This made me chuckle bc I can only take ironic comfort in the fact that the entire story of salvation since Cain has been stupid people doing stupid things and the Lord still came.
Woof. There is NOTHING new under the sun. 🙄 the devil is at least consistent in his unoriginality 😑
It seems like a good solution to both praying for their episcopal delegate while also respecting the rubrics for the a Eucharistic Prayers would be to have fixed prayers for her in the Prayer of the Faithful.
That’s an absurd comparison because one does not abase themselves before the man in the miter but rather before the apostolic office and lineage of succession. As evidenced by the MANY centuries of unworthy bishops, all of whose rings still deserve a kiss because the Shepherds of the Church are a gift from Christ Himself.
It’s like an ecclesial version love the sinner hate the sin 🤣
If not including lay faithful in the prayers of the Mass by name is disrespect, proper respect for the laity will subject us all to unsupportably long Masses.
And all that special seating nonsense just brings us question of whether some laity are more equal than others. Laity used to have assigned seating in churches related to their social rank. We'll just substitute in official church ranking systems for laity instead.
We respect priests and bishops because of their God-given spiritual position, not because of their administrative office or impeccability, or any kind of natural superiority or achieved superior position.
Hey Andy, I suspect you didn't mean it to come across this way, but your comment reads as if Catholic women who don't have children are somehow suspect, less holy and less valuable and needed in the Church, in a way that is incredibly painful for women who want children and do not have them
My comment doesn't read that way. When someone has four children it's a good indication she's not a pant-suit Biden Catholic carpet saleswoman who is trying to become a priestess so she has bragging rights at the next pride parade. Geez....
This situation reminds us that there's tremendous value in exploring and codifying lay ministerial roles across the entire Church. The Synod on Synodality, as well as the USCCB, have taken up questions like the proper role of catechists. Spending time clarifying the selection, formation, and liturgical norms for formally instituted acolytes and lectors might go a long way to corralling this ad-hoc experimentation.
If this particular episcopal delegate were an instituted acolyte (as envisioned, potentially, by Paul VI and granted to women by Francis), then existing rubrics would suffice. But if she's not acting as a cleric and not as minister -- then what is she, exactly, from a canonical perspective with regard to the Mass? "Episcopal delegate" is not a liturgical office that I can see, so that role has no special standing apart from the rest of the People of God.
I agree with almost all you've said, though I am not sure how her status as an acolyte would resolve the eucharistic prayer issue. maybe I'm not getting it?
If she were an acolyte, it would never have occurred to anyone to even consider mentioning her in the first place. Thus there would be no issue with the Eucharist prayer.
@Stenny is right. As an acolyte, she would have a very clear ministerial role in the Mass—one which would definitively preclude her from being mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer. As it stands, as an episcopal delegate, her role is less certain. She seems to be functioning something like a vicar forane, but she is not ordained. This is a novelty, and one for which there is no analog in the current GIRM. But if she had *any* role that was delineated in the rubrics, the opportunity for experimentation would be significantly constrained.
Doesn't the fact of not being a bishop, a canonized saint, or the Mass intention definitively preclude her from being mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer? I generally assume people experiment in these cases because they're discontent with the existing rites, not because the rites are legitimately vague.
From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, I was the chief sacristan and liturgy-commission chair for a large U.S. suburban parish. The myriad well-meaning arguments we fought about the tension between "do not add, delete, multiply, or divide anything in the sacred liturgy" vs. "encourage the active participation of the faithful" often came down to ambiguity in GIRM coupled with the -- shall we say *creative* -- interpretations of what constituted meaningful worship as shared in the theologically progressive liturgical sourcebooks that so seduced our "old guard" in the parish.
I found that direct appeals to GIRM, when the language was clear, proved successful at stopping things like "everyone wash everyone else's feet" on Holy Thursday. But direct appeals to Sacrosanctum Concilium didn't typically play well because the language was more rounded and opaque and (arguably) internally contradictory. Couple an earnest desire for "authenticity" and "meaningful and inclusive worship" with the fact that none of those LTP sourcebooks were ever really policed -- and neither was parochial worship practices, despite annual visits from the ordinary -- and you've created an environment where the Liturgy Wars proceed with skirmish after skirmish but never a decisive victory.
I think it's often better and more charitable to interpret novel liturgical deviations as coming from a well-meaning place, than to assume discontent or outright rebellion. At least, that's what I saw in my own parish and within the diocesan worship team.
Which is a very long way of coming back to my suggestion that requiring any layperson occupying a highly prominent liturgical role (like this episcopal delegate) should be formally installed as an acolyte, so the liturgical norms governing acolytes remove the ambiguity about what to do with this novel new role.
