Monday, May 03, 2004
Authority and its place, a simplified argument, if you will
I admit it: I tend to distrust authority. In the case of those with whom I have had a relationship: my parents, my best teachers, most of my employers, I have love, respect, admiration -- whichever is appropriate.
I tend to distrust the current liturgical revisionism of the curia because I do not see them as being the sole possessors of the authentic "spin" of the Roman rite. Along with the bishops, theologians, and others, they act in concert with others to (hopefully) improve the celebration of liturgy in the Church. (By the way, a curial bureaucrat has no function as a cardinal, bishop, or priest per se. For an ordained person, such function is dependent on a reference point in ministry. For example: a priest is ordained to preside at the sacraments, and perhaps to pastor a parish. A bishop to oversee a diocese. A person might be in charge of a curial congregation, but orders is not essential to this functioning, essentially a universal version of the head of a diocesan department.)
For me to receive certain liturgical documents without a theological justification is an open invitation to question, and question hard. As a spiritual exercise, liturgy cannot be successfully or completely legislated. As such, no single person or fraction of the Church can claim an absolute authority in the sense of a guarantee of God's grace.
Good liturgy is not only faithful to the structure and rubrics of the Roman rite, but is also an artistic endeavor. An extreme emphasis on authority deceives people. God alone has the authority to impart grace. Sacraments are a guarantee, not through the action of the minister, but by the Church's tradition and intent. Strict adherence is not necessarily more graceful. And the presumption that Rome has straightened everything out brings an implication that the hard work is done, and all we need do now is ensure the recipe is followed.
