Abuses and Irregularities in EWTN Masses?

[ibkc]

Actually it doesn’t support the opinion of the people who want to get in the communion line for a blessing. I just watched it. If you watch the whole thing you will note that the person who asked the question even picked up that although the Cardinal said there was nothing against it there was absolutely nothing FOR it (strongly stated) and it happens in very few countries, this being one of them, and it is a line for communion, although they have left it up to the Bishop. Even the guy asking the question got what the Cardinal was trying to say in a very charitable way because he asked “in that case, what do we do with our kids”. Which was a little silly I thought. You can still take them with you.

I think this is more of people reading into it that if does not say NO… I can do it.

I finally got a chance to watch it and yeah, the people who are high-fiving each other about being “right” are really jumping the gun. There is no right or wrong answer across the board here because it is left up to the local bishop. If the bishop has allowed it, fine. If he has disallowed it, then it’s not fine. If he hasn’t ruled on it at all, then it is going to be up for discussion until a ruling comes. But there is no point going on and on about it on an international message board because the answer is going to be different depending on locality.

Even the good Cardinal told his questioner that it is not something worth arguing over.

 

[mammallama]

Atreyu, I agree with you that some things that occur that are NOT in the GIRM are innocent enough. But it seems you miss the gist of the point I am presenting: when is enough, enough? Who draws the line? What’s wrong with ONLY doing the red and saying the black? When did it become ok to innovate?

Here’s a problem that’s been around since day one and in my opinion,that’s right,my opinion has gotten worse since Vatican II.George Weigel’s “The Courage To Be Catholic” speaks to this and is well worth reading.

The Church is not a static being.She does grow,change,adjust.What goes on in San Francisco might not happen in Chicago or Paris or Rio .I recall the Papal Mass in New York(some stadium)I saw things on my tv that seemed way out of line and many of the tv commentators were just as puzzled.And then there was the indigenous dancing during the Mass at WYD2208 which I heard about but never actually saw, it’s probably on you-tube somewhere.

I suppose it is up to each and everyone of us to observe and question and petition.

If someone in my parish has an issue with me then there is a well defined hierarchy to which they can complain.nothing new there.I,myself have pointed out certain"problems"to my local diocese.Should the pattern continue then the next step is…well it’s not to come on these pages and expect a divine intervention.(And please I am not implying that you or anyone else is doing that.)

 

[Rickwood]

I finally got a chance to watch it and yeah, the people who are high-fiving each other about being “right” are really jumping the gun. There is no right or wrong answer across the board here because it is left up to the local bishop. If the bishop has allowed it, fine. If he has disallowed it, then it’s not fine. If he hasn’t ruled on it at all, then it is going to be up for discussion until a ruling comes. But there is no point going on and on about it on an international message board because the answer is going to be different depending on locality.

Even the good Cardinal told his questioner that it is not something worth arguing over.

You and BSHoop96 are wrong.

The whole point of this thread is that some on these forums have pushed two gravely wrong personal opinions. First; that the GIRM and/or RS prohibits people from processing up and receiving a blessing during communion. Second; that “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s a liturgical abuse!”

The very fact that as you put it “There is no right or wrong answer across the board here because it is left up to the local bishop.” shows just how much in error said people are on at least the first point. Their error on the second point is axiomatic.

I don’t recall a single person saying they had a “right” to receive a blessing or they could ignore their ordinary if he instructed them not to process up for a blessing.

 

[maurin]

your memory of the whole point of this thread is wrong.

nowhere in your opening post mentions this. It mentions a lot, but not the specific issue of receiving a blessing in the Communion line. That came up later.

You advocate innovation. When is enough, enough?

Do you believe that the guidelines should remain vague, or should the guidelines be quite strict and clear to one and all?

 

[Rickwood]

Atreyu,

because something happens in two Parishes in Australia and about a gazillion of them here in America certainly doesn’t mean that it is appropriate usage according to local custom.

What?!? It’s up to the local bishop. Finis.

