Abuses and Irregularities in EWTN Masses?

[maurin]

What value did your posting add? All you did was take a personal shot. Very bad form.

What question did you ask? I don’t respond to loaded questions – I ignore them. I have nothing to hide.

Not that it’s any of his business but I might respond to that other fellow if he would stop mischaracterizing my comments about EWTN.

Excuse me Rickwood, but is it a possibility that you are over-reacting? Your accusation is unfounded.

My question was and remains sincere.

You made a statement: “While obviously that’s not true…” It is not obviously true to me or a number of others following this thread, which is why there is a debate going on.

Would you please provide substantiative support for your statement that it “obviously is not true” that that which is not specifically mentioned in the GIRM is not disallowed by the GIRM.
A citation from the GIRM would be helpful.

You made a simple statement. All I’m asking for is simple substantiation.

 

[maurin]

There are some on this forum that suggest NOTHING may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out in the official liturgical documents. While that’s obviously not true, .

.

May one ask you to specifically cite GIRM # ?__ that supports your statement, “While that’s obviously not true…” ?

Protestant: “If it’s not in the Bible, then it’s wrong!”

Rickwood: “You are incorrect.”

Protestant: “Show me where it says that in the Bible!”
Maurin, in my fake conversation above, try substituting “Protestant” for “Maurin”, and “Bible” for “GIRM/RS” and you should be able to see why Rickwood has found your requests so strange. You are in effect trying to get him to prove the very opposition point of what he is trying to prove.

And in the very real conversation from the first page of this conversation, Rickwood made a statement “while obviously that’s not true…” and I asked him to substantiate it or call it what it is: his opinion, and his opinion only. Or, cite something from the documents which allow for innovations not specifically approved by either the documents or the local Ordinary.

Is that really so difficult?

 

[Lee_M]

May one ask you to specifically cite GIRM # ?__ that supports your statement, “While that’s obviously not true…” ?

How is anyone suppose to answer this question? We just found out that people can receive a blessing from the priest in the communion line through Cardinal Arinze’s video. It is not in GIRM. Other people in different threads have stated that priests cannot add a practice that is not listed in the GIRM. Cardinal Arinze’s video just proved that not to be the case by allowing local dioceses to give blessings in the communion line.

Rickwood, I, and others have been trying to make the point that just because a certain practice is not listed in the GIRM, it doesn’t mean it is forbidden. Some people on the forums tend to cry “ABUSE” everytime a practice is done that isn’t listed in the GIRM.

 

[maurin]

How is anyone suppose to answer this question? We just found out that people can receive a blessing from the priest in the communion line through Cardinal Arinze’s video. It is not in GIRM. Other people in different threads have stated that priests cannot add a practice that is not listed in the GIRM. Cardinal Arinze’s video just proved that not to be the case by allowing local dioceses to give blessings in the communion line.

Rickwood, I, and others have been trying to make the point that just because a certain practice is not listed in the GIRM, it doesn’t mean it is forbidden. Some people on the forums tend to cry “ABUSE” everytime a practice is done that isn’t listed in the GIRM.

And in the very real conversation from the first page of this conversation, Rickwood made a statement “while obviously that’s not true…” and I asked him to substantiate it or call it what it is: his opinion, and his opinion only. ** Or, cite something from the documents which allow for innovations not specifically approved by either the documents or the local Ordinary.**Is that really so difficult?

better?

you ask, “how is someone going to answer this question?”

good question. Which is why I have asked him to substantiate his statement “While obviously that’s not true…”

It is not obvious to me.

Please provide substantiation that it is obviously untrue that that which is not in the GIRM is allowed by the GIRM, or some other document.

It should be easy, if someone is going to make the statement, “While obviously that’s not true.” Don’t you think?

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t understand ‘put away.’ At my parish, the processional cross is not ‘put away,’ if I’m understanding that to mean here, that it should be ‘out of sight?’ My parish in PA didn’t put it away either (hide it?)

Is this an abuse?

 

[mammallama]

I have no idea about how to link to this page so I cut and copied from EWTN Q&A page…So feel free to check my source.

Blessings
Question from on 02-18-2002:
Where did the blessing of people originate? I mean when children or adults go up with crossed arms over their chests to receive a blessing instead of receiving communion? Is it right for a priest to stop giving those blessings? Is it against Rome?
Thanks so much for you time…God Bless

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-27-2002:
This is a custom that has grown up without any direction from the hierarchy, that I am aware of. I suspect that because almost everyone goes up for Communion today, those who do not or cannot receive (e.g. catechumens, irregular marriages) do not want to be left in the pews.
Is it lawful? Questionable. The General Instruction speaks of those who are to receive communion processing up. Yet, children and infants are people, too, and there is certainly no objection to their processing with their parents. No provision is made for those who simply want a blessing and a blessing IS given to all after the Communion Rite. However, as there is no problem with more than one blessing, and it is certainly desirable (though not obligatory) to give them to children who accompany their parents, that is not terribly persuasive. The silence of the rubrics on the matter would not generally permit it, since in the idea of the rubrics is the notion that they tell how to celebrate the Mass, and, therefore, implicitly how not. Yet, this practice is not in itself contrary to the liturgy (as some others are), so it could be argued to be a legitimate local custom.

