Charismatic Catholics viewed as nonorthodox?

[M.SIGGA]

LifeTeen is not a part of the Charismatic Renewal. LifeTeen is a youth ministry teaching tool used to introduce the Gospel and liturgy in a manner thought to be more approachable for teenagers. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is global, officially supported by the Holy See, and wasn't approved and supported for these purposes. The Renewal's purpose concerns recognizing God's grace through renewal of charisms of the Holy Spirit to continue the Church's mission of spreading the Good News to all people. The actual fellowship within the Charismatic Renewal occurs during Charismatic prayer gatherings and many Charismatic Catholics might not even attend regular Mass said by a priest in the Movement or with other Charismatic Catholics. Where the Charismatic Renewal has a following, it operates through an office of the diocese, whereas LifeTeen is a program that often replaces the traditional CYO.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Cathqat, I don't see any place where CC said anything more than that his personal preference is for a more solemn mass. He did not discredit or accuse the Life Teen Masses of being heterodox, he simply said that he prefers something else.

I tend to agree with him, though having read through many different Rites, I prefer the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] in its English Chant version over even the Tridentine Mass.

He has recognized the legitimacy of the Life Teen Mass, just as I have recognized the legitimacy of the Tridentine Mass, but I am perfectly allowed by the Magisterium to prefer one to the other.

Also, I would just like to point out, just for CC's sake, that the Holy Mother Church Herself prefers the Mass to be chanted whenever possible.


Finally, I have to also make the point, just to cover my bases, that one of my best friends is incredibly active in his Life Teen group at his parish, and when done correctly, Life Teen does a wonderful job in instilling a love of the Mass in children.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cathqat]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:53 AM']Cathqat, I don't see any place where CC said anything more than that his personal preference is for a more solemn mass. He did not discredit or accuse the Life Teen Masses of being heterodox, he simply said that he prefers something else.[/quote]

"Lifeteen is seen as orthodox soley because of its adherence to the Holy See [b]not because of its manner of worship[/b]. The style of Lifeteen worship is [b]unorthodox[/b] or nontraditional if you may."

But, as I explained, Life Teen does not merely conform to the doctrines of the Church. Life Teen conforms to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal too. [i]Their liturgical practices as well as their doctrines are in line with the Vatican.[/i]

[quote]I tend to agree with him, though having read through many different Rites, I prefer the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] in its English Chant version over even the Tridentine Mass.[/quote]

I agree there's nothing wrong with having preferences! I prefer the English chant too. But it's quite another thing to call worship practices which conform to the GIRM "unorthodox," imply that they are somehow wrong, and to accuse people of doing things they no longer do. So that was my point: that conservativecatholic's preferences [i]are only preferences[/i], not real problems with Life Teen.

And, just for the record, I have never been involved in LifeTeen in any capacity, though I know many who have. In fact, I used to be a very strong critic of their illicit liturgical practices. But now that they're conformed to the GIRM, I will happily defend them. There is nothing [i]wrong[/i] with the way they worship.

[Guest JeffCR07]

cathqat, I appologize, I have no idea how I missed that comment of his. I stand corrected, he [i]did[/i] say that it was unorthodox.

Now, here is a general question, open to anyone, that I am asking simply for my own personal interest:

Let us assume that a parish or a group (whether LifeTeen or not, it doesn't matter) says a Mass that is in conformity to the GIRM. However, let us imagine that this Mass is not done in chant, even though it could be, and thus directly disregards the Magisterium's order to have the mass said in chant whenever possible.

In such a situation, I am sure that the group or parish would not be considered heterodox, and I would even go so far as to say it would be [i]orthodox[/i], however, it is clearly still in at least minor conflict with the clear preference of the Magisterium. How does one differentiate in common speech between a group that positively follows everything that the Magisterium teaches and one that simply does not do anything expressly prohibited?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Q the Ninja]

Is it unorthodox to add to the GIRM for the Mass on your own for a whole parish?

Edited January 4, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Guest JeffCR07]

liturgical invention and change without the approval of the local bishop is heterodox, and strongly discouraged by the Magisterium.

[cathqat]

Just for clarity's sake, I think we should start with this:

Orthodoxy and liceity are different issues.

A priest can be totally orthodox (believing everything the Church believes and teaches) and still celebrate an illicit liturgy (violating liturgical norms). Or a priest can be totally heretical (picking and choosing among the teachings of the Church) and celebrate a completely licit liturgy (following all liturgical norms properly).

Life Teen, to continue the example we've been using, never had a problem with orthodoxy. They were not teaching kids heretical doctrines. They once had a problem celebrating illicit liturgies, however. They were not following the instructions correctly. Fortunately, they no longer do that, and they're doing liturgies right now.

