I don't find a single thing in it that I would object to.
He doesn't advocate not following rubrics. He does, however, caution those who make following rubrics the end-all-and-be-all of the Eucharist or any other celebration.
Sklba's creation of a straw man is precisely what I disagree with. It is virtually impossible for an ordinary-in-the-pew Catholic to be a "rubricist" by his definition; believing that it's "magic," my kiester...
What he's doing, Sinky, is playing civil lawyer. You know, fire all the battleship's guns at once, hoping to scare the living bejabbers out of the complainant. Here, he raises the spectre of "heresy" as though it were realistically possible.
He's covering the jacks around here who take FAR more liberty with the Mass and the rubrics which YOU ever would--to the extent where not only is it very noticeable, but where someone actually complains.
That's why the response talks about the nature of authority and the obligations which are incumbent on those who have authority....
This is transparent, "I know better than you traditionalist schmucks, so I can do the rubrics however I like" apologism for fast-and-loose liturgical modernist adaptation.
At least that's how I read it.
Ask any actual orthodox or traditional Catholic their reason for paying close attention to the rubrics. Almost all will answer that they are trying to prevent heretical ideas like denial of the Real Presence, which are encouraged by liturgical experimentation.
Sorry...he doesn't get to make up the rules as he goes.
Bet he's missing Apb. Weakland.
I'm generally not apt to going overboard on criticism of bishops, but this is a positively infantile column.
Our Holy Father in "Ecclesia De Eucharistia" wrote: "Liturgy
is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant
or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated...
Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church."
Bp. Sklba's comments are especially relevant in light of this article, in which "an 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot consume wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained none, violating Catholic doctrine."
Sklba is correct -- and the above is an example of rubricism at its finest.