Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Jaime]

Wait I'm confused

So you guys are in agreement with each other on this?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:57 AM']Wait I'm confused

So you guys are in agreement with each other on this?
[right][snapback]621587[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
:rotfl:

Byzantines and Latins do agree on occasion.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:06 PM']:rotfl:

Byzantines and Latins do agree on occasion.
[right][snapback]621603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yeah, and you don't even kneel for reception of Holy Communion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 09:07 AM']Yeah, and you don't even kneel for reception of Holy Communion.
[right][snapback]621606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We agree yet again. Plus we receive communion on a golden spoon.

[Jaime]

LOL

I'm so happy that I could help facilitate this moment!!

However, it does not change the fact of how this adaptation originated. It did not begin with the Magisterium. It was approved and added by the Magisterium.

Whether or not the adaptation followed correct procedures, it (as well as others) were affirmed by the Magisterium.

That's all I'm saying. Its not opinion. Its a recognition of history.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 24 2005, 09:21 AM']LOL

I'm so happy that I could help facilitate this moment!!

However, it does not change the fact of how this adaptation originated.  It did not begin with the Magisterium.  It was approved and added by the Magisterium. 

Whether or not the adaptation followed correct procedures, it (as well as others) were affirmed by the Magisterium.

That's all I'm saying.  Its not opinion.  Its a recognition of history.
[right][snapback]621628[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Prior to any recognition by the Magisterium it would be a liturgical abuse. So are you encouraging liturgical abuses in order to adapt the liturgy to modernist ideas in the United States?

I still await your supporting evidence for this kind of "adaptation" from the five instructions issued by the CDW on the proper implementation of [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u].

[journeyman]

Is the change in article 43 also an indult applicable only to the United States, and recognized by the Holy See? Is the practice different elsewhere? Why should we be encouraged to follow the universal norm as to the reception of the blessed body and blood (kneeling), but not during other portions of the Mass (consecration)?



In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
[url="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml"]http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml[/url]


after wandering around I have been unable to find this paragraph in the missal for another English speaking country - it is probably out there, but I can't find it to compare the language side by side

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRM.HTM#5"]GIRM[/url] as approved by the CDW. These are the universal norms of the Roman Catholic Church.

[url="http://www.vci.net/~inmanmj/library/girm2000.htm"]GIRM[/url] as approved by the USCCB.

To speak directly to journeyman:

[quote name='GIRM #43 (USCCB)']The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.[/quote]

[quote name='GIRM #20-21 (CDW)']20. The uniformity in standing, kneeling, or sitting to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the community and the unity of the assembly; it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those taking part.

21. For the sake of uniformity in movement and posture, the people should follow the directions given during the celebration by the deacon, the priest, or another minister. Unless other provision is made, at every Mass the people should stand from the beginning of the entrance song or when the priest enters until the end of the opening prayer or collect; for the singing of the Alleluia before the gospel; while the gospel is proclaimed; during the profession of faith and the general intercessions; from the prayer over the gifts to the end of the Mass, except at the places indicated later in this paragraph. They should sit during the readings before the gospel and during the responsorial psalm, for the homily and the presentation of the gifts, and, if this seems helpful, during the period of silence after communion. They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason.

But it is up to the conference of bishops to adapt the actions and postures described in the Order of the Roman Mass to the customs of the people. But the conference must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration.[/quote]

Notice that there is no real departure from tradtion.

[Jaime]

What I am saying Ap, and no one has yet demonstrated to the contrary, is that every part of Tradition has started as tradition. This isn't a revolutionary statement. I am not advocating anarchy within the Church. There are abuses that have been introduced to the Liturgy that were rightfully shut down. There are abuses that should be shut down.

You suggest that I am only offering opinion because I haven't quoted Church documents to support my position. I have supported it by showing historical proof. I have also shown documentation that addresses particular adaptions well after they have been introduced (e.g. the Unity Candle).

To say that all adaptations prior to the recognition of it by the Magisterium are abuses, doesn't that have to apply to beliefs as well? If I proclaim that the Immaculate Conception is true, I am right in saying that. But if I were alive prior to it being recognized and I proclaimed it to be true, would I have been out of order?

The nature of the Eucharist is unchanging. Therefore our reverence of it should also be unchanging. Yet the USCCB states that standing is the norm for the US. If this becomes the accepted norm universally, and the nature of the Eucharist cannot change, were the original people who stood prior to the adaptation being irreverent?

[Cam42]

[quote]The nature of the Eucharist is unchanging. Therefore our reverence of it should also be unchanging. Yet the USCCB states that standing is the norm for the US. If this becomes the accepted norm universally, and the nature of the Eucharist cannot change, were the original people who stood prior to the adaptation being irreverent?[/quote]

You are right the reverence should be unchanging. Why did we change then? The USCCB has engaged an indult as proven earlier in this thread. They are, with recognitio from the Holy See, allowing for an indult to be a widespread practice.

What Appy and I are arguing is that the faithful have taken a dubium to the Holy See and asked if this wording is correct. The CDW has made a determination that the language is not correct and that the nature of GIRM #160 is not in keeping with the universal norm. Therefore, no one may be deemed illicit in kneeling for Holy Communion. It is the USCCB who must change their wording to come into line with the wishes of the Holy See.

You are arguing the opposite. Precisely because you say that the norm is to stand, to do anything else is illict or not normative. The CDW disagrees, not only with you, but also with the USCCB. And in regard to the USCCB, the CDW is the compitent authority. If a correction or change is made or levied in their direction, then it is to be followed.

[Jaime]

[quote]You are arguing the opposite. Precisely because you say that the norm is to stand, to do anything else is illict or not normative[/quote]

Noooo I said "Yet the USCCB states that standing is the norm for the US."

I quoted the GIRM, it is not my statement. If the indult becomes an accepted practice, then how would someone who stood prior to the adaptation be accused of being irreverent. That's my point.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 25 2005, 10:19 AM']Noooo I said "Yet the USCCB states that standing is the norm for the US."

I quoted the GIRM, it is not my statement.  If the indult becomes an accepted practice, then how would someone who stood prior to the adaptation be accused of being irreverent.  That's my point.
[right][snapback]622842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But you support it is as the norm. The language is incorrect. You are supporting incorrect language and and incorrect viewpoint, as the Holy See views it.

It is now to the USCCB to ammend their erroneous language. I would support the CDW who has corrected the congregation that is the USCCB.

[Jaime]

[quote]But you support it is as the norm. The language is incorrect. You are supporting incorrect language and and incorrect viewpoint, as the Holy See views it.[/quote]

I QUOTED THE GIRM!!


I am not only allowed to do that, I am required to do that!!! If the GIRM is incorrect you cannot hold me accountable for that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 25 2005, 05:57 AM']What I am saying Ap, and no one has yet demonstrated to the contrary, is that every part of Tradition has started as tradition.  This isn't a revolutionary statement.  I am not advocating anarchy within the Church.  There are abuses that have been introduced to the Liturgy that were rightfully shut down.  There are abuses that should be shut down. 
[. . .]
[right][snapback]622777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hot stuff,

I think that the crux of our disagreement is centered around how we understand of the nature of Tradition. I do not admit that traditions (i.e., customs) develop into Tradition; because Tradition is inspired and as such it is an unchanging reality given by Christ the Lord Himself to the Church through the Apostles.

Consequently, even when a dogmatic definition of the Extraordinary Magisterium, or a definitive teaching through a non-defining act of the Ordinary Magisterium, is made, the dogmatic definition or definitive teaching in question is not a "new" reality; instead, it is simply the expression of the already existing faith of the Church through a defining or non-defining act of the Magisterium.

In other words, Tradition ontologically precedes the traditions (i.e., customs) that express it in particular circumstances. My concern here, is that to say otherwise is to admit the possibility of substantial changes in the faith and practice of the Church. Moreover, I find it hard to see how a conception of the "development" of Tradition that sees it as arising out of some kind of consensus from ecclesiastical traditions (i.e., customs) would not fall under the censures issued by Pope St. Pius X in [u]Lamentabili Sane[/u] and [u]Pascendi Dominici Gregis[/u].

As you and I both know, the Magisterium has the power to alter or suppress liturgical practices, and so these traditions cannot be the source of Tradition, because if they were, it follows that the Magisterium could actually alter or suppress sacred Tradition itself.

[Jaime]

BTW the GIRM is only incorrect on how to handle folks who kneel. It is not incorrect that standing is allowed in the US.