Is it lawful to stop it? Unquestionably. Should it be stopped is a question for the pastor or bishop. In the end, unless some bishop writes Rome for a ruling it will depend on the tolerance of the clergy.

 

[Atreyu]

…
Please provide substantiation that it is obviously untrue that that which is not in the GIRM is allowed by the GIRM, or some other document.

I don’t believe that this is the proposition that Rickwood is trying to prove. On the contrary, Rickwood is trying to prove the following proposition:
If a practice is not explicitly in the GIRM/RS, then it is not necessarily an abuse.
I hope you see the difference between the two propositions.

 

[palmas85]

What value did your posting add? All you did was take a personal shot. Very bad form.

What question did you ask? I don’t respond to loaded questions – I ignore them. I have nothing to hide.

Not that it’s any of his business but I might respond to that other fellow if he would stop mischaracterizing my comments about EWTN.

Don’t get testy because not everyone agrees with you or supports your position.

Everyone here knows what you wrote, what you responded and the manner in which you did both.

You see in your mind you are correct in your assumptions.

Those that agree with you are correct in their assumptions.

Those that question your assertations and assumptions are just plain wrong, don’t understand or are just being obstinate in not parroting your views and accepting the wisdom and righteousness of your position:

And that just won’t do:tsktsk:

 

[maurin]

I don’t believe that this is the proposition that Rickwood is trying to prove. On the contrary, Rickwood is trying to prove the following proposition:
If a practice is not explicitly in the GIRM/RS, then it is not necessarily an abuse.
I hope you see the difference between the two propositions.

Atreyu,

I hope you see the difference between what I’m saying, and what you think I’m saying.

What I am saying is this: Rickwood made a statement. His statement was, “While that’s obviously not true…” [that not everything that is not listed in the GIRM is an abuse]. I am asking for substantiation, from the GIRM or some other Document that corroborates his statement.

“Why do you ask?” you ask?

I’m glad you’ve asked! Finally someone has asked me why!

The reason why I’ve asked is who draws the line between what is proper and what is inappropriate?

Is hugging and kissing and carrying on with people around you while exchanging the “sign of Peace” appropriate after the Agnus Dei has begun?

Is it appropriate for a Deacon or a Priest to change “the Lord be with you” to “the Lord is with you?”

Is it appropriate for a Priest to question Marian Dogma from the Ambo?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to leave the Sanctuary at anytime during the Mass?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to sing a solo hymn, and then bow to the applause of his audience, during the Mass?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to sit against the Baptismal Fount with his hands clasped behind his head speaking to various people quite loudly as the announcements before Mass are made?

Because these things occur on a regular basis in several Parishes in my area.

These things are not in the GIRM, are they?

So I ask for substantiation of Rickwood’s statement that “While obviously this isn’t true…” because the slope is quite slippery. Where is the line drawn? Who is the arbiter of appropriateness? Rickwood? Me? You? Who?

The road to hell, it has been said, is paved with very good intentions, haven’t you heard?

 

[Atreyu]

Don’t get testy because not everyone agrees with you or supports your position.

Everyone here knows what you wrote, what you responded and the manner in which you did both.

You see in your mind you are correct in your assumptions.

Those that agree with you are correct in their assumptions.

Those that question your assertations and assumptions are just plain wrong, don’t understand or are just being obstinate in not parroting your views and accepting the wisdom and righteousness of your position:

And that just won’t do:tsktsk:

And how about your sarcasm? Will that do?

 

[Atreyu]

Atreyu,

I hope you see the difference between what I’m saying, and what you think I’m saying.

It was patently clear that I understood what you were saying, as you should have been able to determine from my last post.

What I am saying is this: Rickwood made a statement. His statement was, “While that’s obviously not true…” [that not everything that is not listed in the GIRM is an abuse]. I am asking for substantiation, from the GIRM or some other Document that corroborates his statement.

But why do you use this standard? It is obviously clear that what Rickwood said is true, if it were not then the priest would not be allowed to breathe.

“Why do you ask?” you ask?

No, I didn’t ask.

I’m glad you’ve asked! Finally someone has asked me why!

The reason why I’ve asked is who draws the line between what is proper and what is inappropriate?

The Church. It is NOT some document. However valid, however holy, however carefully constructed these documents are, they are not the Church. The are products of the living Tradition of the Church, yes, and so they carry with them the authority of the Church. But the authority belongs rightly and completely to the Church herself.