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:30 PM']Now, here is a general question, open to anyone, that I am asking simply for my own personal interest:

Let us assume that a parish or a group says a Mass that is in conformity to the GIRM. However, let us imagine that this Mass is not done in chant, even though it could be, and thus directly disregards the Magisterium's order to have the mass said in chant whenever possible.

In such a situation, I am sure that the group or parish would not be considered heterodox, and I would even go so far as to say it would be [i]orthodox[/i], however, it is clearly still in at least minor conflict with the clear preference of the Magisterium. How does one differentiate in common speech between a group that positively follows everything that the Magisterium teaches and one that simply does not do anything expressly prohibited?
[/quote]

The question here is not one of orthodoxy, but of liceity.

The Magisterium does support chanted liturgies, it is true. But they are not required. (I kind of wish they were, personally, because I like them so much )

It's the same thing with Communion. The Church has expressed a clear preference for Communion under both species. But it is not required, and I daresay most parishes I've been to do not do it.

But neither an unchanted liturgy nor Communion under one species alone is illicit.

I know of no term that would express your distinction between "a group that positively follows everything that the Magisterium teaches and one that simply does not do anything expressly prohibited." Maybe there is one, but I doubt it.

[Apotheoun]

At the Ruthenian parish I go to all the liturgies are chanted.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:34 PM'] Is it unorthodox to add to the GIRM for the Mass on your own for a whole parish? [/quote]
It is not a question of orthodoxy, but of liceity.

Here is what [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i] (Vatican II's [i]Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy[/i]) #22 says:

[quote][list]

[*]1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

[*]In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

[*]Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

[/list][/quote]

Everyone who uses the Roman Missal (we are not talking about Eastern Catholics or other approved liturgies) has to follow the GIRM. Sometimes the GIRM allows a bishop to choose between two options. (E.g. In the current GIRM, a U.S. bishop may, if he wants, allow his congregation to kneel after the Agnus Dei, but he does not have to. The normative posture at that time, unless he decides otherwise, is standing.) Priests and lay people do not have the authority to change anything, although I'm pretty sure we do get to decide whether we will sit, stand, or kneel during the brief personal reflection time after receiving Communion.

Longstanding customs can sometimes be regarded as legitimate by the Church. Under the previous GIRM, for example, the normative posture after the Agnus Dei was standing. Kneeling was not even an option. Yet most American Catholics did it anyway. As a longstanding reverent custom, the Church accepted that as legitimate, even though it did not technically follow the rubrics.

In the current GIRM, this question is now up to your local bishop. In the Dioceses of Arlington and Charleston, for example, the bishops allow kneeling. In Los Angeles, the bishop has not extended that permission. In both cases, the bishop is within his rights. It is interesting to note, though, that the new GIRM now explicitly allows bishops to officially choose something that was once merely a custom.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 08:30 PM'] At the Ruthenian parish I go to all the liturgies are chanted. [/quote]
You and I both know that the Byzantine liturgies are really superior, despite what [i]Orientalium Ecclesiarum[/i] said

Do you go to St. Joseph's or St. Mary's?

[Guest JeffCR07]

o please, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is beautiful, but give me the english chant of the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] any day



...






....





.......




...........







- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cathqat]

OK, Jeff. You can have it

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:41 PM'] You and I both know that the Byzantine liturgies are really superior, despite what [i]Orientalium Ecclesiarum[/i] said

Do you go to St. Joseph's or St. Mary's? [/quote]
I go to St. Mary's.

[Crusader_4]

In regards to new movements under suspicion this has been the norm forever in Church history. Look at St. Ignatius of Loyola who led the counter-reformation and defended orthodoxy in Euorope and around the world reviving the Church. He had been brought into the inquisition numouers times for his new ideas in particular druing the forming of his Spiritual Exercises which are practiced around the globe consistently brining many teens through the elderly closer to Christ. Now having said that i am by no means a charismatic Christian beacuse i dont believe its my charism. Yet at the same time it has the approval of the Holy Magesterium and should be respected as such. I am angry at certain people who go against it. There are bigger problems we have in our church (rampant liberalism in our Colleges) that need to be dealt with. Also the suspicion our church gives new movements is not nesscairly a bad thing in and of itself. I think through the Churchs expereince it has learnt not to be swayed by the fads and feelings of the time and thus has remained a constant force in a world thats foundation is often on quicksand.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 4 2005, 01:46 AM'] I go to St. Mary's. [/quote]
I love St. Mary's. But I used to attend St. Joseph's too.