Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[journeyman]

Since Cam and hot stuff didn't leap into debate on the topic of

Is what is not expressly prohibited permitted
vs
Is what is not expressly permitted prohibited

I'll open the thread with this comment from Zenit
Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University. June 7, 2005

. . .

One reader proposed that accepting the possibility of this blessing of non-communicants went against the principle that "liturgical documents are prohibitive of all that they do not prescribe."

While in no means in favor of liturgical inventiveness, I do not believe this to be a valid principle in interpreting liturgical law.

Liturgical norms have several levels ranging from the Divine decree (such as the essential elements of the sacraments) to precepts descriptive of prevalent customs, the latter constituting the vast majority of liturgical norms.

The different levels do not lessen their value as true laws, which require obedience. But they are usually content to set out a general scheme with no desire to rigidly set every gesture to the exclusion of all others.

For example, in a recent controversy regarding some bishop's forbidding the faithful to kneel after Communion until everybody had received, the Holy See stated: "The … prescription of the 'Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani,' no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free."

The same could be said about other acts of private fervor such as making a sign of the cross after receiving Communion.

[Apotheoun]

I both agree and disagree Fr. McNamara.

I agree that liturgical law has different levels, and one of those levels is the particular level, i.e., the law instituted by the local Ordinary. As moderator of the liturgy in his diocese a bishop has the authority to institute laws on the celebration of the liturgy, but the laws of the local Ordinary cannot conflict with the universal law of the Church.

I disagree with Fr. McNamara in his comments on the nature of the rubrics issued by Rome. The universal norms instituted by Apostolic See, which are found in the G.I.R.M, are prescriptive in nature, meaning that they prescribe what is to be done during the celebration of the liturgy; thus, anything not prescribed by either the Supreme Magisterium or by the local Ordinary is by definition forbidden, because the liturgy is an action of the Whole Christ, and not simply the action of a particular parish. Moreover, canon law itself clarifies the prescriptive nature of the rubrics in the G.I.R.M when it says that, "In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competant authority are to be observed faithfully; [i]accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on his own authority[/i]." [CIC canon 846 § 1; see also,Vatican 2, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], no. 22] Clearly, no one, not even a priest, may change the liturgy of the Church on his own authority. Only the Supreme Magisterium, or, within in the limits established by universal law, the local Ordinary, may make changes to the liturgical rites.

[Guest JeffCR07]

appy has said it way, way better than I can. The short answer is that, at least in the case of the GIRM, it is a prescriptive, rather than proscriptive, document by its nature. Thus, if a thing is not expressly stated in the GIRM, and the local ordinary has implimented nothing concerning that thing, it may not be done.

[Jaime]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 13 2005, 12:27 PM']appy has said it way, way better than I can. The short answer is that, at least in the case of the GIRM, it is a prescriptive, rather than proscriptive, document by its nature. Thus, if a thing is not expressly stated in the GIRM, and the local ordinary has implimented nothing concerning that thing, it may not be done.
[right][snapback]610378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well.....

Here's the problem that I have with that statement. Mass is rooted in scripture and Tradition. Tradition is borne of tradition (small t). Tradition (big t) is the documented acknowledgement from the Magisterium that "x" has been revealed by the Holy Spirit to be a part of Tradition. But "x" just doesn't appear out of nowhere. "x" appears first as tradition(small t).

The reality is that we the congregation play a role in sensus fidelium. I don't mean in the sense that we get a vote at the table. But the Holy Spirit doesn't simply work through the Magisterium alone. tradition (small t) starts with the Holy Spirit and the congregation. It then grows to Tradition when fully recognized by the Magisterium.

As I've asked before, (and never received an answer) name one part of Tradition that did not come forth from tradition?

[Guest JeffCR07]

hot stuff, God Bless!

I understand what you are saying, but I think that your (very true) analysis of the development of practice and doctrine can be easily synthesized into, and reconciled, with what I have said above.

Let us imagine practice "x" that is an innovation of the lay faithful. Now "x" becomes exceedingly popular and begins spreading. I think it is safe to say that "x" is not immediately incorporated into the liturgy wholesale, but rather, it begins being allowed by one or two bishops here and there, who deem it to be in accord with the orthodox catholic faith. If "x" becomes popular enough, and spreads far enough, to the point that it is being allowed by bishops over a very large area, then it is at that point that it might be incorporated into an official document that is binding over the particular Rite in which it arose.

