Z
zab
Guest
Actually, I did have a little trouble trying to formulate my question as I sometimes do. But Phemie understood me correctly.
- Status
P
Phemie
Guest
I wasn’t saying that it wasn’t zab who made the comment, I was saying that you didn’t correctly interpret what she wrote.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Zab,
Here’s where I’m confused: how did I not answer the question the first time? I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m simply inquiring of you how I did not answer the question. Someone (and I mean anyone) might disagree with the answer, of course. But if you don’t mind me asking, I would just like to know how my answer was not a response to the question. I’m just asking–nothing more.
Here’s what I responded:
And then in the next post:
Here’s the response from Phemie, which you just said is the correct interpretation of your question:
Please realize that this is what confuses me. I thought I answered the question, but you made it clear that my response somehow offended (for which I apologize). I don’t get it.
Z
zab
Guest
I was pleased with the way you answered the question but I was offended by what you left out here, your anticipation that people would take the answer that you gave and try to apply it to some illicit authority. And since we have butted heads on other occassions, where I felt that you misinterpreted some of my posts, I took it personally as if you thought my innocent question was somehow a trick question. Perhaps I shouldn’t have. But I just felt that you didn’t need to go there. Here is the quote from you that I objected to:
Also,* I’m going to anticipate** what some others might post with a general reminder about something:*
Yes, Catholics should follow the directives of their pastors in liturgical matters, but that does not in any way mitigate the fact that pastors (whether parochial or the shepherd of the diocese) are only acting with legitimate authority when they are implementing the liturgical norms of the Church. Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.
There is legitimate authority on the one hand, and there is a false usurped authority on the other hand. We cannot fail to distinguish between the two.
J
japhy
Guest
Fr. David, your answer to zab’s question was more focused on the lawfulness of kneeling to receive Communion, that a person who does so cannot be regarded as being disobedient if the kneel where the local norm is to stand.
But zab was trying to determine if a person who kneels after the Agnus Dei, in a diocese where the Bishop says the posture is standing, should be considered obedient or disobedient.
I don’t know if this misunderstanding was part of the hubbub between the two of you right now, but I just wanted to put this out there.
But zab was trying to determine if a person who kneels after the Agnus Dei, in a diocese where the Bishop says the posture is standing, should be considered obedient or disobedient.
I don’t know if this misunderstanding was part of the hubbub between the two of you right now, but I just wanted to put this out there.
Z
zab
Guest
Actually it wasn’t. He answered my question to my satisfaction. See above posts.
R
rrochon
Guest
Holding hands: The idea that if something in the Mass is not prohibited by the Rubrics it is allowed is totally unreasonable. There would not be enough books in the world to list everything that is not permitted. The Rubrics lists what is allowed, and nothing else is permitted. The same would apply to Dance.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No it’s not. If the Church doesn’t permit something then it is legislated/taught as such i.e. written down, communicated, made public. Otherwise how is one to know what’s not permitted? You may think there aren’t enough books in the world, but there actually are; in this case the approved liturgical Rites of the Church, Canon Law, and authoritative Instructions etc. issued by competent authority (i.e. Magisterium).
J
japhy
Guest
There is nothing (aside from perhaps no long-standing tradition) prohibiting people from holding hands during the Our Father. What is prohibited is a priest or bishop mandating or even requesting this behavior during the Mass.
C
Corki
Guest
Without getting into a specifically “hand holding” discussion, it depends on what the “something” is. There are some “choreographed,” for lack of a better word, gestures in the Mass. These are spelled out in the rubrics and are not to be ommited or changed NOR can additional “choreographed” gestures be added unless they are spelled out in the rubrics or somewhere else.
But individual postures are less regulated. Even though there are directives in the GIRM, there are exceptions almost every time and not just because of physical inability. The back and forth you see with dubiums and responses from the CDF repeatedly emphasizes some feedom on the posture of an individual.
One may argue whether hand holding is gesture or a posture. I don’t think the Church has spoken infallibly on that.
But it isn’t an individual act either - it takes two.Dance is neither a gesture or a posture so the same “rules” wouldn’t apply. But Cardinal Arinze was very clear about this as Prefect of the CDF that the circumstances where liturgical dance would be licit are extremely rare. A papal Mass in a country with a large population of indigenous people might be one of those rare cases. A regular parish Mass in Houston (the last time I was subjected) is not.
P
pnewton
Guest
But we are not talking about everything that is not permitted. This is something which is extremely widespread. Other abused were covered when Redemptionis Sacramentum was released, but not this item. It must be more common than most of the practices RS proscribed. One sentence in that document would have ended the question and stopped most parishes from having this practice.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Exactly. Well said.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Given the fact that the Church repeats over and over again the words of Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3
Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.
This is a clear indication that nothing can be added to the Liturgy–it’s the plain meaning of the words. There is no “if it’s not forbidden, it’s thereby allowed” clause in that document, nor is that to be found anywhere in any of the Liturgical laws, norms, or teachings of the Church. It simply does not exist.
