Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 19 2005, 09:31 PM'][. . .]
A large part of Christ's ministry on earth seemed to be one of tossing rules out the window.  From a purely personal standpoint, I have trouble placing emphasis on rules and rites - there is more to the Christian message than that.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]616525[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ is the Church, therefore the rules established by the Magisterium are Christ's own rules, and no man may throw out those rules on his own authority.

As far as the conditional nature of the Old Testament is concerned; it is important to remember that the New Testament contains the definitive revelation of God to man, and that there will be no further public revelation. Christ has fulfilled all.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hot stuff, Todd, I hope you guys don't mind if I make a few comments.

hot stuff, it seems to me that you are seeing a false dichotomy where there is, in fact synthesis, regarding the development of doctrine and the Tradition of the Church.

Christ is, as Todd has already stated, the Revelation of God to Man. Thus, all of Holy Tradition is present and presented to the Church in the Person of Christ. Thus, all of Tradition was present from the beginning of Christianity, and has never changed, because for it to change would amount to Christ, who is the Truth, changing.

Now, tying this into your question concerning Nicea:

When the Magisterial Authority of that Council established that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, it was NOT drawing that truth from the common faith of the laity.

When the faith of the laity maintained that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, it was NOT drawing that truth from the Magisterial Authority of the Council.

Rather, the Council and the faith of the orthodox laity were BOTH drawing the truth of Christ's consubstantiality with the Father from the Truth that is the Person of Christ - a Truth that had always been there from the beginning.

The only difference between the faith of the orthodox laity and the teaching of the Council is that while the faith of the laity is not protected by the Holy Spirit, the teachings of the Council are. This does not change the fact that the lay faith does not evolve or develop out of the Council's teachings and that the Council's teachings do not develop out of the lay faith.

Council teachings and the (true) faith of the laity have the immutable Truth of Christ as their direct and only source.

***************************

Now, I think it is also important to note that there is a difference between the development of doctrine and the development of liturgical practices.

With regards to doctrine, we can return to the example of Nicea: The question of whether or not Christ was of the same substance as the Father was being hotly debated. Both members of the laity and the clergy played major roles in discussing, thinking, and discerning the truth of the matter. They did not create the Truth that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, but rather, they clarified a Truth that had always been present.

In this case, and others like it, it is clear that extra-magisterial theological discussion preceeds the official magisterial teaching. However, this does not mean that the Truth expounded in the magisterial teaching has that discussion as its source, Christ is always the source of such Truth.

Unlike the development of doctrine, however, extra-magisterial experimentation does not occur with regards to liturgical development.

Let us see the development of doctrine as a question arising, theologians discussing it in order to determine which answer is true, and the Magisterium finally definitively teaching on which answer is indeed True and has always been present in the Christian Faith.

If liturgical development were to follow the same pattern, we would see: a questionable practice arise, theologians discuss which practice/ set of practices is in line with the Truth of the Faith, and then the Magisterium officially recognize the correct practice/set of practices.

However, that is not how liturgical development works. No liturgical practice ever arises from the laity itself and is put immediately into practice, only then to be discussed and decided on. Rather, a change in the liturgy must come from a proper ecclesial authority, who may [i]or may not[/i] implement the change at the request of the laity. The laity is not the "source" of liturgical change, the magisterium is.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Jaime]

[quote]Christ is, as Todd has already stated, the Revelation of God to Man. Thus, all of Holy Tradition is present and presented to the Church in the Person of Christ. Thus, all of Tradition was present from the beginning of Christianity, and has never changed, because for it to change would amount to Christ, who is the Truth, changing.[/quote]

Jeff I don't deny this. Christ was always fully divine and fully human whether or not it was declared by any person or council. And as you say it was a part of Tradition since the beginning of Christianity.

What I'm saying is that there was indeed debate on the topic and the Council of Nicea was responsible for making a clear declarative statement. It was the body that said "There is no more debate on this issue. This is infallibly held". At that point, it was [i]recognized officially [/i] as part of Tradition. The Catholic Church spoke in one voice.

