B
benedictgal
Guest
The GIRM only covers the Mass and only one non-Mass liturgy, the Good Friday liturgy. There is a separate book for Exposition and Benediction.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I noticed that when I mentioned the 800 year practice of our Carmelite and Poor Clare nuns of carrying the monstrance in procession through the cloister, that you failed to mention that this is not in the rubrics either. But is an accepted custom within the Church. That only the nuns may enter the enclosure. Therefore, there is no ordained minister to carry it for them or to repose it from them. They do this themselves, except in communities where it is always exposed such as the PCPAs. But the O’Carm, the PCs, OSC, AHS, and the OCDs who have strict papal enclosure have this practice.
The point that I’m making is that what is not a sin for enclosed nuns, cannot be a sin for the laity who simply touch it out of reverence. Granted, it is not a desireable practice. But it is not catastrophic or something that people should feel that they have done something bad either.
Sometimes we can explain rules in such a way that it makes people feel guilty where no guilt is necessary. Not everything that is outside of the rules is a violation of the rules or a matter for anxiety or stress.
We have to explain the rules in their context and always make clear what has moral implications and what is simply an infraction. The last thing I would want a group of devoout young people to feel is guilty because of their sign of love for Christ in the Eucharist. As the title of the Holy Father’s latest encyclical says, truth and charity. Let us explain truth, without making people feel moral anxiety where none is necessary or justified.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
Newbie2
Guest
And, also with due respect, just because you interpret the rubrics a certain way and that a vicar found a practice disconcerting, that does not make it a prohibited practice. Prohibited practices are spelled out in the rubrics, no?
I wouldn’t do it, but to say such a thing is prohibited when it’s not is overstepping your authority as a lay person, methinks.
I agree. If it were such a “bad” practice, surely it would have been addressed in the rubrics or at the very least, addressed by the bishop.I noticed that when I mentioned the 800 year practice of our Carmelite and Poor Clare nuns of carrying the monstrance in procession through the cloister, that you failed to mention that this is not in the rubrics either. But is an accepted custom within the Church. That only the nuns may enter the enclosure. Therefore, there is no ordained minister to carry it for them or to repose it from them. They do this themselves, except in communities where it is always exposed such as the PCPAs. But the O’Carm, the PCs, OSC, AHS, and the OCDs who have strict papal enclosure have this practice.
The point that I’m making is that what is not a sin for enclosed nuns, cannot be a sin for the laity who simply touch it out of reverence. Granted, it is not a desireable practice. But it is not catastrophic or something that people should feel that they have done something bad either.
Sometimes we can explain rules in such a way that it makes people feel guilty where no guilt is necessary. Not everything that is outside of the rules is a violation of the rules or a matter for anxiety or stress.
We have to explain the rules in their context and always make clear what has moral implications and what is simply an infraction. The last thing I would want a group of devoout young people to feel is guilty because of their sign of love for Christ in the Eucharist. As the title of the Holy Father’s latest encyclical says, truth and charity. Let us explain truth, without making people feel moral anxiety where none is necessary or justified.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
In anycase, I’ll agree to disagree with Benedictgal on this one.
Using the rubrics in such a manner is similar in a way, methinks, to how Sola Scriptura advocates use Scripture as the sole authority…when scripture is silent on a matter, they assume their interpretation is correct. With all due respect, I think the same thing is happening here; the default is assumed to be “thou shalt not do” when it’s not spelled out, and there’s been no reference to the default position as spelled out in the rubrics. I"m not aware that there’s any reference that spells out a “thou shalt not do” default in the rubrics. Isn’t the interpretation of these sort of things up to the local bishop?
O
otjm
Guest
There are two schools of thought - philosophies, if you will - in law, called the Germanic or Northern, and the Italian, or Mediterranian, or Southern.
The Germanic, in very simplistic terms, holds that whatever is not permitted is prohibited.
The Mediterranian, in very simplistic terms, holds that whatever is not prohibited is permitted.
So those who would hold that, although the rules do not specifically prohibit an action, it should not be done unless specifically allowed are philosophically following the Germanic approach to laws.
Those who would hold that since the rules do not prohibit the action, it would be permitted even though not specifically set out as permissible are philosophically following the Mediterranian model.