Is hugging and kissing and carrying on with people around you while exchanging the “sign of Peace” appropriate after the Agnus Dei has begun?

Is it appropriate for a Deacon or a Priest to change “the Lord be with you” to “the Lord is with you?”

Is it appropriate for a Priest to question Marian Dogma from the Ambo?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to leave the Sanctuary at anytime during the Mass?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to sing a solo hymn, and then bow to the applause of his audience, during the Mass?

Is it appropriate for a Priest to sit against the Baptismal Fount with his hands clasped behind his head speaking to various people quite loudly as the announcements before Mass are made?

Because these things occur on a regular basis in several Parishes in my area.

And they are abuses yes (I think), but…

These things are not in the GIRM, are they?

This is not the reason they are abuses!

So I ask for substantiation of Rickwood’s statement that “While obviously this isn’t true…” because the slope is quite slippery. Where is the line drawn?

I disagree. So let’s go back to Rickwood’s original post. Are you trying to tell me that these are all examples of abuses?

Who is the arbiter of appropriateness? Rickwood? Me? You? Who?

The Church. That means most immediately, the bishop of your diocese.

The road to hell, it has been said, is paved with very good intentions, haven’t you heard?

Does that include those who disobey their bishop out of some misguided notion that they are pointing out abuses in the liturgy that are not abuses?

 

[BSHoop96]

This will be thrown out because it doesn’t support the others’ opinions. Cdl. Arinze’s public statements are only good when it supports their opinion.

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.

 

[BSHoop96]

Well said.

To suggest something as grace-filled as a blessing in any way detracts from the Eucharist or is something that should be withheld from those seeking it is really beyond imagination.

No one is being denied a blessing. I will say this one more time.** Everyone is blessed at the end of Mass**…why do you feel the need to get one in the communion line?

 

[BSHoop96]

I’ve got a question I’ll throw out here. Why in the world would someone even want to go up and receive a blessing during Holy Communion? You’ll receive one anyway at the end of the Mass and you can always ask the Priest if you need another one, so why even do it? It really seems strange to me that people would even do such a thing.

I have seen it done for years but never understood it at all.

So could someone tell me why they do it?

A misunderstanding of what the communion line is and a misguided attempt at being included by receiving a blessing instead which they will receive at the end anyway.

 

[BSHoop96]

HUH? Do you honestly think you are trying to be helpful?Can’t I being doing both.I attend Mass in person every Sunday and watch it on EWTN everyday the rest of the week so I am familiar with the spiritual communion prayers.So one day a week I ask the priest to bless me then say the prayer and the other six days I say the prayer along with the televised Mass.

I think she is trying to be helpful. That’s what our priest says. It is a communion line. He suggests praying in the pew. He doesn’t deny someone if they come up but that is not his preference.

 

[BSHoop96]

good luck…I’ve asked him a few times now to give support of his statement, and he mocked me twice and ignored me the rest of the time.

It seems as if he might have something to hide.

Actually what I asked in this thread and the other is if he was Catholic (his profile doesn’t say) and what part of the country he was from. I was curious as to where he was that has blessings in the communion line so commonly.

He never answered so I asked again. Then again.

 

[Atreyu]

Actually what I asked in this thread and the other is if he was Catholic (his profile doesn’t say) and what part of the country he was from. I was curious as to where he was that has blessings in the communion line so commonly.

He never answered so I asked again. Then again.

I have lived in two dioceses in recent years in Australia and blessings are common in both.

 

[BSHoop96]

I have lived in two dioceses in recent years in Australia and blessings are common in both.

Yes the Cardinal said the USA and a few other countries. I was curious about where in the USA he was.

But I wonder now why Rickwood won’t answer the question about whether he is Catholic as his profile doesn’t say.

 

[palmas85]

And how about your sarcasm? Will that do?

Actually except for the last line, there was no sarcasm at all.

 

[maurin]

It was patently clear that I understood what you were saying, as you should have been able to determine from my last post.

But why do you use this standard? It is obviously clear that what Rickwood said is true, if it were not then the priest would not be allowed to breathe.

No, I didn’t ask.

The Church. It is NOT some document. However valid, however holy, however carefully constructed these documents are, they are not the Church. The are products of the living Tradition of the Church, yes, and so they carry with them the authority of the Church. But the authority belongs rightly and completely to the Church herself.

And they are abuses yes (I think), but…

This is not the reason they are abuses!

I disagree. So let’s go back to Rickwood’s original post. Are you trying to tell me that these are all examples of abuses?

The Church. That means most immediately, the bishop of your diocese.

Does that include those who disobey their bishop out of some misguided notion that they are pointing out abuses in the liturgy that are not abuses?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.”

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!

There’s an analogy in there somewhere.