can not help but wonder when they will get around to debating what the meaning of the word “is” is.
If they ever do produce a “Lorem ipsum” document, I have a chant version ready to go.
I read somewhere that the DDF is working on a document on human dignity. Given the recent output from the Office Formerly Known as Holy, I thought maybe the forthcoming work should be titled “Dignitas, semper dignitas.”
@Ipsitilla
“Dignitas, semper dignitas.”
LOL!
“I’m still not used to that “dicastery” thing… why?… just, why?”
I don’t get it either. Pope Francis repeatedly says he has a distaste for legalism, yet he comes up with this kind of legalistic terminology. I like the old word congregation and its meaning (gathering) much better. Pope Francis saying one thing and doing the opposite, what else is new?