|
The Rights of
Catholics to Complain about Abuses Given that the
Supreme Pontiff's authority through the Church is
ordinary and immediate, Redemptionis Sacramentum
reminds Catholics that they have the right to appeal to
the Holy See in any ecclesiastical matter. Good order and
charity suggests that complaints in so far as possible
be first directed to the local Bishop or to the
Religious Superior as appropriate, before being referred
to the Holy See. This is consistent with how Our Lord
asks us to give fraternal correction (cf. Mt. 18:15-17).
Certainly, when such appeals have been shown to be
fruitless, direct appeal to the Holy See is justified.
[184] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or
lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to
lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to
the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary
equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on
account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however,
insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the
diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
[290] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic
Constitution, Pastor bonus 52, CIC
1417 § 1
_________________________
Pastor Bonus Art. 52 — The
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith]
examines offences against the faith and more serious
ones both in behaviour or in the celebration of the
sacraments which have been reported to it and, if
need be, proceeds to the declaration or imposition
of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norms
of common or proper law.
Code of Canon Law 1417, 1. In virtue
of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, anyone of the
faithful is free to bring to or introduce before the
Holy See a case either contentious or penal in any
grade of judgment and at any stage of litigation.
Correct Liturgical Abuses
Redemptionis Sacramentum provides
processes for handing liturgical abuse cases.
Diocese or Religious Order
The local Ordinary or the Religious
Superior is obligated to act on "a plausible notice of
delict or abuse," to investigate it himself or appoint a
"worthy cleric" to do so, to correct and imposing
sanctions when necessary and to refer to the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith "without delay" all
graviora delicta and crimes against the Faith
(heresy). In addition the must inform the Congregation of
the more serious other cases. I understand this to
mean the ones which he himself has resolved.
[178.] Hence whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a
religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least a
plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let
him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy
cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the
imputability.
[179.] Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta
committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are
to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
which “examines [them] and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or
imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper
law”.
[180.] Otherwise the Ordinary should proceed according the norms
of the sacred canons, imposing canonical penalties if necessary, and bearing in
mind in particular that which is laid down by canon 1326. If the matter is
serious, let him inform the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline
of the Sacraments.
Canon 1326
1. A judge can punish more severely than a law or a precept has stated:
(1) a person who after condemnation or after a
declaration of a penalty still commits an offense so as to be prudently
presumed to be in continuing bad will in light of the circumstances;
(2) a person who has been given some dignified
position or who has abused authority or office in order to commit the
offense;
(3) an accused who although a penalty has been
established against a culpable offense, foresaw what was to happen yet
nonetheless did not take the precautions which any diligent person would
have employed to avoid it.
2. If the penalty established is an automatic one (latae sententiae),
another penalty or a penance can be added in those cases mentioned in
part 1.
Holy See
The Congregation for Divine Worship and
the Discipline of the Sacraments is the Roman dicastery
responsible for the liturgy, unless it is a matter
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (doctrinal teaching, graviora delicta). Keeping in
mind what was said earlier about trying as far as
possible to resolve complaints at the diocesan or
religious order level [RS 184], when a complaint is
referred to the Congregation it will refer the matter
back to the Ordinary or Superior for investigation,
correction and report to the Congregation concerning what
was done. The Congregation may freely exercise its
faculty to instruct the Ordinary or Superior how to
proceed, which they must obey.
[181.] Whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or
an abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, it informs the Ordinary so that he
may investigate the matter. When the matter turns out to be serious, the
Ordinary should send to the same Dicastery as quickly as possible a copy of the
acts of the inquiry that has been undertaken, and where necessary, the penalty
imposed.
[182.] In more difficult cases the Ordinary, for the sake of the
good of the universal Church in the care for which he too has a part by virtue
of his sacred Ordination, should not fail to handle the matter, having
previously taken advice from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments. For its part, this Congregation, on the strength
of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, according to the nature of
the case, will assist the Ordinary, granting him the necessary dispensations or giving him instructions or
prescriptions, which he is to follow diligently.
Kinds of Liturgical Abuses
Redemptionis Sacramentum speaks of three classes of
liturgical abuses. 1) graviora delicata (the most grave
crimes), 2) grave matters and 3) other abuses (i.e.
lesser matters). Please note that indented material are
direct quotes from the document, along with footnotes and
referenced documents, in some cases. Otherwise, the
comentary is my own.
