Canon 846 of the code of canon law states: “no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in [liturgical] books.”*
To me, this is the most abused notion in the Church. We are probably all aware of ambiguity lurking in many documents from the GIRM to Canon Law to those of the Second Vatican Council. The key to Catholic identity is the approach to this problem. Relativists see ambiguity as a loophole through which personal initiative might be asserted while the orthodox would understand that the murk of ambiguity is only cleared away through the historical/traditional practices of the Church. These approaches, happening side-by-side in our parishes, create profound tension: personal initiative versus orthodoxy.
How many times have we asked questions like, "Why do some people hold hands at Mass during the 'Our Father,' and we're told, even by priests, "Well, it doesn't say they CAN'T....?" Loophole?
Or, we point out that EMHC are only supposed to be employed in truly extraordinary circumstances, like when you're on the Titanic and it's going down, only to be ignored, at best, or, at worst, taught about the importance of active participation (doing stuff) at Mass. Maybe it's pointed out that the language used in the documents on EMHC is ambiguous or open to interpretation. Loophole?
Or, we might ask why we're always singing "Gospel Songs for Children" at Mass instead of Gregorian chant which is supposed to have "pride of place," only to be reminded that the documents (of the Second Vatican Council) indicated that there might be other appropriate music as well. Loophole!
Or...
...or...
...here's another example: I recently read the GIRM on homilies, specifically the practice of "wandering" which is employed by evangelical protestant-style priests and deacons. The GIRM is, at first, clear, "No. 136 says: 'The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself'" and then, vague, "'...or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily." One intent is clear, the priest is supposed to be "standing," not wandering. Also, "ambo," according to _New Advent_, is from the Greek and is "supposed to signify a mountain or elevation," and while that might include a pulpit in the sanctuary, one would have to assume it does not include walking among the people where the priest/deacon becomes invisible to a significant percent of the laity at any given moment as he moves about amongst them. "Ambo," after all, implies the mountain, not the valley.
In each of these situations, the approach to ambiguous phrasing in the GIRM/rubrics/law and especially the documents of the Second Vatican Council, amounts to a teaching moment, but what is being taught? In most places, personal initiative trumps tradition almost every time.
*from _romanrite. com_