One knows what is permitted by following the rite described by the Church. In reality, no one should even be asking the question: can this be added to the Liturgy? because as Vatican II stated, and as the Church constantly repeats, nothing can be added on one’s own authority, even if that one is the priest.
Here it is in Latin:
§ 3. Quapropter nemo omnino alius, etiamsi sit sacerdos, quidquam proprio marte in Liturgia addat, demat, aut mutet.
Note that the Church uses the word “sacerdos” and does not use the word presbyter. This doesn’t happen by accident. The use of those words is very specific in Church documents.
Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.
This is a clear indication that nothing can be added to the Liturgy–it’s the plain meaning of the words. There is no “if it’s not forbidden, it’s thereby allowed” clause in that document, nor is that to be found anywhere in any of the Liturgical laws, norms, or teachings of the Church. It simply does not exist.
One knows what is permitted by following the rite described by the Church. In reality, no one should even be asking the question: can this be added to the Liturgy? because as Vatican II stated, and as the Church constantly repeats, nothing can be added on one’s own authority, even if that one is the priest.
Here it is in Latin:
§ 3. Quapropter nemo omnino alius, etiamsi sit sacerdos, quidquam proprio marte in Liturgia addat, demat, aut mutet.
Note that the Church uses the word “sacerdos” and does not use the word presbyter. This doesn’t happen by accident. The use of those words is very specific in Church documents.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Since we’re talking about Redemptionis Sacramentum, here are a few quotes:
4… In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.
30…It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many".
174 Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.
175 The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.
How many more “sentences” do we need before we understand the plain meaning of the words?
C
Corki
Guest
I absolutely agree, especially with your last sentance. But RS was a document for the Universal Church. Assuming that we are still talking about “hand holding,”
the practice seems to be very rare outside of the US. So RS would not necessarily have been the best place to address it specifically.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thanks. I really hadn’t considered that.I absolutely agree, especially with your last sentance. But RS was a document for the Universal Church. Assuming that we are still talking about “hand holding,”
I
I_Believe
Guest
This is why they are such common abuses.
God bless.
S
Spencerian
Guest
I’m a recent convert (5 years). Thanks to CAL and my personal sense of rule-keeping, I tend to see more abuses than not during some liturgies.
Extraordinary Ministers: I personally thought, early in my acceptance in the faith, that Extraordinary Ministers were “special” in some way. Later, I understood that, if we can avoid having them, it should be done. Some ministers will bless people with a Sign of the Cross who are receiving–a no-no since priests have power reserved to them.
Holding/raising hands: I have personally been confused by holding hands, or raising hands when the priest does. Who am I to think that holding hands or raising my hands grants me and other parishioners some level of equality or sharing of something uniquely granted as part of the Holy Orders to the officiant? Besides, I’m about to shake hands in the Sign of Peace, so holding hands seems a bit too intimate and redundant. To combat this abuse by example, especially in my own parish, I close my eyes and put my hands together in prayer during the Our Father, which discourages others from linking hands. My personal devotion (to counter the raising of others’ clasped hands–a sign to me of trying to “feel” some power that isn’t ours as the laity as some Protestants choose to do), I bow deeply in an effort to show humility to the Lord at the Great Amen.
Applause: This abuse comes up more at other parishes than my own. I know the Mass is not a performance, so during ordinary Mass it seems inappropriate to applaud the musical staff. When the priest is concluding the Mass and asks us to applaud someone for their efforts for the parish, that’s OK. I make one exception to applause: during Christmas Vigil Mass, as the musical team and the teams that prep the church for the special occasion go out of their way to bring the magic of the occasion.
Extraordinary Ministers: I personally thought, early in my acceptance in the faith, that Extraordinary Ministers were “special” in some way. Later, I understood that, if we can avoid having them, it should be done. Some ministers will bless people with a Sign of the Cross who are receiving–a no-no since priests have power reserved to them.
Holding/raising hands: I have personally been confused by holding hands, or raising hands when the priest does. Who am I to think that holding hands or raising my hands grants me and other parishioners some level of equality or sharing of something uniquely granted as part of the Holy Orders to the officiant? Besides, I’m about to shake hands in the Sign of Peace, so holding hands seems a bit too intimate and redundant. To combat this abuse by example, especially in my own parish, I close my eyes and put my hands together in prayer during the Our Father, which discourages others from linking hands. My personal devotion (to counter the raising of others’ clasped hands–a sign to me of trying to “feel” some power that isn’t ours as the laity as some Protestants choose to do), I bow deeply in an effort to show humility to the Lord at the Great Amen.
Applause: This abuse comes up more at other parishes than my own. I know the Mass is not a performance, so during ordinary Mass it seems inappropriate to applaud the musical staff. When the priest is concluding the Mass and asks us to applaud someone for their efforts for the parish, that’s OK. I make one exception to applause: during Christmas Vigil Mass, as the musical team and the teams that prep the church for the special occasion go out of their way to bring the magic of the occasion.
- Status