Another example is the Immaculate Conception. Prior to it being recognized as dogma, it was believed but not officially declared. This is critical to my assertion. A person living prior to 1854 could not say that the Immaculate Conception was part of Tradition. It had not been recognized as such yet.

As for your assertion on liturgical adaptations

[quote]However, that is not how liturgical development works. No liturgical practice ever arises from the laity itself and is put immediately into practice, only then to be discussed and decided on. Rather, a change in the liturgy must come from a proper ecclesial authority, who may or may not implement the change at the request of the laity. The laity is not the "source" of liturgical change, the magisterium is.[/quote]

I would disagree with that. My lame example of the Unity Candle proves my point. The Unity Candle has been used in Catholic weddings long before it was addressed by the Magisterium.

[journeyman]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 20 2005, 01:16 PM']
Christ is, as Todd has already stated, the Revelation of God to Man. Thus, all of Holy Tradition is present and presented to the Church in the Person of Christ. Thus, all of Tradition was present from the beginning of Christianity, and has never changed, because for it to change would amount to Christ, who is the Truth, changing.

<snip>

Rather, the Council and the faith of the orthodox laity were BOTH drawing the truth of Christ's consubstantiality with the Father from the Truth that is the Person of Christ - a Truth that had always been there from the beginning.

<snip>

. . .  Both members of the laity and the clergy played major roles in discussing, thinking, and discerning the truth of the matter. They did not create the Truth that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, but rather, they clarified a Truth that had always been present.

In this case, and others like it, it is clear that extra-magisterial theological discussion preceeds the official magisterial teaching. However, this does not mean that the Truth expounded in the magisterial teaching has that discussion as its source, Christ is always the source of such Truth.

[right][snapback]616960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


while the Revelation has ceased and theTruth is constant and unchanging, our ability to understand that Truth is still growing, thus modifications can, will, and should occur as understanding increases


[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 20 2005, 01:16 PM']
Unlike the development of doctrine, however, extra-magisterial experimentation does not occur with regards to liturgical development.

[right][snapback]616960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 20 2005, 01:16 PM']
Let us see the development of doctrine as a question arising, theologians discussing it in order to determine which answer is true, and the Magisterium finally definitively teaching on which answer is indeed True and has always been present in the Christian Faith.

If liturgical development were to follow the same pattern, we would see: a questionable practice arise, theologians discuss which practice/ set of practices is in line with the Truth of the Faith, and then the Magisterium officially recognize the correct practice/set of practices.

However, that is not how liturgical development works. No liturgical practice ever arises from the laity itself and is put immediately into practice, only then to be discussed and decided on. Rather, a change in the liturgy must come from a proper ecclesial authority, who may [i]or may not[/i] implement the change at the request of the laity. The laity is not the "source" of liturgical change, the magisterium is.

[right][snapback]616960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Using hand holding as the example - the practice exists, is wide spread, does not appear to have any imprimatur other than the silence of the local parish priest ([i]do you like the way I've brought this back to what is not prohibited is permitted? - just trying to stay within my own guidelines[/i]), and with the exception of extra-magisterial discussion in places like PhatMass, does not appear to have been specifically addressed by the magisterium. - - rightly or wrongly, this is a liturgical experiment, apparently arising spontaneously in the ranks of the laity . . . only with an express statement from the local bishop or the magisterium will the practice be approved or suppressed