This view does not downplay the role of the laity at all, but it also prevents wanton and whimsical liturgical innovations, always keeping orthodoxy at the center: The laity is moved by a particular devotion or practice, the local bishops determine if it is orthdox and can be incorporated, and, if it spreads enough, it can be universally implemented.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[journeyman]

for purposes of continuing the discussion, assume

"x" = holding hands during the Our Father

permitted/prohibited?
Why?



for purposes of getting Cam into this debate, assume
"x" = use of guitar at Mass
(that's not fair, he repeated all his reasons about six times in another thread)
(we'll skip that one)

only one variable in the debate at a time might keep the discussion on focus


a. does anyone know where and when the practice started?
b. how widespread is the practice today?
c. does that qualify as "little t" tradition?

is the definition of "little t" tradition as the sensus fidelium proposed by hot stuff acceptable to the board?

CCC 92

"The whole body of the faithful . . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful,' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."

Is practice x one of faith and morals? Is tradition limited to matters of faith and morals?

[Apotheoun]

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], because some people seem to think that the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is a teaching or governing organ of the Church, but it is not. Instead, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is a supernatural gift of inerrancy in belief, that is, it is a supernatural gift of grace whereby the whole people of God (both clergy and laity) give their assent to the teaching of the Church as it is enunciated by the Pastors. This supernatural gift is a universal participation in Christ's own prophetic office, and thus it shows forth the adherence of faith made by the faithful as a whole, and not simply as disparate individuals or as local congregations. That being said, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is not an organ of the Church for issuing directives or for teaching (in the proper sense of that term). Moreover, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is always a gift received and experienced under the guidance of the Magisterium, and must always be in conformity with the directives issued by those who have, by the will of Christ, received the sacred power of governance.

Thus the liturgy is not about the creativity of individuals or of the local congregation, and to hold that this is the case ultimately promotes a view of the development of doctrine that destroys Tradition in favor of constant change and novelty. This constant search for innovation within the Roman Rite accounts for many of the errors, both moral and dogmatic, presently afflicting the Latin Church. Now until a sense of the stability of Tradition, as something received and not created, is restored in the Roman Rite, there will continue to be malformations of doctrine within the Church.

As far as adaptations to the liturgy are concerned, the Second Vatican Council itself established general norms for allowing adaptations within the Roman Rite, and those norms did not include a vague endorsement of the gift of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] as a source for liturgical innovation. Quite the contrary, the Council Fathers stated emphatically that: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends [i]solely[/i] on the authority of the Church, that is, [i]on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[/i]. 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. [i]Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority[/i]." [Vatican II, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, section 22, nos. 1-3]

The problems presently affecting the Roman Rite will continue as long as people think that the liturgy is their personal plaything, which they can change and adapt to fit their own desires, rather than remain faithful to the received Tradition of the Church. Tradition is not [i]created[/i], it is instead a gift [i]received[/i], and it is the duty of each generation to pass on that gift undiluted.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:52 AM']There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], because some people seem to think that the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is a teaching or governing organ of the Church, but it is not.  Instead, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is a supernatural gift of inerrancy in belief, that is, it is a supernatural gift of grace whereby the whole people of God (both clergy and laity) give their assent to the teaching of the Church as it is enunciated by the Pastors.  This supernatural gift is a universal participation in Christ's own prophetic office, and thus it shows forth the adherence of faith made by the faithful as a whole, and not simply as disparate individuals or as local congregations.  That being said, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is not an organ of the Church for issuing directives or for teaching (in the proper sense of that term).  Moreover, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is always a gift received and experienced under the guidance of the Magisterium, and must always be in conformity with the directives issued by those who have, by the will of Christ, received the sacred power of governance.

Thus the liturgy is not about the creativity of individuals or of the local congregation, and to hold that this is the case ultimately promotes a view of the development of doctrine that destroys Tradition in favor of constant change and novelty.  This constant search for innovation within the Roman Rite accounts for many of the errors, both moral and dogmatic, presently afflicting the Latin Church.  Now until a sense of the stability of Tradition, as something received and not created, is restored in the Roman Rite, there will continue to be malformations of doctrine within the Church.

As far as adaptations to the liturgy are concerned, the Second Vatican Council itself established general norms for allowing adaptations within the Roman Rite, and those norms did not include a vague endorsement of the gift of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] as a source for liturgical innovation.  Quite the contrary, the Council Fathers stated emphatically that:  "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends [i]solely[/i] on the authority of the Church, that is, [i]on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[/i].  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.  [i]Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority[/i]." [Vatican II, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, section 22, nos. 1-3] 

The problems presently affecting the Roman Rite will continue as long as people think that the liturgy is their personal plaything, which they can change and adapt to fit their own desires, rather than remain faithful to the received Tradition of the Church.  Tradition is not [i]created[/i], it is instead a gift [i]received[/i], and it is the duty of each generation to pass on that gift undiluted.
[right][snapback]613133[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Arggghhhh...you beat me to it....I have been reading a thesis on this from a friend of mine. I was going to comment as soon as I finished....but your explaination is where I was headed.....nice explaination.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with everything that Todd has said above.