YES, Atreyu, I agree with you that some things that occur that are NOT in the GIRM are innocent enough. But it seems you miss the gist of the point I am presenting: when is enough, enough? Who draws the line? What’s wrong with ONLY doing the red and saying the black? When did it become ok to innovate?

It’s not a matter of being “innocent enough.” Not everything pertaining to the Mass is controlled by either the GIRM or RS and some believe it is. In this matter it’s up to the local bishop.

The Local Ordinary? I agree. But one Local Ordinary in California gave Communion to a transvestite dressed as a “sister of perpetual indulgence” and later claimed he didn’t know that she wasn’t a nun, or that she wasn’t a woman. My Local Ordinary sees nothing wrong with several Parishes in the Diocese not having ANY depictions of Christ Crucified neither on the Altar nor in the Sanctuary Itself during the Mass.

How come you don’t mention that the bishop was confused/unaware of who have gave communion to and later apologized for the mishap? That’s on you.

With regard to a crucifix with a corpus, have you ever offered to buy or raise money for one for your parish? If your pastor and bishop said “no” then you have two choices. Start writing letters or offer it up to God via prayer. If your bishop does not allow a crucifix with a corpus then it’s on him – he bears the responsibility for facilitating the abuse – not you.

Or is this deemed “ok” because it is local custom?

It shouldn’t matter to you – they responsibility for deviating from the GIRM in this case rests with your bishop, not you. You won’t answer for it. See either write your letters or get over it.

Another thought about the slippery slope. In the 1930’s was it?, the Lambeth Conference allowed for contraception in the marriage bed. Almost all “Christian” religions followed suite. Today we are dealing not only with legalized abortion, but as societies we are wrestling with homosexual “marriage.”

So? More inflammatory remarks?

100 years ago you couldn’t find a prophylactic for sale in any “decent” retail outlet–it was illegal. Today, we are serious when we say that children who are born alive in spite of the attempt to abort them are left to die. Humans that have been born alive in spite of the attempt to abort them are left to die!

So? More inflammatory remarks?

There’s an analogy in there somewhere.

More like a couple of red herrings.

 

[Rickwood]

your memory of the whole point of this thread is wrong.

nowhere in your opening post mentions this. It mentions a lot, but not the specific issue of receiving a blessing in the Communion line. That came up later.

You advocate innovation. When is enough, enough?

Do you believe that the guidelines should remain vague, or should the guidelines be quite strict and clear to one and all?

The whole point of this thread is that some on these forums have pushed two gravely wrong personal opinions. First; that the GIRM and/or RS prohibits people from processing up and receiving a blessing during communion. Second; that “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s a liturgical abuse!”

You’re projecting – I do not “advocate innovation.” You are trying to label certain things as “innovations” and they are not.

It’s not up to me whether “the guidelines should remain vague, or should the guidelines be quite strict and clear to one and all” – it’s up to the Church. I will say that licit flexibility is largely a good thing and that if you tried to really nail down everything, the GIRM would be the size of our 3 cycle Lectionary…

 

[maurin]

So? More inflammatory remarks?

So? More inflammatory remarks?

More like a couple of red herrings.

or maybe more like a man totally ignorant of history and doomed to repeat it?

or maybe more like a man totally ignorant of Scripture, and doomed to follow a leader who leads others into the pit?

 

[maurin]

The whole point of this thread is that some on these forums have pushed two gravely wrong personal opinions. First; that the GIRM and/or RS prohibits people from processing up and receiving a blessing during communion. Second; that “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s a liturgical abuse!”

Actually, your second point is the only point you put forward in your opening posts on this thread. your first point above came in much later.

 

[Rickwood]

or maybe more like a man totally ignorant of history and doomed to repeat it?

or maybe more like a man totally ignorant of Scripture, and doomed to follow a leader who leads others into the pit?

You haven’t brought anything substantial to the table. You fling-out inflammatory remarks hoping to use emotion to make your point.