Every layperson participating in the Mass apart from the rest of the Faithful in the nave should operate under a clearly defined ministry: server, lector, usher, EMHC, &c. And if your lay liturgical role comes with any hint of authority, then formal installation into the ministries of lector or acolyte seem like a good prerequisite to ensure that those non-standard roles are governed according to SC and GIRM.
I think pastors should call that bluff and start listing TLM times in the bulletin. The memory recall in large bureaucratic organizations is so short that I'd reckon a good chance that even the DDW has more or less forgotten they put out that directive 2+ years ago. The only people who still remember this directive exists are people like us who think it's stupid to begin with and support the TLM.
These decisions, and the leaders who make them, only give more leverage to sedes, schismatics, orthobros, and the like. It's like these people are determined to make into reality, the fantastical image that radtrads paint of the "false Vatican 2 church" all for no spiritual gain - who ends up becoming Catholic because of this stuff? Who are the people still on the fence (after 60 years post-sexual-revolution, multiple waves of abuse crises, the 20-year-long New Atheism era, and increasing societal secular degradation) that sees this and thinks "ah yes, now my faith is reinvigorated"?
Let me be clear: these yahoos don't actually care about Catholicism - in fact, they hate their own Catholic Faith and Church. The only reason they stick around is because they are activists, not disciples; these stunts make them feel like brave heroic reformers and change-makers doing special and important work. If they left to join a protestant church that already fits their beliefs, they'd cease to be special - they'd be complete nobodies no different than anyone else.
For these folx, the only thing worse than being damned in eternal torment is being mundane in relative obscurity.
Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole of Belgium for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
You know, I strongly feel that there is growth to be had across the Church regarding women's roles, that we would benefit greatly from more women in positions of leadership, and that those positions of leadership cannot be clerical/presbyteral/episcopal/etc.. I am not opposed to some structural creativity, as long is it does not jeopardize or compromise the integrity of the kerygma, the Magisterial patrimony, and the truths of the faith. Honestly, having trusted voices of women at the side of each bishop probably would do much of the Church great good. But this...this is just silly. The Church's tradition and history is rich with forms and structures that can be drawn upon or taken as inspiration to foster organic, faithful, and lifegiving opportunities for the whole Church to benefit from the gifts of women in leadership. They swung the wiffleball bat here real hard, and it seems like it was a miss.
I have to admit I am surprised at this devilishly sly tactic (maybe my naïveté comes from hopeful innocence). Feminism continues to eviscerate the Body of Christ, the Church. ‘If the Synod won’t make women priests then we’ll just treat them like bishops’ I see them saying.
It's interesting that GIRM 149 in certain circumstances explicitly calls for a non-bishop (abbot) to be mentioned in the Eucharistic prayer:
The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate) (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).
The GIRM also allows an auxiliary bishop to be named, or for several auxiliaries to be mentioned as "and his assistant Bishops." In a large archdiocese divided territorially, I can understand that a local custom might develop where an auxiliary who is regional vicar is named in Masses in that region (even though this is not what the GIRM prescribes when there are multiple auxiliaries). This might be especially true in a French-speaking region of a largely Flemish archdiocese when there are linguistic tensions. If such a local custom existed, I could understand the desire to continue naming the "regional vicar" at Mass, even after an auxiliary bishop was replaced with an episcopal delegate.
Of course, there are other significant considerations, such as whether a lay person can ever be "equivalent to [the diocesan Bishop] in law" (or at least to the regional vicar). This debate over lay governance was discussed by Cardinals at the 2022 consistory: Cardinal Ghirlanda argued that the power of governance comes from canonical mission and could be delegated to laity, but several Cardinals questioned that.
Another consideration is the importance of Holy Orders in how the Church is described in the Eucharistic Prayer. Part of the rationale for the memo is the French translation of "universo clero" in Eucharistic Prayer II as "all those who are responsible for your people" (rather than the literal "all the clergy" in English). I'm certainly not defending the Brabant Walloon memo, but I think this is meaningful context.
Just.... no
UGH!!
It just kept getting worse…
Q: Why do we have to spend time fighting about stupid things that don't further the spread of the Gospel?
A: Because people continue to do stupid things to push their ideology without paying respect to the theological or liturgical implications
This made me chuckle bc I can only take ironic comfort in the fact that the entire story of salvation since Cain has been stupid people doing stupid things and the Lord still came.
Woof. There is NOTHING new under the sun. 🙄 the devil is at least consistent in his unoriginality 😑
So much for Francis's commitment to unity as seen in his assault on celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
It seems like a good solution to both praying for their episcopal delegate while also respecting the rubrics for the a Eucharistic Prayers would be to have fixed prayers for her in the Prayer of the Faithful.
