O
otjm
Guest
You missed the whole procession at the first turn. Have a nice trip.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I can see what you’re saying. But aI can also see how you’re saying it. As a Franciscan I can’t sit and watch the way that you’re speaking to a priest and not say something. Our holy father Francis alwyas taught that priests were to be look upon as masters for only from them could we receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We were to speak to them with respect and with the same love that a faithful servant would have for a master.
You manner of speaking to Fr. David is as if you were talking to a peere. He’s not your peer. He’s a priest. We do not say to a priest that he does not understand his studies or that he is wrong in his understanding of the the laws of the Church. Unless a priest is teaching you to do something that is a sin, Francis of Assisi directs us to back off. We can post our point of view, without ever questioning the knowledge of the priest or speaking to him as if he were a peer. He’s not a peer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
malphono
Guest
This is not my argument, but I don’t think FrDavid missed anything. The unnecessarily nasty tone against Fr David caught my attention.
What he says there is quite clear, and is also in accordance with established liturgical Tradition, both East and West.
In other words, in the case at hand, there is absolutely nothing in the rubrics that invites anyone to “reach out and touch” the ostensorium. The only way such an action might be considered acceptable is in the face of “local custom” if such exists (which it certainly does not in the US).
Just my :twocents:
O
otjm
Guest
Being ordained does not impose wisdom or knowledge. I asked some questions he ignored completely and went right back to what he was proposing; in short, he flat out ignored what I responded with and went further in the direction which I had said was not answering the basic question.I can see what you’re saying. But aI can also see how you’re saying it. As a Franciscan I can’t sit and watch the way that you’re speaking to a priest and not say something. Our holy father Francis alwyas taught that priests were to be look upon as masters for only from them could we receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We were to speak to them with respect and with the same love that a faithful servant would have for a master.
You manner of speaking to Fr. David is as if you were talking to a peere. He’s not your peer. He’s a priest. We do not say to a priest that he does not understand his studies or that he is wrong in his understanding of the the laws of the Church. Unless a priest is teaching you to do something that is a sin, Francis of Assisi directs us to back off. We can post our point of view, without ever questioning the knowledge of the priest or speaking to him as if he were a peer. He’s not a peer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I respect priests for being in personem Christi. When they enter into a discussion of an issue such as this, they are not acting as in personem Christi; they are acting as an individual. And I answered him as an individual.
Perhaps it was that I was not trained by Franciscans, but rather by Jesuits, diocesan and Holy Cross priests and scolastics. and in the area of intellectual ideas, I was taught to challenge if I had grounds (and the Jesuits in particular, and my philosophy professors who were Holy Cross could both grind you very fine if you didn’t have grounds and were also quick to acknolwedge when you did).
I respect the Franciscans for their humility and service. I also respect the intellectual challenges I was taught through high school and college.
If one wants to enter these forae, then they should expect to be challenged. If the challenge is without merit, that should be pointed out. If they fail to respond to the challenge, then according to what I was taught, that too should be pointed out.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Several times now, beginning in your post 56, you have claimed that there are no liturgical laws with regard to Eucharistic adoration.
You very specifically asked me to provide documentation that such liturgical laws (or norms) exist.
This is what you wrote in post 56
I have provided an extensive list of liturgical laws, norms, interpretations, the actual ritual for worship of the Eucharistic outside of Mass, and other documents, including Encyclical letters which state what should be done at Eucharistic Adoration.
What exactly are you challenging???
J
JReducation
Guest
I can’t think of two greater scholars who constantly challenged each other than Bonaventure and Aquinas. However, when Aquinas addressed Bonaventure, he always address him as Rev. Brother and he always would address him in the form of a question, so as to avoid sounding confrontational.
When Bonaventure challenged Aquinas, he referred to him as the Angelic Friar in all of his letters. He would begin his challenges with, "you are probably right . . . " and then he would expose his thoughts and ask Aquinas to correct him if he was wrong.
Even the great Ignatius was one of the most humble men in Church history. He always presented his teachings froma submissive position, not an authoritarian position.
You mention what you were taught and I respect what you were taught. I too was trained in the scholastic method in Rome. But the simplicity that we were taught by our Franciscan forefathers was always to be protected. Francis once wrote a wonderful letter to Anthony of Padua. He said that the friars could study theology, provided that it not extinguish the spirit of prayer.
You see, it is in this spirit of prayer that we realize that we are very small and God and others are much bigger than we are. Therefore, we present our beliefs as a student does before a teacher, with great respect and looking to be corrected and to learn more. And if by chance we find ourselves in the shoes of Augustine, who found that he knew more than his teachers, than they learn from us without feeling that they are being challenged or cornered.