Given what most bishops have to deal with on a daily basis, and given their staffing, it is entirely possible that a letter to the bishop will never get physically into his hands. And if it gets into his hands, then perhaps the issue will be decided based on the philosophical base that he uses to look at law (including how he was trained); or it may be that in his training, he is more familiar with the rules, regulations, and printed practices than are lay people, and that there may be a specific which informs the issue.
Coupled with that may be other issues not relevant here, but are within discssion parameters in other threads, to wit: whether he is consdered liberal or conservative and whatvever that means.
And while we are at it, we might recall that Christ himself was the ulitmate Jew, and was noted as an observant Jew, and specifically and directly broke certain Jewish laws, to which, when challenged, He said that the law was made for man, and man was not made for the law. And yes, that is not an exact quote; He was not flippant about the law; but neither was He a slave to the law; He understood the law for what it was meant to be.
I seriously doubt that when someone meets Christ in judgement, Christ will ask them “Did you dare to touch the monstrance when the Holy Roman Catholic Church did not grant you permission? How dare you!!!?”
I suspect He will ask “Did you love Me?”
And that is not to say that I would promote touching the monstrance willy-nilly. Rules are there for reasons; and not every last little thing that someone could think up to do is going to be specifically set out either in permission or prohibition; some of it needs to come from common sense (which, according to Voltaire is not common…). And common sense might just indicate that having a bunch of people pressing in and touching the monstrance while it is in procession might not be the brightest of ideas simply because a) it impedes the procession and b) it brings the possible danger of the priest tripping and falling. Having said that, while it is possible that one can become irreverant through casualness, it is also posible to slip into hyper reverence which borders on magic.
Frankly, all things being considered, I would far rather have teenagers reaching out and touching the monstrance in reverance, than have teenagers quitting the faith - which about 80% do by the time they are 18 or thereabouts.
Just a thought or two.
T
TerraAngel
Guest
My former parish had a Perpetual Adoration chapel. The Blessed Sacrament was held in a special tabernacle which had a luna in front, with small doors which could be closed over the Host when no one was visiting.
Several times during adoration, I touched the tabernacle itself out of love for Christ. And once I took a rosary which had just been blessed (a gift for my Mom) and laid it on top of the tabernacle while I was praying. It seems a little odd, but when I gave it to my mother, I told her than not only was it blessed, but that it rested on the tabernacle itself. Maybe that was improper, but if so, it was done out of loving ignorance.
Several times during adoration, I touched the tabernacle itself out of love for Christ. And once I took a rosary which had just been blessed (a gift for my Mom) and laid it on top of the tabernacle while I was praying. It seems a little odd, but when I gave it to my mother, I told her than not only was it blessed, but that it rested on the tabernacle itself. Maybe that was improper, but if so, it was done out of loving ignorance.
N
nlm
Guest
If I am permitted to touch what is believed to be the " actual" body of Christ in the form of a host, why then would I not be permitted to touch what amounts to a piece of ornate metal, precious or otherwise, used as a holder of sorts for this same host. If I can touch the host, why can’t I touch the monstrance or the ciborium or the chalice or the pyx? NLM
J
jpjd
Guest
Great post, otjm. I give you five stars!
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Just don’t kiss the Tabernacle if you are wearing lipstick. Cleaning lipstick off the Tabernacle is one of the major gripes of the ladies who care for our church.
J
JReducation
Guest
You just reminded me of something funny. Our tabernacle is one of those that is built into the wall. Over it is a relief image of the Sacred Heart. The heart is the acutal door of the tabernacle. It’s quite beautiful and very attractive, meaning that you can’t miss it when you walk into the church, even though it’s on the side wall next to the sanctuary. Anyway, someone kissed the heart and they must have been wearing lipstick. An older woman, in her 70s, touched her finger to the Sacred Heart and screamed “Miracle!” when she looked at the tips of her fingers that were red with what she thought was blood from the heart.
Sometimes truth is stranger than ficgtion.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Z
zab
Guest
I believe that in the absence of a priest or deacon it may be possible for a lay person (under the direction of the pastor) to lead a prayer service with Exposition but not benediction. Even FrDavid96 has said this MIGHT be possible.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5536276#post5536276
Z
zab
Guest
You are right in understanding that the precious metal is not what is actually important. But this precious metal does house God, specifically Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. When the Sacred Host is placed in the monstrance it is for the purpose of adoration which is different from our reception of Jesus in Holy Communion in which we consume the Host immediately. During Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, we keep somewhat of a distance from the altar not only to show respect but to protect the Blessed Sacrament.