In response to journeyman's query, the answer is that holding hands during the Our Father is techinically not permitted, as it is not included in the GIRM and (to my knowledge) no Bishop in my area has expressly and explicitly added it to the liturgy in his diocese.

Connecting this with my previous post, if "x" were a desire to hold hands during the Our Father that came from the people, they would have to first get it approved by their local Bishop. If it was judged by the Bishop to be an orthodox devotion and beneficial practice, he would then officially sanction it within his diocese. If this happened in a large enough number of diocese, Rome might consider implimenting it universally in the Roman Rite.

I do not this that it will happen, as I think that the practice of holding hands in the Our Father is not a beneficial practice.

Concerning guitars, the answer is slightly different. Rome has officially sanctioned the use of stringed instruments during the liturgy, specifically mentioning the violin, when an organ is not available. Please note that since Gregorian Chant officially takes priority, we are speaking exclusively of what should be "extraordinary circumstances." Now, it is up to the local bishop to determine what constitutes as an "extraordinary circumstance" and thus when stringed instruments can and cannot be used.

I think that it is extremely rare to find a time in which Gregorian Chant would not be practical/possible. Moreover, I would only with the absolute greatest hesitation and skepticism ever consider playing my guitar or bass at Mass, given the number of things that take priority over it (Chant, organ, violin, etc).

That having been said, the case of guitars at Mass is unlike the case of holding hands, because stringed instruments have been officially allowed by Rome at the discretion of the local Bishops.

That many american bishops have far too lenient notions of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" is irrelevant to the question at hand. What IS important is that the use of stringed instruments has been specifically provided for, while holding hands during the Our Father has not.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Jaime]

[quote]There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the sensus fidelium, because some people seem to think that the sensus fidelium is a teaching or governing organ of the Church, but it is not. [/quote]

I don't recall anyone even suggesting that.

[Cam42]

[quote]Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." [Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, part III, section 22, nos. 1-3] [/quote]

If it isn't there, it can't be added....unless the Church dictates it, from an authoritative standpoint.


How is that for me getting into the middle of it, Doug?

[journeyman]

Both hot stuff and Cam in the thread . . . now to get you excited about the topic . . . which since it isn't as "hip" as guitars, may be tough

I've seen the GIRM statement and think that is the "norm" or default position. Don't mess with the liturgy, we've put a lot of time and thought into it, if you don't know what it means, ask.

But I read too much . . . I tripped over the Directory of Popular Piety on the Vatican web site [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...ettorio_en.html[/url]

Approximately 200 numbered paragraphs of local customs which the Church is recognizing . . . how did they begin, how did they reach the position of being widespread enough to be recognized? If you read the GIRM statement as an absolute prohibition of any local variance, then there would be no need to publish such a document as the Directory. Not all the customs identified in the document involve the Mass, but some do. Others are private devotions.

Publishing such a Directory appears to recognize that local variations, if guided by the proper Spirit, can be allowed. I agree that the sensus fidelium is not a "teaching" portion of the magisterium. Local practices appear to be at the root of the sensus fidelium, a practice that once seen spreads because it is received/perceived as adhering to the faith. Over time, it may become a practice of the universal church, thus qualifying as the "sense of the faithful" of the whole church. Or it may get nipped in the bud.

5. The correct relationship between these two expressions of faith must be based on certain firm principles, the first of which recognises that the Liturgy is the centre of the Church's life and cannot be substituted by, or placed on a par with, any other form of religious expression. Moreover, it is important to reaffirm that popular religiosity, even if not always evident, naturally culminates in the celebration of the Liturgy towards which it should ideally be oriented. This should be made clear through suitable catechesis.

Forms of popular religiosity can sometimes appear to be corrupted by factors that are inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. In such cases, they must be patiently and prudently purified through contacts with those responsible and through careful and respectful catechesis - unless radical inconsistencies call for immediate and decisive measures.

The "point man" for initial review appears to be the local ordinary.


To try to bring this back to a single point of discussion . . . if what is not prescribed is prohibited, how did all these popular expressions of piety get established to the point they were capable of being recognized?