That’s what I’m referring to when I say the tone and the manner has to be softened, not the content. I see nothing wrong with your content. But you must always speak another as one would speak to a master, especially if he is a priest or religious. It makes no difference whether he is in a debate or at the altar. He is who he is. He is not a peer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
otjm
Guest
I am going to say it again; you don’t read very carefully. I ahve not said there are no liturgical laws with regard to Eucharistic Adoration: I ahve said I don’t think there are any specific laws in the rules about Eucharstic Adoration that speak to the subject herein. There is a slight difference between the two; the latter acknowledges that there are laws but says they don’t address the question herein.
Thank you for asking. Let me try to explain one more time.
To begin with, I have read only one of the documents you provided - the last post “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass”. Since that is the only one I have read, I will address it, although I have a strong suspicion none of the others answers the specific question.
The essence of the question of this thread (actually there was a side question related) was, “is it proper when the monstrance is in procession for individuals to touch it?”, with the side question being “is it proper for individuals to touch the tabernacle (e.g. while at prayer in a chapel)?”
Having read through the document you provided, while I found several interesting issues related to other threads, I cannot find anywhere in the document that says anything at all about individuals (other than the priest of the deacon) touching the monstrance while in procession; with the possible exception of reposing the Blessed Sacrament from the monstrance to the tabernacle (permitted by laity, subject to everyone above them - priest, deacon, instituted accolyte not being available).
I do not propose that any of the other doceuments do not cover the issue; my question was whether or not there are any documents which actually address the laity touching the monstrance when the Blessed Sacrament reposes in it. Other than allowing them to repose it from the monstrance, the issue does not appear to be addressed.
Which gets back to my contention of how you look at law when the law does not specifically address the issue.
To which you have insisted I don’t know what I am talking about.
It could be said that this is not a matter of interpreting the law; because there is nothing to interpret; so I say your repeated references to Canon law miss the whole question entirely. Your references have to do with how one interprets what is written and I was not talking about that. I was talking about what do we do when nothing is written.
The proposals have been, largely, you do not do something if it is not specifically permitted (and for the sake of discussion, at this point having looked at only one document, that one does not directly address the question, but may indirectly).
The counter proposal is that if it is not specifically addressed and is not forbidden, then it may possibly be permitted.
I have a JD. Perhaps I understand the philosophy of law just a bit better than you seem to think I do. The philosophy of law is not specific to any code; it is an issue of how the code writers and iterpreters approach questions when they are not specificlaly answered. the philosophy of law is not a specific study of a specific code; it is rather an overarching principle which can be applied to a multitude of codes.
And the last time I looked, Rome was still in the Mediterranian. And the head of the operation there is from Germany (and a brilliant theologian). And hs predecessor was a theologian and a brilliant philosopher (and I do not thereby make light of his status as a theologian).
And having practiced law as well as having studied it, I find that the general tenor of many people in the US is to look at law philosophically from one of the two standpoints.
N
nannyma
Guest
Could I please bring this discussion back to “center” and that is Adoration of Our Lord, body,blood soul and divinity in this Blessed Sacrament. Also known as the “Cult of Latria”
I think (know) that with proper catechesis this problem would have been averted from the beginning. I rest my case the only question that remains is how would you adore your Lord!
God Bless,nannyma
O
otjm
Guest
The first post set forth the following question in the first sentance of the post: “During Adoration, during the procession of the Monstrance, are we allowed to touch the Monstrance?”
I would suggest that the posts which have been discussing that question - is there a written rule specifically covering this or not - is directly on point; so the discussion is “centered”.
The post is not about Adoration generally; it is about what is or is not permitted during Adoration.
Catechesis might have averted the issue, if catechesis was based on something. The question may be, what should the catechesis be “centered on” if there is no rule?
While I may agree With Father David96 that touching the monstrance during procession is “silly” (to use his word), it would be judgemental to assume that the people doing so were doing it for any other reason than that they were involved, to use your words, in the “cult of latria”.
In other words, too much enthusiasm, too little common sense.
So in short, the discussion of whether or not there is a specific rule covering it, and if there is not, whether or not it would or could be permitted, is “centered” and specifically on point.
It appears then, that the question you ask - “how would you adore your Lord” started with people who appear to be trying to adore their Lord and in doing so, reach out to touch the instrument in which He is being carried.
Which sounds interestingly like the Gospel scene in which the non-Jewish woman reached out to touch the hem of His garment in hopes of being cured.
So maybe touching the monstrance is silly.
Or maybe not.
And maybe there is a rule about not touching it.
Or maybe not.