D
dnar
Guest
Do most parishes require one to sign up if you are coming for Eucharistic Adoration, or do some people just walk in the door?
J
JReducation
Guest
You can just walk in. Usually, if the adoration is going through the night, the parish wants people to sign up to ensure that there will be someone with the Blessed Sacrament. Canon Law says that the Blessed Sacrament cannot be left alone when exposed.
But if it’s during regular business hours or in the evening when the parish staff is around, there is no need to sign up.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
otjm
Guest
Our adoration is in the Chapel. About once a year we go through a sign-up process, just to make sure that we get coverage of those hours that may be empty of a permanent person because they moved, schedules changed, etc. We have a back-up volunteer crew to cover hours as they may become “open” (no one signed for that hour regularly).
In addition, anyone can come at any time for any length of time. Some people will volunteer for an hour but do two hours back to back; others may have additional time they will stop in. After 9 p.m. we have a timed lock to the door with an access code which we will make available to anyone who may want to drop in after 9. We have had visitors from other parishes drop in frequently.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I’ve seen this concept posted here on these threads several times before. The idea itself might make an interresting academic exercise, but it has no basis, nor any application in canon law or the liturgical laws of the Church. In other words, when it comes to actually interpreting and applying the liturgical laws of the Church, this concept is completely irrelevant.
The code of canon laws itself tells us how laws are to be interpreted. There is no such thing as a Germanic versus a Mediterranean interpretation–although again, this principle might make an interresting discussion. Please note canon 17, which makes it clear that laws are to be interpreted according to the “proper meaning of the words.” In fact, the canon even says that they “must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words…” There is no provision for laws to be interpreted one way in one region and another way in another region–unless the laws themselves actually do vary from place to place (ie, particular laws).
In canon 18, laws which either restrict or which grant an exception are subject to a strict interpretation. Again, there is no Germanic vs. Mediterranean way of interpreting them.
When it comes to liturgical laws and norms, the ritual means exactly what it says; “the proper meaning of the words.” The rubrics of any liturgical act require everyone (clergy and laity alike) to do no more and no less than precisely what is described. There are times when the rituals permit a certain flexibility. Often, the rubrics will state something to the effect of “other things may be added according to local customs or culture” If that’s the case, then by all means they can be done, but only if these are legitimate practices and they are in harmony with the established practices of the Church.
In the topic at hand, the discussion is about teens at a youth rally reaching out and touching the monstrance. This is not something described in the ritual books dealing with Eucharistic Adoration. Neither is this something in harmony with the established practices of the Church with regard to Eucharistic Adoration. On the contrary, it specifically goes against many pre-existing liturgical laws, and authentic interpretations of them (see canon 21).
It’s nothing more than an attempt at being silly and adding an element of sensationalism to what should be a very dignified service. It is completely at odds with the established practices of the Church. There is no excuse for doing it, and claiming a “mediterranean interpretation” because it’s not specifically forbidden has no application to the topic at hand. Neither would the Germanic approach apply by saying that because it’s not permitted it’s forbidden. This is not a matter of “permitted versus forbidden” rather it’s a matter of following the ritual for Eucharistic Adoration the way that the Church says it is to be done–no more, no less.
Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.
§3. An interpretation in the form of a judicial sentence or of an administrative act in a particular matter, however, does not have the force of law and only binds the persons for whom and affects the matters for which it was given.
Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
Can. 19 If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons.
Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.
O
otjm
Guest
No, actually, it is extremely relevant.
Either you did not read carefully, or you did not understand what you read. The issue comes up where there are no words.As in, the issue is not explicated in the law.
However, real life leaves us with the dilemma: the liturgical laws simply do not address the issue. Now what?
OK, let’s get beyond the issue of holding hands during the Our Father. The liturgical laws simply do not tell the people in the pews how to hodl their hands during the vast majority of the Mass. According to where you are going, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to hold them palms together, fingers pointing up; or palms together, fingers interlaced. Hand positions are simply not set out in the liturgical laws, your additional comment about “local custom” notwithstanding.
That is a bit of judgementalism for people who are doing so out of an act of piety. We can both agree that it is a misguided act, but to judge them as silly or sensationalist goes a bit far.
I am sure we could all be enlightened better by an actual detailing of what the ritual rules say, rahter than quoting non-relevant sections of Canon law. Please provide either the liturgical rules or a link to them. That should settle it, should it not?