Super reasonable suggestion
Yes, but then how would she feel super-duper-extra special important? When virtue-signaling, it does not do to invoke a lesser signal.
As opposed to those who expect people to literally kiss their ring?
That’s an absurd comparison because one does not abase themselves before the man in the miter but rather before the apostolic office and lineage of succession. As evidenced by the MANY centuries of unworthy bishops, all of whose rings still deserve a kiss because the Shepherds of the Church are a gift from Christ Himself.
It’s like an ecclesial version love the sinner hate the sin 🤣
But the lay faithful are fair game for disrespect.
I’m not sure who that is addressed to bc no one here has said such. I know I certainly don’t believe this!
If not including lay faithful in the prayers of the Mass by name is disrespect, proper respect for the laity will subject us all to unsupportably long Masses.
And all that special seating nonsense just brings us question of whether some laity are more equal than others. Laity used to have assigned seating in churches related to their social rank. We'll just substitute in official church ranking systems for laity instead.
We respect priests and bishops because of their God-given spiritual position, not because of their administrative office or impeccability, or any kind of natural superiority or achieved superior position.
Well, at least she's got children and isn't sporting LGBT vestments, but this is still the frog in the boiling water scenario.
Or the camel's nose in the tent.
Hey Andy, I suspect you didn't mean it to come across this way, but your comment reads as if Catholic women who don't have children are somehow suspect, less holy and less valuable and needed in the Church, in a way that is incredibly painful for women who want children and do not have them
My comment doesn't read that way. When someone has four children it's a good indication she's not a pant-suit Biden Catholic carpet saleswoman who is trying to become a priestess so she has bragging rights at the next pride parade. Geez....
Well she’s Belgian first of all. American political categories are not universally applicable or relevant.
Pretentious and reduces the true holiness and mission of the lay faithful.
You have got to be kidding me. Is this an Onion story on Pillar?
This situation reminds us that there's tremendous value in exploring and codifying lay ministerial roles across the entire Church. The Synod on Synodality, as well as the USCCB, have taken up questions like the proper role of catechists. Spending time clarifying the selection, formation, and liturgical norms for formally instituted acolytes and lectors might go a long way to corralling this ad-hoc experimentation.
If this particular episcopal delegate were an instituted acolyte (as envisioned, potentially, by Paul VI and granted to women by Francis), then existing rubrics would suffice. But if she's not acting as a cleric and not as minister -- then what is she, exactly, from a canonical perspective with regard to the Mass? "Episcopal delegate" is not a liturgical office that I can see, so that role has no special standing apart from the rest of the People of God.
(Cue the "to the law" theme music.)
Also super reasonable
I agree with almost all you've said, though I am not sure how her status as an acolyte would resolve the eucharistic prayer issue. maybe I'm not getting it?
If she were an acolyte, it would never have occurred to anyone to even consider mentioning her in the first place. Thus there would be no issue with the Eucharist prayer.
@Stenny is right. As an acolyte, she would have a very clear ministerial role in the Mass—one which would definitively preclude her from being mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer. As it stands, as an episcopal delegate, her role is less certain. She seems to be functioning something like a vicar forane, but she is not ordained. This is a novelty, and one for which there is no analog in the current GIRM. But if she had *any* role that was delineated in the rubrics, the opportunity for experimentation would be significantly constrained.
Doesn't the fact of not being a bishop, a canonized saint, or the Mass intention definitively preclude her from being mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer? I generally assume people experiment in these cases because they're discontent with the existing rites, not because the rites are legitimately vague.
Maybe?
From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, I was the chief sacristan and liturgy-commission chair for a large U.S. suburban parish. The myriad well-meaning arguments we fought about the tension between "do not add, delete, multiply, or divide anything in the sacred liturgy" vs. "encourage the active participation of the faithful" often came down to ambiguity in GIRM coupled with the -- shall we say *creative* -- interpretations of what constituted meaningful worship as shared in the theologically progressive liturgical sourcebooks that so seduced our "old guard" in the parish.
I found that direct appeals to GIRM, when the language was clear, proved successful at stopping things like "everyone wash everyone else's feet" on Holy Thursday. But direct appeals to Sacrosanctum Concilium didn't typically play well because the language was more rounded and opaque and (arguably) internally contradictory. Couple an earnest desire for "authenticity" and "meaningful and inclusive worship" with the fact that none of those LTP sourcebooks were ever really policed -- and neither was parochial worship practices, despite annual visits from the ordinary -- and you've created an environment where the Liturgy Wars proceed with skirmish after skirmish but never a decisive victory.
I think it's often better and more charitable to interpret novel liturgical deviations as coming from a well-meaning place, than to assume discontent or outright rebellion. At least, that's what I saw in my own parish and within the diocesan worship team.