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 19 2005, 09:37 PM']Where does the Magisterium find these adaptations?
[right][snapback]616529[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I apologize for the delay in responding to your question, but I wanted to give as precise and detailed an answer as I possibly could.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that before I began writing this response I reviewed the various instructions on the reform of the Roman liturgy issued by the Holy See along with letters and allocutions given by Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, and all of the documents and letters I reviewed stated explicitly that the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, i.e., upon the Apostolic See and within certain limits the diocesan bishop, consequently ". . . no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." [1] Nowhere in any of the documents issued by the Magisterium of the Church is there any indication that a parish priest or any other individual (or a local congregation or any other group), may take it upon himself, under the pretext of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], to make any kind of changes --alterations, additions, or omissions -- to the sacred liturgy of the Roman Rite. The idea that the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is an authoritative organ of the Church for adapting and inculturating the liturgy is simply false and as such it has no theological basis in reality; moreover, the idea that the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] acts in this way will lead to the total disintegration of the Roman Rite, as each particular priest (or congregation) alters the liturgy in order to fit his own personal tastes. Moreover, it is important to remember that the liturgy is the prayer of the whole Church, and as such it is not to be reduced to the private prayer of the priest celebrant or the local congregation, and in fact ". . . the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church." [2] Any adaptations made to the liturgy within a particular culture may only be made by the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities, and adaptations should only be made ". . . when the good of the church genuinely and certainly requires them; [and] care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing," [3] in addition, it is vital that any form of syncretism, either in fact or in appearance, be avoided. [4]

That being said, a distinction must be made between the newly evangelized areas of the world, where adaptations, under the guidance of the proper authorities and with the prior [i]recognitio[/i] of the Holy See [5], may need to be made to the liturgy, and those parts of the world that have been Christian for centuries, where there is no pressing need to make adaptations at all, since the reformed liturgical books themselves, completed since the close of the council, provide sufficient adaptation within countries with a long standing Christian background. In fact, in those areas of the world that have been Christian for a long period of time a cultural upheaval has occurred, which in its foundations is inimical to the Catholic faith, and so to adapt the liturgy to these new cultural norms would actually lead to a corruption of the Church's faith and practice. Making changes to the liturgy based upon the disturbed notions prevalent in the West about the nature of man and his place in the world would ultimately do great harm to the Church's life (e.g., the use of socalled [i]inclusive language[/i], etc.); and so, rather than proceed with an unnecessary modernization of the liturgy the Church within Western countries, the ecclesiastical authorities should instead encourage the lay faithful to re-Christianize the societies within which they live.

Now certainly within the newly evangelized areas of the world the local bishop and the episcopal conference of the territory may submit to the Holy See recommendations for adaptations to the Roman Rite in order to inculturate aspects of the existing religious culture of the people. [6] But it is not for the parish priest or the local congregation to take upon itself the reform or adaptation of the liturgy to new cultural situations; instead, it is for the local bishop and the episcopal conference to determine if adaptations to the liturgy are necessary. Thus, in the newly evangelized regions of the world, the episcopal conference, after a diligent study of the situation and taking into account advice from ". . . people who are competent both in the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite and in the appreciation of local cultural values," [7] should submit recommendations to the Apostolic See for its consideration. If the Holy See approves the adaptations recommended by the episcopal conference they would then become a part of the liturgy within that region. Now this is the only approved procedure for making changes to the liturgy of the Roman Rite, because as I have said many times, the power for making adaptations to the liturgy in all cases resides solely with the supreme authority of the Church, i.e., the Apostolic See, and as the law determines, with the local bishop and the episcopal conference. [8] In other words, no adaptations are to be made to the liturgy of the Roman Rite without the prior [i]recognitio[/i] of the Holy See. Moreover, any adaptations to the liturgy must protect the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, as the Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u] makes clear: "The work of inculturation does not foresee the creation of new families of rites; inculturation responds to the needs of a particular culture and leads to adaptations which still remain part of the Roman rite." [9]

Clearly the burden of proof lies with those who argue that adaptations to the liturgy can be made by the parish priest or the local congregation on their own authority, because none of the documents issued by the Magisterium recognize this peculiar notion; in fact quite the contrary, the Magisterium has forbidden this exact type of activity on the part of the parish priest and the lay faithful.