It’s not working.

 

[Rickwood]

Actually, your second point is the only point you put forward in your opening posts on this thread. your first point above came in much later.

You’re wrong.

 

[maurin]

You haven’t brought anything substantial to the table. You fling-out inflammatory remarks hoping to use emotion to make your point.

It’s not working.

really? nothing at all substantial? or nothing at all in agreement of your opening point, which you have now changed and made secondary?

 

[ibkc]

You and BSHoop96 are wrong.

No, we’re not. I am not buying directly into your premise, Spiller. Since you started this thread to deliberately try to ridicule people and to bait people into a fight, I am ignoring that and focusing on the specifics instead.

The whole point of this thread is that some on these forums have pushed two gravely wrong personal opinions. First; that the GIRM and/or RS prohibits people from processing up and receiving a blessing during communion. Second; that “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s a liturgical abuse!”

The very fact that as you put it “There is no right or wrong answer across the board here because it is left up to the local bishop.” shows just how much in error said people are on at least the first point.

Oh, I thought you said I was “wrong”.

Their error on the second point is axiomatic.

Something may not be in the GIRM and not be an abuse. Something may not be in the GIRM and may still be an abuse. Obviously the video with Cardinal Arinze shows that the blessing question was deliberately left to the local bishops to decide, although the Cardinal didn’t act like he, personally, is a big fan of the practice. Other issues may left open deliberately in the same way, or they may not. They may be unaddressed for the simple reason that there is no need, or they may be under discussion. So while it is wrong to declare that anything not in the GIRM is an abuse, it is equally wrong to go the opposite direction and declare that if it’s not in the GIRM then it’s just fine and dandy.

Either way, you have failed to prove why it is not permissable for laypeople to read the GIRM for themselves and form their own opinions about it. As long as there is no ruling on an issue, why can’t they? The bishops make the liturgical documents freely available and it has been pointed out to you several times that we are encouraged to become familiar with their contents and to report obvious abuse.

 

[maurin]

really? nothing at all substantial? or nothing at all in agreement of your opening point, which you have now changed and made secondary?

and might I add, my questions were sincere and respectful. not made in either mocking or aggressive–or passive aggressive–tones that you have used repeatedly with those of us who disagree with you.

 

[whatevergirl]

No one answered my question.

 

[Rickwood]

No, we’re not. I am not buying directly into your premise, Spiller. Since you started this thread to deliberately try to ridicule people and to bait people into a fight, I am ignoring that and focusing on the specifics instead.

I really don’t care what you are “buying-into.”

Not only did the video show that Church documents do not prohibit one from processing up for a blessing during communion (as some stridently contest here) it also shows that if something is not defined in the GIRM/RS then it is not necessarily and “abuse.”

Spin it any way you want but that was demonstrated.

Something may not be in the GIRM and not be an abuse. (not according to some here.) Something may not be in the GIRM and may still be an abuse. (axiomatic) Obviously the video with Cardinal Arinze shows that the blessing question was deliberately left to the local bishops to decide, (correct) although the Cardinal didn’t act like he, personally, is a big fan of the practice. (So?) Other issues may left open deliberately in the same way, or they may not.(So?) They may be unaddressed for the simple reason that there is no need, or they may be under discussion.(So?) So while it is wrong to declare that anything not in the GIRM is an abuse, it is equally wrong to go the opposite direction and declare that if it’s not in the GIRM then it’s just fine and dandy. (I NEVER said nor inferred that. To suggest I did would be untruthful.)

Either way, you have failed to prove why it is not permissable for laypeople to read the GIRM for themselves and form their own opinions about it. (Now you are meandering away from the topic. This was never discussed, not did I comment about it.) As long as there is no ruling on an issue, why can’t they? (They certainly can offer an opinion – but it has to be proffered as just that – an opinion.) The bishops make the liturgical documents freely available and it has been pointed out to you several times that we are encouraged to become familiar with their contents and to report obvious abuse. (And?)

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed.