Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:01 PM']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. 
[right][snapback]619677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I understand what you are saying, but although you keep asserting this idea, you never supply any documentation from the norms issued by the Apostolic See that indicates that this is in fact the case. Thus, it's just your opinion. Please supply some supporting evidence from the five instructions on the liturgy issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship.

As far as my comments on the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] are concerned, I continue making them in order to defend the true theological nature of this idea, because some people are promoting a notion of it that does not conform to the teaching of the Church as it is found in the documents of the Church's Magisterium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:01 PM']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?  
[right][snapback]619677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hot stuff,

The fact that these practices were done by priests in direct disobedience to the Magisterium is a sad reality, and it is equally sad that they treated the liturgy as their private prayer, and that they inflicted their own personal proclivities upon the lay faithful. Now, I may think that the bishops conference was wrong in asking for these adaptations, but I do understand why the bishops did what they did, because they have clearly lost control of the celebration of the Mass in the Church at the present time. In the cases that you've referred to it does appear as if the bishops are rewarding disobedience, but in spite of that we as Catholics must stand firm against those who think that they can experiment with the liturgy by making changes without the prior approval of the local Ordinary and the Apostolic See.

Now as far as the three examples you've cited are concerned, all of them have now been approved by the Apostolic See after a request of the bishops conference. That is the norm for making adaptations to the Roman Rite. The disobedient activity of the priests that led to this request by the bishops is not the norm; instead, it is a liturgical abuse and an affront to the right of the lay faithful to a celebration of the Mass that conforms to the liturgical books issued by the competent ecclesiastical authorities. That being said, if the bishops conference requests an adaptation, and if it receives the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See, I have no problem with it.

But that is not what you are talking about in every case, because you have, on occasion, supported the idea that the priest or the local congregation can make changes to the rite of the Mass, and that is what I take issue with. What I have been asking you to do is to show from the instructions issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship where the permission for adaptations to the liturgy by the parish priest or the local congregation is given. I still await your supporting documentation.

I have no problem with the bishops conference requesting adaptations to the rite of the Mass -- even if I personally think that the adaptation requested is foolish or unnecessary -- because the bishops have a right to request what they think will be good for the Church, and if their request is approved by Rome, then it becomes a legitimate part of the liturgy.

One other thing hot stuff, don't take things so personally, I have nothing against you as a person. Certainly, we disagree on the issue of how liturgical adaptations are to be made within the Roman Rite (i.e., when they are truly necessary for the good of the Church), but that is a disagreement that does not effect in the least our relationship as Catholics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:01 PM']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.[right][snapback]619677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This assertion is simply false, because kneeling remains the norm during the Eucharistic prayer in the Roman Rite in the United States, and this is so because the bishops of the United States specifically requested this practice and have received the proper [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See.

Perhaps you are referring to standing when receiving holy communion, and if that is the case, I would refer you to the various clarifications issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship that can be found on the Adoremus website.

P.S. - Liturgists do not have the authority to do what you mentioned in your post.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 06:47 PM']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]
[right][snapback]619832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Can some-one help me out with this? What I meant to ask is: Are there certain things that just don't come under liturgical prescriptions, within reason (say culturally, to increase personal participation or increase devotion?)

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 06:47 PM']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]
[right][snapback]619832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

it is true that many gestures grew ex sensus fidelium.... but various new gestures -- holding hands during the Our Father, raising hands at the et cum spiritu tuo, etc.. have a strong Protestant influence, if not an outright source.... because of this, they have no place in the Sacred Liturgy and ought to be reprimanded by the bishops.

[Semperviva]

Well, I'm not endorsing Protestant, um, practices per se, just say if the person is doing these things because it helps them to pray...I mean holding hands could help some people but hinder others...also in Melkite Church we raised our hands for the Our Fathers the way they do in some of the Catacombs iconography...but the point is...I don't thing those actions are inherently Protestant... Different rites/culture/people = different postures of prayer is all I'm saying...

[dspen2005]

The orans position -- which in the West is meant only for the priest to do -- during the Pater Noster, has become a position that many of the faithful themselves have taken.... I am not sure exactly how this started among Latin Rite Catholics... 2 stories come to mind: 1. it was an influence from AA meetings, and 2. it was a part of an overemphasis in the common priesthood of all believers. THis second story, by the way, has been a reason for some groups to gather around the alter to co-consecrate the Eucharist.....

I suppose, i have a fear in an even more protestantization of the Catholic Mass, than it already has become in many areas.

[journeyman]

[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.
[/quote]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:17 AM']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.
[right][snapback]620216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:22 AM']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.   


[right][snapback]620219[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Does this mean that understanding is frozen today, after 20 centuries of advances? I understand the "authority" to make official changes in the liturgy rests with the Magisterium. I understand that "unauthorized" changes by the laity are just that, unauthorized.