Which is a very long way of coming back to my suggestion that requiring any layperson occupying a highly prominent liturgical role (like this episcopal delegate) should be formally installed as an acolyte, so the liturgical norms governing acolytes remove the ambiguity about what to do with this novel new role.
Every layperson participating in the Mass apart from the rest of the Faithful in the nave should operate under a clearly defined ministry: server, lector, usher, EMHC, &c. And if your lay liturgical role comes with any hint of authority, then formal installation into the ministries of lector or acolyte seem like a good prerequisite to ensure that those non-standard roles are governed according to SC and GIRM.
As long as it's not during a TLM, I'm sure the DDW will be perfectly fine with this ... now, back to inspecting parish bulletins.
I think pastors should call that bluff and start listing TLM times in the bulletin. The memory recall in large bureaucratic organizations is so short that I'd reckon a good chance that even the DDW has more or less forgotten they put out that directive 2+ years ago. The only people who still remember this directive exists are people like us who think it's stupid to begin with and support the TLM.
It's allowed in the Buffalo diocese.
Since when was adding random junk to the Eucharistic prayer an option?
I think we both know the answer to that…
These decisions, and the leaders who make them, only give more leverage to sedes, schismatics, orthobros, and the like. It's like these people are determined to make into reality, the fantastical image that radtrads paint of the "false Vatican 2 church" all for no spiritual gain - who ends up becoming Catholic because of this stuff? Who are the people still on the fence (after 60 years post-sexual-revolution, multiple waves of abuse crises, the 20-year-long New Atheism era, and increasing societal secular degradation) that sees this and thinks "ah yes, now my faith is reinvigorated"?
Let me be clear: these yahoos don't actually care about Catholicism - in fact, they hate their own Catholic Faith and Church. The only reason they stick around is because they are activists, not disciples; these stunts make them feel like brave heroic reformers and change-makers doing special and important work. If they left to join a protestant church that already fits their beliefs, they'd cease to be special - they'd be complete nobodies no different than anyone else.
For these folx, the only thing worse than being damned in eternal torment is being mundane in relative obscurity.
Surprisingly reasonable points, for a Luce fan.
Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole of Belgium for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
For your consolation https://www.carmelitaniscalzi.com/en/2024/03/08/belgium-oldest-community-of-carmelite-nuns-in-the-world-marks-555-years-of-foundation/
What is the French verb for "to pander"?
You know, I strongly feel that there is growth to be had across the Church regarding women's roles, that we would benefit greatly from more women in positions of leadership, and that those positions of leadership cannot be clerical/presbyteral/episcopal/etc.. I am not opposed to some structural creativity, as long is it does not jeopardize or compromise the integrity of the kerygma, the Magisterial patrimony, and the truths of the faith. Honestly, having trusted voices of women at the side of each bishop probably would do much of the Church great good. But this...this is just silly. The Church's tradition and history is rich with forms and structures that can be drawn upon or taken as inspiration to foster organic, faithful, and lifegiving opportunities for the whole Church to benefit from the gifts of women in leadership. They swung the wiffleball bat here real hard, and it seems like it was a miss.
I have to admit I am surprised at this devilishly sly tactic (maybe my naïveté comes from hopeful innocence). Feminism continues to eviscerate the Body of Christ, the Church. ‘If the Synod won’t make women priests then we’ll just treat them like bishops’ I see them saying.
It's interesting that GIRM 149 in certain circumstances explicitly calls for a non-bishop (abbot) to be mentioned in the Eucharistic prayer:
The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate) (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).
The GIRM also allows an auxiliary bishop to be named, or for several auxiliaries to be mentioned as "and his assistant Bishops." In a large archdiocese divided territorially, I can understand that a local custom might develop where an auxiliary who is regional vicar is named in Masses in that region (even though this is not what the GIRM prescribes when there are multiple auxiliaries). This might be especially true in a French-speaking region of a largely Flemish archdiocese when there are linguistic tensions. If such a local custom existed, I could understand the desire to continue naming the "regional vicar" at Mass, even after an auxiliary bishop was replaced with an episcopal delegate.
Of course, there are other significant considerations, such as whether a lay person can ever be "equivalent to [the diocesan Bishop] in law" (or at least to the regional vicar). This debate over lay governance was discussed by Cardinals at the 2022 consistory: Cardinal Ghirlanda argued that the power of governance comes from canonical mission and could be delegated to laity, but several Cardinals questioned that.
Another consideration is the importance of Holy Orders in how the Church is described in the Eucharistic Prayer. Part of the rationale for the memo is the French translation of "universo clero" in Eucharistic Prayer II as "all those who are responsible for your people" (rather than the literal "all the clergy" in English). I'm certainly not defending the Brabant Walloon memo, but I think this is meaningful context.