I will end with an extended quotation from Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter [u]Vicesimus Quintus Annus[/u], in which, after expressing his joy at the many good things that have happened since the close of the Second Vatican Council, he laments the many liturgical abuses that have arisen within the Roman Rite:

"Side by side with these benefits of the liturgical reform, one has to acknowledge with regret deviations of greater or lesser seriousness in its application. On occasion there have been noted illicit omissions or additions, rites invented outside the framework of established norms; postures or songs which are not conducive to faith or to a sense of the sacred; abuses in the practice of general absolution; confusion between the ministerial priesthood, linked with Ordination, and the common priesthood of the faithful, which has its foundation in Baptism. It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church. It is for the bishops to root out such abuses, because the regulation of the Liturgy depends on the bishop within the limits of the law and because 'the life in Christ of his faithful people in some sense is derived from and depends on him.'" [10]


NOTES:

[1] Second Vatican Council, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, article 22, nos. 1-3; see also the Latin Rite [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (Latin Rite), canons 838 § 1-4 and 846 § 1; see also the First Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Inter Oecumenici[/u], nos. 20-23; see also the Second Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Tres Abhinc Annos[/u], introduction; see also the Third Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Liturgicae Instaurationes[/u], no. 3; see also the Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 37.

[2] Third Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Liturgicae Instaurationes[/u], no. 1.

[3] Second Vatican Council, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, article 23; see also the Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 46.

[4] See the Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 47.

[5] See [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (Latin Rite), canons 838 § 1-4 and 846 § 1; see also the Second Vatican Council, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, article 22, nos. 1-3.

[6] See the Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 31-32.

[7] Fourth Instruction on the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 30.

[8] See the Fourth Instruction in the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae,[/u] nos. 60, 62, and 64; see also the Second Vatican Council, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, article 22, nos. 1-3; see also [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (Latin Rite), canons 838 § 1-4 and 846 § 1,

[9] Fourth Instruction in the Liturgy [u]Varietates Legitimae[/u], no. 36; see also Pope John Paul II, [u]Discourse to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments[/u], 26 January 1991, no. 3.

[10] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter [u]Vicesimus Quintus Annus[/u], no. 13.

[Aloysius]

I love it when Appy puts so much work into his posts. they look so... cool and official.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Now certainly within the newly evangelized areas of the world the local bishop and the episcopal conference of the territory may submit to the Holy See recommendations for adaptations to the Roman Rite in order to inculturate aspects of the existing religious culture of the people.[/quote]

It is really interesting that this point came up, because I was in the Catholic Information Center in DC yesterday (which has a phenomenal catholic bookstore and 12:05 Mass, and is run by Opus Dei ).

Anyways, I was skimming a book by Reid Alcuin, titled "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" and he had in there a letter written by St. Augustine of Canterbury to Pope St. Gregory the Great.

In this letter, Augustine was asking how he should conduct the liturgy in the brand-spaking-new English Church. Gregory the Great replied that Augustine should look at established liturgies, judge which practices he finds to be the most pius and the most fitting for the english people, and use those.

Reid makes it a specific point to note that any changes or alterations in the liturgy, even in newly evangelized areas - which tend to have the most change - were entirely under the control of the Bishops, who, as the letter of Augustine supports, would frequently correspond with Rome concerning changes.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Jaime]

[quote]The idea that the sensus fidelium is an authoritative organ of the Church for adapting and inculturating the liturgy is simply false and as such it has no theological basis in reality; moreover, the idea that the sensus fidelium acts in this way will lead to the total disintegration of the Roman Rite, as each particular priest (or congregation) alters the liturgy in order to fit his own personal tastes. [/quote]

Again Apotheoun, why do you keep saying this? I have asserted nothing other than that the because the laity participate in the sensus fidelium that the laity play an integral part in decision making.

I have never said that the sensus fidelium is an authoritative organ of the Church.