1. Graviora Delicta. The most grave kind of
liturgical abuses are graviora delicta and are
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Each will be treated separated.
[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most
August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance
with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith’,[280] namely:
a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for
sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;[281]
b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;[282]
c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with
ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor
acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;[283]
d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without
the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the
celebration of the Eucharist.[284]
[280] Cf. Pope
John Paul II, Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio), Sacramentorum sanctitatis
tutela: AAS 93 (2001) pp. 737-739; Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, Ep. ad totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos aliosque Ordinarios et
Hierarchas quorum interest: de delictis gravioribus eidem Congregationi pro
Doctrina Fidei reservatis: AAS 93 (2001) p. 786.
[281] Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 1367; Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of
Legislative Texts, Responsio ad propositum dubium, 3 July 1999: AAS 91 (1999) p.
918; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ep. ad totius Catholicae
Ecclesiae Episcopos aliosque Ordinarios et Hierarchas quorum interest: de
delictis gravioribus eidem Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis: AAS 93
(2001) p. 786.
[282] Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 1378 § 2 n. 1 et 1379; Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, Ep. ad totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos aliosque Ordinarios et
Hierarchas quorum interest: de delictis gravioribus eidem Congregationi pro
Doctrina Fidei reservatis: AAS 93 (2001) p. 786.
[283] Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 908 et 1365; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Ep. ad totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos aliosque Ordinarios et Hierarchas
quorum interest: de delictis gravioribus eidem Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei
reservatis: AAS 93 (2001) p. 786.
[284] Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 927; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ep. ad
totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos aliosque Ordinarios et Hierarchas quorum
interest: de delictis gravioribus eidem Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei
reservatis: AAS 93 (2001) p. 786.
a. Taking away or retaining the consecrated species
for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away.
This is the most serious crime mentioned, one that if
done knowingly with full consent immediately earns an
automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See. This
means that neither a priest nor a bishop can validly
absolve a person from this excommunication. The Holy
Father has committed the faculty to absolve this crime to
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it
alone. In an earlier paragraph of Redemptionis
Sacramentum this matter is treated at some length. It
states,
[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by
the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated
species or takes them away or keeps them for a
sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae
excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a
cleric, moreover, may be punished by another
penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical
state”.[194] To be regarded as pertaining
to this case is any action that is voluntarily and
gravely disrespectful of the sacred species. Anyone,
therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for
example casting the sacred species into the
sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground,
incurs the penalties laid down.[195]
[194] Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 1367.
[195] Cf.
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Response to
dubium, 3 July 1999: AAS 91 (1999) p. 918.
_____________________
Canon 1367 A person who throws away the
consecrated species or who takes them or retains
them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic
(latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the
Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with
another penalty including dismissal from the
clerical state.
As the authentic interpretation of canon 1367 issued
in 1999 and cited above first noted, pouring the Precious
Blood down the sacrarium (the special sink in the
sacristy that goes into the ground), or onto the ground,
or similar actions with respect to the Sacred Host, incur
an automatic excommunication.
b. The attempted celebration of the liturgical
action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of
the same.
It is a violation of hierarchial order for any person to assume an
office which is not theirs by ordination. To do so is to simulate the
exercise of the power attached to that Order. Thus, to hear confessions,
anoint the sick with the oil of the sick, concelebrate Mass etc. are
among the most serious violations of Catholic discipline. Pertaining to
the Eucharist are the following canons:
Canon 1378
2. The following incur an automatic (latae
sententiae) penalty of interdict or if a cleric, an
automatic (latae sententiae) suspension:
(1) one who has not been promoted to the
priestly order and who attempts to enact the
liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice;
Canon 1379
Outside the cases mentioned in can. 1378, one who
simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be
punished with a just penalty.
c. The forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with
ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic
succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly
Ordination.
Similar to b. is the participating of Catholic clergy in non-Catholic
rites or the participation of non-Catholic clergy in Catholic rites.
This is called communicatio in sacris (communion in sacred
things). It presumes an ecclesiastical communion between the Catholic
Church and the other Church or ecclesial body which does not exist. It
is therefore both inauthentic and gravely wrong.
Canon 908
It is forbidden for Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with
priests or ministers of churches or ecclesial communities which are not
in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Canon 1365
A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio
in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.
d. The consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without
the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the
celebration of the Eucharist.