[Apotheoun]

Popular religious devotions and the Divine Liturgy remain two distinct, but related, expressions of the Christian life. They are not to be combined into some kind of hybrid celebration, as the document on popular piety itself makes clear with a quotation from Pope John Paul II, for as the Holy Father stated in his Apostolic Letter [u]Vicesimus Quintus Annus[/u]: "Finally, to safeguard the form and ensure the promotion of the Liturgy it is necessary to take account of popular Christian devotion and its relation to liturgical life. This popular devotion should not be ignored or treated with indifference or contempt, since it is rich in values, and [i]per se[/i] gives expression to the religious attitude towards God. But it needs to be continually evangelized, so that the faith which it expresses may become an ever more mature and authentic act. [i]Both the pious exercises of the Christian people and also other forms of devotion are welcomed and encouraged provided that they do not replace or intrude into liturgical celebrations[/i]. An authentic pastoral promotion of the Liturgy will build upon the riches of popular piety, purifying and directing them towards the Liturgy as the offering of the peoples." [Pope John Paul II, [u]Vicesimus Quintus Annus[/u], no. 18; see also the [u]Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy[/u], no. 3]

In other words, there is to be no blending of these two forms of Christian worship, in fact quite the contrary the norms established by the [u]Directory[/u] are meant to safeguard the distinction between them, as the document itself indicates when it says: "The expression 'pious exercise' in this [u]Directory[/u] refers to those public or private expressions of Christian piety which, [i]although not part of the Liturgy[/i], are considered to be in harmony with the spirit, norms, and rhythms of the Liturgy." [[u]Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy[/u], no. 7] From this it is clear that popular piety is directed toward the liturgy, which is its true fulfillment, but it is not to be confused with the Divine Liturgy, nor are popular practices to be combined with the Divine Liturgy, or even worse, to supplant it as the apex of the Christian life.

Based on the proper distinction to be made between popular devotional practices and the Divine Liturgy, it is clear that the general norms for adaptations to the liturgy, which were set forth in [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], and that are also contained within the Latin Rite [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], are not abrogated by this [u]Directory[/u] or by any other document issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship.

As far as the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is concerned, certainly popular devotions are an expression of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] among the people of God, but as I indicated in my previous post, the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is not a governing organ of the Church, nor is it independent of the oversight of the Magisterium of the Pastors, and that is why the [u]Directory[/u] itself explains that if there are distortions of the faith present within a given popular devotion it is the duty of the diocesan bishop or of the bishops conference to step in and correct the abuse in question. [cf. [u]Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy[/u], no. 5]

As an example: within the Byzantine tradition the Akathist is a popular devotion which has great importance as a paraliturgical service. The Akathist can be celebrated either privately or publicly, but it does not replace, nor is it ever blended with the Divine Liturgy. As a popular devotional form it remains a distinct service that is directed towards participation in the Divine Liturgy, and that of course is the point of all popular forms of devotion. They are always and properly directed toward the participation of the Christian people in the apex of divine worship, the Divine Liturgy. Thus, they must never been seen as an end in their own right.

Thus, true pious devotions are by their very nature meant to direct the Christian people to the Divine Liturgy, and if they detract from that end in any way, it follows of necessity that they have become corrupt and must be either reformed or suppressed by the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 17 2005, 02:11 PM']To try to bring this back to a single point of discussion . . . if what is not prescribed is prohibited, how did all these popular expressions of piety get established to the point they were capable of being recognized?
[right][snapback]614774[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Neither the priest nor the lay faithful of a parish are empowered to make adaptations to the Divine Liturgy. Popular pious practices are a distinct form of worship, and must not be confused with the Divine Liturgy, which is the source and summit of the Christian life.

The general and particular norms for making adaptations to the Divine Liturgy within the Roman Rite are found in the Constitution [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], and within the Latin Rite [u]Code of Canon Law[/u].

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 17 2005, 09:03 PM']Neither the priest nor the lay faithful of a parish are empowered to make adaptations to the Divine Liturgy.  Popular pious practices are a distinct form of worship, and must not be confused with the Divine Liturgy, which is the source and summit of the Christian life.

The general and particular norms for making adaptations to the Divine Liturgy within the Roman Rite are found in the Constitution [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], and within the Latin Rite [u]Code of Canon Law[/u].
[right][snapback]614938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely correct....however, these adaptations are incidental, not intrinsic. There are those liturgists out there who would think otherwise though.

Sacrosanctum Concilium #22 still applies and is paramount.