[quote]Clearly the burden of proof lies with those who argue that adaptations to the liturgy can be made by the parish priest or the local congregation on their own authority, because none of the documents issued by the Magisterium recognize this peculiar notion; in fact quite the contrary, the Magisterium has forbidden this exact type of activity on the part of the parish priest and the lay faithful.[/quote]

Again you insist upon putting words in my mouth. I have qualified that any adaptations must have the permission of the local bishop.

[quote]To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.[/quote]

[quote]
for the Dioceses of the United States of America

Approved by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops
November 14, 2001

(excerpts)


The Sign of Peace
This adaptation will be inserted at number 154, paragraph 2:

The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers, but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration.[b] In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions, (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary.[/b]

Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.[b] The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.[/b]

Materials for Fixed Altars
This adaptation will take the place of the first two sentences of number 301:

In keeping with the Church's traditional practice and the altar's symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone.[b] In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used provided that the altar is structurally immobile. [/b]

[/quote]

These three examples are adaptations that were made to the liturgy that were expressly prohibited by the Magisterium prior to the adaptations. Do you believe that these actions only occurred after the Magisterium ruled? Let’s take the example of the Eucharist.

We used to be required to kneel to receive the Eucharist. That changed. When did it change? When the Magisterium spoke about it? No. Kneelers were being removed by liturgists. New Churches were being designed without kneelers or altar rails. Today it is specifically stated in the GIRM that if one kneels, they should be provided “proper catechesis for this norm” inferring that you are guilty of altering a part of the liturgy as stated in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.

When I read your comments Apotheoun, it feels like you are under the impression that I somehow endorse and support congregations making arbitrary changes to the liturgy. Believe me I don’t. I never have. I have simply stated the history of the adaptations made already. The start of these adaptations began with the laity, (hopefully under the guidance of the bishop) then brought forth to the Magisterium to be reviewed.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff @ Today' date=' 05:01 PM']Today it is specifically stated in the GIRM that if one kneels, they should be provided “proper catechesis for this norm” inferring that you are guilty of altering a part of the liturgy as stated in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.[/quote]

Other way around.

[quote name='Redemptionis Sacramentum # 90']“The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”[/quote]

[quote name='Instructio Generalis #160']The priest then takes the paten or a vessel and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.[/quote]

Here is what Cardinal Estevez, former Prefect for Discipline of the Sacraments says:
[quote]In view of the law that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.[/quote]

And the final word comes from Cardinal Arinze current Prefect for the Discipline of the Sacraments:
[quote name='Redemptionis Sacrament #91']In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them". Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ's faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.[/quote]

[dspen2005]

liturgical documents are what they are... documents which have guidelines and directives as to the proper method of dispensing the sacraments of the Church. i would say that things which are not outlined in the GIRM ought not be allowed; but then, I will have to confess that certain pious practices and gestures which I, and many others do, are not prescribed in the GIRM or other liturgical documents.... but, as an argument in support of both these pious practices and the position that the docs are indeed prohibitive, would be that those pious practices which have been a part of Catholic life for centuries should be permitted and granted acceptance -- ex. striking the breast at the kyrie, domine non sum dignus, etal practices of pious usage.... new things such as raising one's hands at the et cum spiritu tuo, or holding hands during the Pater Noster have not been a part of Catholic piety and should not be permitted....

[Semperviva]

