Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:17 PM']today, I agree - 40 years from now if it has spread to six continents and the bishops still haven't spoken - I wonder
[right][snapback]615686[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In the case you have proposed, If the legitimate authorities have not approved the practice, it follows that in 40 years you will have a liturgical abuse that has spread over six continents. A liturgical abuse does not become a custom properly so-called simply because it has been done for a long time with a wide geographic dispersion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:28 PM']A bishop would never approve of that
[right][snapback]615699[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was only giving a hypothetical example.

[Jaime]

[quote]No, what I am saying is that any adaptations made to the liturgy of the Roman Rite must be made by the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities, i.e., the diocesan bishop or the bishops conference, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See.
[/quote]

But Ap not one of these changes ever originate from legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. They are [i]recognized and officially introduced[/i] by these authorities. This is where sense of the faithful becomes a part of the conversation. The congregation, through the Holy Spirit, recognizes what is in harmony with the teachings of the faith.

That is my point. Tradition springs from tradition

[journeyman]

I think it depends on the issue. Our current bishop is the former bishop of Hawaii. It was important to the Catholics of Hawaiian ancestry that certain aspects of liturgical dance be permitted. Bishop DiLorenzo went to bat for his parishioners and did get the recognitio

Since I picked hand holding I guess I'm stuck with it . . . Has any bishop even asked? It's been around for at least 7 years in this parish, and I really don't think our little town is that innovative . . .

I have a sneaking suspicion the bishops don't think this is a "real" liturgical issue, so they don't tell the local parish to stop, and they don't ask Rome if it is ok

but for those who make such lists, it remains on lists of liturgical abuses

[journeyman]

ok, I'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch two guys who know what they're doing

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:38 PM'][. . .]

Since I picked hand holding I guess I'm stuck with it . . . Has any bishop even asked?  It's been around for at least 7 years in this parish, and I really don't think our little town is that innovative . . .

I have a sneaking suspicion the bishops don't think this is a "real" liturgical issue, so they don't tell the local parish to stop, and they don't ask Rome if it is ok

but for those who make such lists, it remains on lists of liturgical abuses
[right][snapback]615704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The bishops of the USCCB did discuss this problem at one of their general meetings, because I remember reading about it, but they did not request that the Holy See recognize holding hands during the Our Father as a legitimate liturgical practice. In fact the bishops discussed various ways of getting ride of the practice, even by trying to replace it with a more appropriate gesture (like the Orans posture), but they were ultimately unable to decide on what to do, and so the abuse continues because the bishops refuse to act like bishops.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:36 PM'][. . .]

That is my point.  Tradition springs from tradition
[right][snapback]615703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This view of Tradition ultimately would destroy Tradition. Tradition is something received not created. Certainly there can be developments within Tradition, but only over time, and not within a single generation. Abrupt changes harm the fabric of the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, and was not delivered several times over.

What you are proposing sounds more like the evolution of Tradition. There must always be a stable fixed element within the Tradition of the faith, or corruption is inevitable.

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps you mean that traditions (i.e., particular customs) spring from Tradition, and if that is the case, that is less problematic, but it still requires the guidance of the Magisterium of the Pastors in determining whether or not a practice is consonant with the faith of the Church as a whole.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 18 2005, 09:08 PM']Perhaps you mean that tradition (i.e., particular customs) spring from Tradition, and if that is the case, that is less problematic, but it still requires the guidance of the Magisterium of the Pastors in determining whether or not a practice is consonant with the faith of the Church as a whole.
[right][snapback]615736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No

Let me give you an example. The Council of Nicea in 325 officially declared that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus it was recognized to be Tradition. Was this the first time that this was revealed? No. This was when it was declared. The congregation believed this to be true and the Council discerned this to be Truth.

That is what I mean that Tradition springs forth from tradition.

And Ap, it is impossible to destroy Tradition.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 07:40 PM']No

Let me give you an example.  The Council of Nicea in 325 officially declared that Christ was both fully human and fully divine.  Thus it was recognized to be Tradition.  Was this the first time that this was revealed?  No.  This was when it was declared.  The congregation believed this to be true and the Council discerned this to be Truth. 

That is what I mean that Tradition springs forth from tradition.

And Ap, it is impossible to destroy Tradition.
[right][snapback]615771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, I see Nicaea as a dogmatic reaffirmation of the pre-existing Tradition. Thus, Nicaea itself is not "tradition," rather, it is a Council which formulated a dogmatic creed.