Nice try, but no cigar. Rules are always interpreted, because rules never cover all of the possible scenarios.
for example: one that has people up in arms for more than 40 years is holding hands during the Our Father.
Try as you might, there ismply is no rule specifially covering the matter. None. Nada.
So the issue then becomes, how does one interpret the existing liturgical rules to answer what is not specifically answered by the exisiting rules?
Like it or not, one then has to deterine the results by one of the two philosophical approaches: either the germanic or the mediterranian model.
those who say “Well, there ix nothing in the rule therefore it is not allowed” are taking the philosphical approac to law that is germanic. You, Father, may call it anything you like, but that is the result.
Those who say “Well, there is nothing in the rule prohibiting it, therefore it is allowed” would be taking the mediterranian approach to answering what the exisiting laws don’t answer.
Maybe you have never travelled in both Germanic countries and Mediterranian countries; or maybe you are just not a philosopher - one who observes behavior and looks at what is behind the immediate act.
Had you traveled for any extent in both of those areas and been observant of behavior, you would havbe observed that people in one area react to law one way, and those in the other area react differently to similar situations.
Or, had you studied the philosopy of law, you would have discovered this.
Bottom line: if you have the liturgical laws concerning either Adoration or a procession with the monstrance, please provide.
As I noted: I don’t think from just a practical point, that touching the monstrance makes sense. I also think the rules are silent as to the issue. Maybe I am wrong; but citing Canon law isn’t getting us to the issue - what do the liturgical rules say.
And as to your comments about philosophy, you missed the boat. Or the book.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Try as you might, the business of Germanic vs Meditarranean has no basis in canon law, nor in the interpretations of canon law. The very relevant canons which I have quoted tell us clearly how laws are to be interpreted. On the other hand, you are trying to expect us to believe that a section of canon law which explains how laws are to be interpreted is not the proper way to interpret them–that’s just nonsense. Show us the canon which explains “Germanic vs Mediterranean” and I’ll concede the point. You cannot do it because it doesn’t exist.
Your constant references to this principle (again, interresting topic, but irrelevant) only indicate your own ignorance of canon law, and your own refusal to admit that the Church tells us clearly in canons 16 through 21 how laws are to be interpreted.
One can either believe your theory, or believe what we can all see is the law of the Church–but not both at the same time.
PIUS XII, Encyclical letter Mediator Dei in AAS 39 (1947) 568-572;
PAUL VI, Encyclical letter Mysterium fidei in AAS 57 (1965) 769-772;
SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, nn. 49-50, in AAS 59 (1967) 566-567;
RITUALE ROMANUM, De sacra communione et de cultu mycteria eucharistici extra Missam, cit., 5.
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Dacraments / Directory on Popular Riety and the Liturgy Principles and Guidelines(Vatican City December 2001)
Rituale Romanum, De Sacra communione et de cultu mysterii eucharistici extra Missam, Ed. typica, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1974
APOSTOLIC LETTER MANE NOBISCUM DOMINE of the Holy Father JOHN PAUL II
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
THE YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
SUGGESTIONS AND PROPOSALS
October 15, 2004
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
INSTRUCTION
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist
March 25, 2004
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Dominicae Cenae
On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist
Pope John Paul II
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Litterae circulares ad Conferentiarum Episcopalium Praesides de precibus eucharisticis: AAS 65 (1973).
O
otjm
Guest
OK, you either missed entirely what I said, or simply don’t understand it. I am not as ignorant of law as you propose, and nowhere did I say that this is in a Canon. It appears you have taken no philosopy at all, or simply do not understand what you may have thought you were studying. In any event, if you cannot even understand what I am saying, attempting to communicate further would be pointless. If you think this is going to be answered by looking at a Canon, then you missed the entire trip at the first turn.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Forgot one:
Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass
USCCB 1973
Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass
USCCB 1973
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What you fail to see is that your “Germanic vs Mediterranean” principle has no application in the liturgical laws of the Church. You repeatedly attempt to apply that principle, yet it contradicts what we actually read in the code of canon law which explains to us the proper way to interpret laws–not only the actual canon laws, but liturgical laws as well.
I know that you never claimed it was in a canon. The problem is that you ignore what actually is in the code of canon law. I understand precisely what you are saying, but the problem is that while what you are saying makes for an interresting discussion, it has no application to the liturgical laws of the Church.
Please read again canon 17
Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
One cannot reconcile the words of that canon to your idea of “G vs M”
- Status