I am probly gonna sound naive here-and someone probly mentioned this already, but the accepted (beating ones breast, etc) must have come about because people were simply acting in a pious manner, trying sincerely to increase their devotion by doing extra things...for example---I move[i] alot[/i] during mass in (I hope) non-distracting ways [i]just[/i] to keep my mind on the reality of the Paschal Mystery- but I [i]hafto[/i]constantly re-positioning my self- in a position of worship the whole time or else... I'm goooone, not fully present etc etc Yes I am weak, but a weak body-soul composite, haha, but my point is that NO we should not do things that the bishops have not approved, but on the other hand, its somewhat impossible to measure every little action/motion/position and say[i] this[/i] is allowed, [i]this[/i] is not. Each person is different and some people need to be very physical when they pray, at least I know I do. Like St. Columba said, [i]"One should always pray with tears. If this is not possible, pray with perspiration." [/i]And, lol, not that we should like be doing Tae-Bo in Mass, of course I am talking about reverent posture, etc...(Not to mention that some-one crying at Mass would be a distration, [i]but a bad one[/i]?) Maybe Columba just meant personal prayer, however, the Mass is the highest form of prayer so I think this idea applies when we're at Mass. Also, like if some-one raises their hand to say "And also with you..." I mean, I'm Italian- and um, something like that is culturally inherent and simply shows that some-one is involved in the Mass, or anything, not that they're disregarding/disrespecting the Liturgical Prescription. [i]Anywaaaays... [/i]

[journeyman]

Apotheon and hot stuff - I think all three of us agree that liturgy not following the guidelines is flawed. Whether it is "abuse" or "illicit" may be no more than one's perception. hot stuff is I think going toward the question I haven't been able to resolve, while Apotheon stops with the text.

As Apotheon noted earlier, the divine revelation is complete. And as I responded, our understanding is incomplete, only through additional study, through reiteration (not just repetition, but investigating, amending, changing (?) can our understanding increase.

People mess up. Other people follow their example. After some period of time, doing it "wrong" starts to feel right. It may be that it is extra actions sympolizing piety (beating the breast during the "mea culpa" phrases in the confiteor was called for in the rites, and still is - but it doesn't flow as well as it did when there was the three fold repetition) or a misguided sense of community (holding hands during the Our Father; leaving the sanctuary during the Sign of the Peace).

Regardless of its initial cause, the action takes place. Then it is repeated. Then it spreads. Eventually, a bishop acts. (To concemn or inquire) If the bishop condemns, then one of the laity may inquire. They would inquire if it is proper a) under all circumstances b) under some circumstances c) under no circumstances.

At this point the Magisterium makes a statement on a liturgical practice that started in the lowest grass root level. Is not hot stuff right in noting that the custom (whether or not it reaches the level of little t or Big T tradition) originated in the laity, and is sanctioned (or condemned) by the Magisterium?

to paraphrase the debate question . . . is it better to seek forgiveness than it is to ask permission?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:27 PM']Other way around.
Here is what Cardinal Estevez, former Prefect for Discipline of the Sacraments says:
And the final word comes from Cardinal Arinze current Prefect for the Discipline of the Sacraments:
[quote name='Redemptionis Sacrament #91']In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them". Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ's faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.[/quote]
[right][snapback]619739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Your beef ain't with me bud. Its with the USCCB. Its with the bishops we must obey.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:29 PM']As Apotheon noted earlier, the divine revelation is complete.  And as I responded, our understanding is incomplete, only through additional study, through reiteration (not just repetition, but investigating, amending, changing (?)  can our understanding increase.
[right][snapback]620116[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There can be no substantial development or change in either the Church's doctrine or liturgy. There can be changes in incidentals, but no change can reverse what has already been defined.

As far as the liturgy is concerned, any incidental changes made must be made by the legitimate authorities, and not by anyone else.

[Apotheoun]

Some people continue to promote the notion that we are somehow in the first century and that the liturgy can be changed by anyone who simply wants to add something to it that he thinks would be beneficial to the Church's life (as if the Church of the first century operated that way). This attitude ignores historical reality, and it is clearly contrary to the directives issued by the Supreme Authority of the Church. We live in the 21st century and the Magisterium of the Church, which alone as the authority to regulate the liturgy, has established guidelines for adaptations to the Roman Rite, no one may make changes outside of the norms instituted by the Apostolic See. Perhaps if the Apostolic See renounced its own authority in the protection of the liturgy, then people could make whatever adaptations they desired, but I can tell you right now that the Supreme Magisterium is not going to renounce its God given authority.

The end.