This delict would seem to involve more than simple consecration of
Eucharistic matter outside the Mass or of one species without the other,
since it speaks also of a sacrilegious end (such as for a Black Mass).
However, the canon that is referenced clearly prohibits such
consecrations under any circumstances.
Canon 927
It is sinful, even in extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter
without the other or even both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.
2. Grave Matters. The next serious kind are
called Grave matters, a term which in the
canonical and moral theology tradition is reserved for
those actions which are obliged, or reprobated, under
penalty of grave sin (e.g. the Sunday and Holy Day
obligation). In other words, they involve objectively
grave matter, which if done with knowledge of their
gravity and freely constitute mortal sin. For a
priest celebrating Mass this is extremely serious, since
he has a grave obligation to celebrate the Sacrifice and
receive Holy Communion in the state of grace (c. 916). If
he, contemporaneously with his celebration, is committing
abuses which are gravely sinful then he celebrates
sacrilegiously, unless he immediately ceases the abuse
and makes a perfect act of contrition.
[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in
accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by
her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at
risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that
contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96,
101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.
Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code
of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376,
1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.
The following paragraphs, excerpted in most cases,
give the specific abuses cited as grave matter in n. 173
above.
[48.] The Eucharistic bread must be "unleavened,
purely of wheat, and recently made." ... It is a grave
abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or
sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the
Eucharist.
[49.] (although included in the citation of 48-52 of
n.173 above, nothing in this paragraph regarding the
appropriateness of the hosts used for communion being
from the same Mass, or concerning using small hosts,
appears to be of grave matter)
[50.] The wine that is used in the most sacred
celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural,
from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not
mixed with other substances. It is altogether forbidden
to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for
the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions
necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are
other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason,
as they do not constitute valid matter.
[51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used
which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately
approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the
manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be
tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the
right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to
change the same texts approved by the Church, or to
introduce others composed by private individuals.
[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer,
which by its very nature is the climax of the whole
celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his
Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in
such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are
recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual
member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful
together.
[56.] (in the Eucharistic Prayer) The mention of the
name of the Supreme Pontiff and the diocesan Bishop in
the Eucharistic Prayer is not to be omitted
[76.] ... it is not permissible to unite the Sacrament
of Penance to the Mass in such a way that they become a
single liturgical celebration.
[77.] The celebration of Holy Mass is not to be
inserted in any way into the setting of a common meal,
nor joined with this kind of banquet (and) not to be
celebrated without grave necessity on a dinner table nor
in a dining room or banquet hall, nor in a room where
food is present, nor in a place where the participants
during the celebration itself are seated at tables.
[79.] Finally, it is strictly to be considered an
abuse to introduce into the celebration of Holy Mass
elements that are contrary to the prescriptions of the
liturgical books and taken from the rites of other
religions.
[91.] Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy
Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the
grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive
the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the
right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his
choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the
Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’
Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has
given permission, the sacred host is to be administered
to him or her. However, special care should be taken to
ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in
the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away
carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is
a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be
given in the hand to the faithful.
[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . .
by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from
one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.
Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside
whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other
at a Nuptial Mass.
[96.] The practice is reprobated whereby either
unconsecrated hosts or other edible or inedible things
are distributed during the celebration of Holy Mass or
beforehand after the manner of Communion, contrary to the
prescriptions of the liturgical books. ... Where there
exists in certain places by concession a particular
custom of blessing bread after Mass for distribution,
proper catechesis should very carefully be given
concerning this action. In fact, no other similar
practices should be introduced, nor should unconsecrated
hosts ever be used for this purpose.
[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to
be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful,
due consideration should be given to the circumstances,
as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to
be completely excluded where even a small danger exists
of the sacred species being profaned.
[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay
members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large
number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the
amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger
that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of
Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the
celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the
chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a
large amount of wine would be required that its certain
provenance and quality could only be known with
difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number
of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy
Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part
of the people continues to prefer not to approach the
chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity
would in some sense be negated.
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to
intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive
the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be
used for the intinction, it should be made of valid
matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to
use non-consecrated bread or other matter.
[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ
after the consecration from one vessel to another is
completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen
that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery.
Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are
flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in
accord with the established norms.
[109.] It is never lawful for a Priest to celebrate in
a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion.