Are no further advances permitted? We aren't in the 1st century, or the 4th, or the 14th. Understanding and worship changed through these periods. Does Apotheon's position, if inflexibly held, prevent the development of our understanding or our worship in the future as if the Church were carved in stone? Are all future developments, for example, something like the "modern" Divine Mercy Chaplet, to be limited to personal devotions? Where will the Church obtain the fuel for its future advances if the deviations of the laity (or the parish priest) are not considered as possibly of merit, and passed up the hierarchy to the Magisterium for review,study, improvement, integration and possibly implementation?

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:07 AM'][right][snapback]619739[/snapback][/right]

Your beef ain't with me bud.  Its with the USCCB.  Its with the bishops we must obey.
[right][snapback]620211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I understand that, but the norm is still the norm......so, your inferrence was backward, that is all I am saying.....nothing more, nothing less.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 23 2005, 06:10 PM']Are no further advances permitted?  We aren't in the 1st century, or the 4th, or the 14th.  Understanding and worship changed through these periods.  Does Apotheon's position, if inflexibly held, prevent the development of our understanding or our worship in the future as if the Church were carved in stone?  Are all future developments, for example, something like the "modern" Divine Mercy Chaplet, to be limited to personal devotions?  Where will the Church obtain the fuel for its future advances if the deviations of the laity (or the parish priest) are not considered as possibly of merit, and passed up the hierarchy to the Magisterium for review,study, improvement, integration and possibly implementation?
[right][snapback]621094[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just as a note of clarification. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is by definition a personal or private devotion, even if it is recited publicly, because it is not a specific "rite" or "ceremony" of the Divine Liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 23 2005, 09:20 AM']Well, I'm not endorsing Protestant, um, practices per se, just say if the person is doing these things because it helps them to pray...I  mean holding hands could help some people but hinder others...also in Melkite Church we raised our hands for the Our Fathers the way they do in some of the Catacombs iconography...but the point is...I don't thing those actions are inherently Protestant... Different rites/culture/people = different postures of prayer is all I'm saying...
[right][snapback]620513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As a fellow Easterner (seeing that you're Melkite) I'm sure you are already aware of the fact that whenever a person celebrates the liturgy within a [i]sui juris[/i] Church that is not his own, he should follow the liturgical customs and traditions of the Church in which he is worshipping.

The Latin Church should not be "Easternized" any more than the Eastern Catholic Churches should be Latinized. It is a sad reality that in the past the Latin Church had a tendency to push its own liturgical forms upon the Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome.

That is why over the past forty years the Eastern Catholic Churches have been undergoing the painful task of de-Latinization, i.e., of having to expunge from their own practices (spiritual, liturgical, and theological) elements that do not conform to an Eastern understanding of the Christian mystery.

It would be just as bad for the Latin Church if Easterners began to meddle with the liturgy of the West. Moreover it is quite clear that the Supreme Authority of the Church is not looking to blend the different liturgical rites of the one Catholic Church into some kind of hybrid universal rite. In fact the process of de-Latinization on the part of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which has been ordered by the Apostolic See, concerns the integrity of the spiritual and theological traditions of Eastern (Byzantine) Christians, while also serving as an example to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, by showing them that it is truly possible for Eastern Christians to be in communion with the See of Rome, without losing that which makes them unique.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 23 2005, 09:09 PM']I understand that, but the norm is still the norm......so, your inferrence was backward, that is all I am saying.....nothing more, nothing less.
[right][snapback]621164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How is my inference backwards?

The norm was to kneel when we received the Eucharist
Today the norm is to stand. And now if one kneels, priests are required to "explain proper catechesis" to the congregant.


Where am I backwards?

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 24 2005, 09:23 AM']How is my inference backwards?

The norm was to kneel when we received the Eucharist
Today the norm is to stand.  And now if one kneels, priests are required to "explain proper catechesis" to the congregant. 
Where am I backwards?
[right][snapback]621414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The norm is to kneel....the indult is given to the bishops to alter this, to standing. They have. That is not a norm, but it is an indult.

Cardinal Estevez is perfectly clear about that in the above post.

[Jaime]

[quote]The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. [/quote]

The GIRM is clear on this. My inference is not backwards. They call it out as a norm for the US.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:27 AM']The norm is to kneel....the indult is given to the bishops to alter this, to standing.  They have.  That is not a norm, but it is an indult.

Cardinal Estevez is perfectly clear about that in the above post.
[right][snapback]621417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are completely correct. The universal norm in the Roman Rite when receiving holy communion is to kneel; the indult practice, permitted in various countries with the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See, is to stand. In countries with the indult the lay faithful have the right to kneel when receiving communion if they so choose (see the clarifications issued by the Congregation for DIvine Worship on the Adoremus website).