I am concerned that your view of Tradition admits of an evolution of doctrine that would be unacceptable. Dogmatic development properly understood is not an evolution of doctrine from one thing to another thing. Moreover, the particular customs surrounding the Mass are not [i]de fide[/i], only the substance of the sacramental rite is [i]de fide[/i]. Of course the sacraments all contain immutable and mutable elements, but nevertheless the sole organ that can make adaptations to the liturgy for pastoral reasons is the Magisterium of the Church. I stand by the general norms enunciated by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], and so far nothing you have said can overcome that conciliar statement of fact.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 07:40 PM']And Ap, it is impossible to destroy Tradition.
[right][snapback]615771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course Tradition can be corrupted, that is why it is the duty of the Pastors of the Church to safeguard and protect Tradition.

Arius, Marcellus of Ancyra, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, Pyrrhus, et al., corrupted and distorted and destroyed the sacred Tradition of the Church, and the bishops of course were called upon to protect that Tradition, and to reaffirm it in opposition to the errors of those very men already mentioned.

Do not confuse the unfailing nature of the universal Church with the life of the particular Churches. All the particular Churches that succumbed to Nestorianism lost the Tradition of the Church, and the same holds for the various Protestant ecclesial communities that separated from the Church during the sixteenth century. The universal Church will continue till the Parousia of the Lord, but the various particular Churches can, and in the past have, died.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 18 2005, 10:01 PM']Of course Tradition can be corrupted, that is why it is the duty of the Pastors of the Church to safeguard and protect Tradition. 

Arius, Marcellus of Ancyra, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, Pyrrhus, et al., corrupted and distorted and destroyed the sacred Tradition of the Church, and the bishops of course were called upon to protect that Tradition, and to reaffirm it in opposition to the errors of those very men already mentioned.

Do not confuse the unfailing nature of the universal Church with the life of the particular Churches.  All the particular Churches that succumbed to Nestorianism lost the Tradition of the Church, and the same holds for the various Protestant ecclesial communities that separated from the Church during the sixteenth century.  The universal Church will continue till the Parousia of the Lord, but the various particular Churches can, and in the past have, died.
[right][snapback]615783[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You forgot Martin Luther.....

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 19 2005, 08:13 AM']You forgot Martin Luther.....
[right][snapback]615977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I try very hard to forget Martin Luther.



But then he is vaguely referenced under the comment I made about the sixteenth century.

[Jaime]

[quote]No, I see Nicaea as a dogmatic reaffirmation of the pre-existing Tradition. Thus, Nicaea itself is not "tradition," rather, it is a Council which formulated a dogmatic creed.[/quote]

You may see it any way you choose to. However the proclamation at Nicea was to quell the debate of Christ's nature within the Church. The Council officially recognized that Christ is and was fully human and fully divine. It officially declared this Truth and therefore, to be part of Tradition.

[quote]Moreover, the particular customs surrounding the Mass are not de fide, only the substance of the sacramental rite is de fide. [/quote]

No kidding. I have not said anything to the contrary. So there is no reason to correct me on this.

[quote]but nevertheless the sole organ that can make adaptations to the liturgy for pastoral reasons is the Magisterium of the Church.[/quote]

And where do these adaptations orginate? The adaptations are not borne of the Magisterium. They are first introduced by the laity then brought to the Magisterium to have the final say on whether or not this particular adaptation is in harmony with the Truth. I have not suggested, nor would I, that there is not a hierarchy that must be respected. The bishops act as sheperds of the Church. The responsibility is theirs to discern what is truly in harmony with the Faith and what is not. But to say that the laity have no role is erroneous.

[quote] a recognition that because of their baptism and their participation in the sensus fidelium the laity play an integral part in decision making in the Church (cf. Authority in the Church: Elucidation, 4);[/quote]

[quote]Do not confuse the unfailing nature of the universal Church with the life of the particular Churches.[/quote]

I haven't. I fully understand that abuses will invariably lead to schism.

Are there clear abuses within the Mass? Absolutely. For example, no lay person can be allowed to give the homily. This is in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches. However when an adaptation is implemented that does not contradict Church teachings, it is not necessarily defined as an abuse simply because it is not contained in the GIRM.

For example, the use of the Unity Candle during a wedding. This is a protestant practice that has been adopted into the wedding mass. While the GIRM discourages the practice, it does not disallow it. Is it disharmonious with the Faith? No. But it is (rightfully called) an unnecessary redundancy. When does it occur? When it has the approval of the local bishop. But the unity candle was introduced to the wedding liturgy prior to it being addressed in the GIRM.

Nothing in what I'm saying is in contradiction to Church teachings. I am simply stating that laity play subordinate but active role in the sensus fidelium.

[Apotheoun]

Clearly we disagree on this topic, and as things stand I don't foresee our coming to an amicable agreement on it.

I will stick with the teaching of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council as expressed in no. 22 of [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u].