[111.] A Priest is to be permitted to celebrate or
concelebrate the Eucharist “even if he is not known to
the rector of the church, provided he presents
commendatory letters” (i.e., a celebret) not more than a
year old from the Holy See or his Ordinary or Superior
“or unless it can be prudently judged that he is not
impeded from celebrating”. Let the Bishops take measures
to put a stop to any contrary practice.
[115.] The abuse is reprobated by which the
celebration of Holy Mass for the people is suspended in
an arbitrary manner contrary to the norms of the Roman
Missal and the healthy tradition of the Roman Rite, on
the pretext of promoting a “fast from the Eucharist”.
[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and
Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with
the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books. The
Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether
it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given
the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels
to be made of other solid materials as well. It is
strictly required, however, that such materials be truly
noble in the common estimation within a given region, so
that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and
all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence
of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the
faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any
practice of using for the celebration of Mass common
vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all
artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also
other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or
other materials that break easily. This norm is to be
applied even as regards metals and other materials that
easily rust or deteriorate.
[126.] The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred
ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without
sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic
cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary
clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical
books, even when there is only one minister
participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as
quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in
all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction
there is present an adequate supply of liturgical
vestments made in accordance with the norms.
[131.] Apart from the prescriptions of canon 934 § 1,
it is forbidden to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a
place that is not subject in a secure way to the
authority of the diocesan Bishop, or where there is a
danger of profanation. Where such is the case, the
diocesan Bishop should immediately revoke any permission
for reservation of the Eucharist that may already have
been granted.
[132.] No one may carry the Most Holy Eucharist to his
or her home, or to any other place contrary to the norm
of law.
[133.] A Priest or Deacon, or an extraordinary
minister who takes the Most Holy Eucharist when an
ordained minister is absent or impeded in order to
administer it as Communion for a sick person, should go
insofar as possible directly from the place where the
Sacrament is reserved to the sick person’s home, leaving
aside any profane business so that any danger of
profanation may be avoided and the greatest reverence for
the Body of Christ may be ensured. Furthermore the Rite
for the administration of Communion to the sick, as
prescribed in the Roman Ritual, is always to be used.
[138.] Still, the Most Holy Sacrament, when exposed,
must never be left unattended even for the briefest space
of time. It should therefore be arranged that at least
some of the faithful always be present at fixed times,
even if they take alternating turns.
[153.] Furthermore, it is never licit for laypersons
to assume the role or the vesture of a Priest or a Deacon
or other clothing similar to such vesture.
[168.] “A cleric who loses the clerical state in
accordance with the law . . . is prohibited from
exercising the power of order”. It is therefore not licit
for him to celebrate the sacraments under any pretext
whatsoever save in the exceptional case set forth by law,
nor is it licit for Christ’s faithful to have recourse to
him for the celebration, since there is no reason which
would permit this according to canon 1335. Moreover,
these men should neither give the homily nor ever
undertake any office or duty in the celebration of the
sacred Liturgy, lest confusion arise among Christ’s
faithful and the truth be obscured.
The following canons are mentioned in the document as
speaking about grave matters:
Canon 1364
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an
apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs
automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a
cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties
mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of
scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added
including dismissal from the clerical state.
Canon 1369 A person who uses a public show or speech,
published writings, or other media of social
communication to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals,
express wrongs against religion or against the Church or
stir up hatred or contempt against religion or the Church
is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1373 One who publicly either stirs up
hostilities or hatred among subjects against the
Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some
act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites
subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an
interdict of by other just penalties.
Canon 1376 One who profanes a movable or immovable
sacred thing is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1380 One who celebrates or receives a sacrament
through simony is to be punished with an interdict or a
suspension.
Canon 1384 Outside the cases mentioned in cann.
1378-1383, one who illegitimately carries out a priestly
function or another sacred ministry can be
punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1385 One who illegitimately makes a profit from
a Mass offering is to be punished with a censure or
another just penalty.
Canon 1386 One who gives or promises something so that
someone who exercises a function in the Church would
illegitimately do or omit something is to be punished
with a just penalty; likewise, the person who accepts
such gifts or promises.
Canon 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion
incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.
3. Other Abuses. Finally there are other
abuses, which being of less seriousness are yet
contrary to the norms of the Church and must be
corrected.
[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are
contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the
norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to
be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.
[175.] The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not
encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are
defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church
for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where
something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm
of law.
As is clear from these paragraphs, no violation of
the liturgical law is to be considered of "little account." Rather, all
violations are to be corrected.
|