I still don’t think we have resolved it, but I have not had the time to read all of the documents which Father David96 provided, and no one else has come forward with a citation either to one of those or to anything else which specifically addresses the OP’s first question.
N
nannyma
Guest
We can not all know rules and regulations but if we are given a good foundation and use common sense I think we can reach an acceptable conclusion. Of course the problem does have to do with the Eucharist and Adoration. You can not isolate this from your “do’s and don’ts” approach; that is if we are to come to a resolution.
This Jesus in the Eucharist is not in His human form as He was when He walked the streets in Jerusalem. The Eucharist is meant “to be eaten” (of course to adore first;that is another form of adoring) He Himself is our food. And this food is meant for all. Because all can not receive Jesus because of disability or being confined at home, the Church has reserved the sacrament for this reason primarily. Only after was it brought up to adore the Lord in a recepticle fitting for this purpose. The Eucharist in the Monstrance is to be seen,known and adored;seen known and adored. It is totally wholly a spiritual encounter with Our Lord. The mystery is in the undeniable authenticity of it’s presentation.
Jesus Himself did not want adoration while on earth, He said:“do not call me holy;only God is holy!” But now in the kingdom with the Father and Holy Spirit (mission accomplished!) as was meant to be and awaiting the people of God; adoration becomes a natural yearning for all. My opinion: restraining the hands enlarges the soul. God Bless,nannyma
O
otjm
Guest
Well said. You would do well to teach RCIA.
But as to the OP’s question, we still do not have an answer.
I
Indyann
Guest
I wonder if this has a cultural aspect?
In the small Adoration Chapel that I sometimes visit, the Host is in a luna holder that is somehow attached to the Tabernacle. It is sitting on what almost looks like a brick and stone fireplace. The tabernacle sits on what would be the “mantle” with the Luna attached. It is at eye level when standing in front of the tabernacle.
Several times, I have seen those of Hispanic culture, not only touch the luna, but also kiss it, rub it, and even clean it with a kleenex.
They do it with great devotion.
I have also seen some go around and touch all the statues they pass on the way to the door, sanctuary, etc.
I am sure they mean no disrespect.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here is the issue: you are starting with the premise “whatever is not forbidden is allowed” (at least according to the mediterranean thinking, as one option). The problem is that such a concept simply does not exist in Catholic praxis. Whether or not it’s part of the mediterranean outlook on law just doesn’t make a difference. You’re trying to apply a principle to liturgy, but the usage of that principle in a liturgical context simply isn’t there to begin with.
It’s like saying “Germans like beer. Italians like wine.” Ok. For the most part, that’s true. But it doesn’t have any application or relevance when we’re looking at liturgical matters. The same thing holds for the G vs M idea of interpreting liturgical norms. It might be true in itself but that’s not how liturgy is “determined.”
The reason I quoted so many documents on Eucharistic Adoration is that there is a common theme that we see over and over again in them: “according to the ritual books approved by the Church” (or similar words). In matters of Liturgy, the only relevant question is “what does the book say?” It doesn’t matter if one is in Bavaria or Rome or Tokyo, it’s still a matter of doing exactly what the ritual prescribes, no more no less.
When it comes to Eucharistic Adoration, there is a lot of flexibility in the prayers that can be said before the Blessed Sacrament; private, communal, spontaneous, memorized, there’s a lot of flexibility (although there are some prohibitions as well). But when it comes to the actual ritual that is to be done, everyone must follow those approved books.
In the Liturgy of the Church, the principle “if it’s not forbidden it’s allowed” just doesn’t apply. In fact, it can’t apply, because that would result in complete chaos. I rather suspect you’re looking through the documents searching for a specific prohibition against anyone touching the monstrance. You probably won’t find it. It might be there, but it probably won’t. The reason why it isn’t there is not because it’s permitted by default, but because the Church has never seen a reason to say the words “one cannot reach out and touch the monstrance at Adoration.”
I found an interresting rubric saying that the clergy are not allowed to eat and drink while walking through the streets for the Corpus Christi procession. It seems like an odd thing, but apparently this was a problem somewhere/somewhen and it found its way into the rubrics. Today, there’s no specific prohibition against clerics using cell phones in the Corpus Christi procession, yet that doesn’t mean that “because it isn’t forbidden it’s allowed”–not even on Italian soil. It is forbidden because it’s not described in the ritual (aside from saying that it’s forbidden because it’s irrereverent).
And this isn’t a matter of adopting the Germanic mode either.
We do what is in the books. Period. Read the black, do the red. It’s that simple. The Germanic thinking doesn’t apply because we should never even be reaching the point where we have to ask the question “is it permitted or forbidden?” The real heart of the matter is that if it’s not described in the ritual, it’s irrelevant–whatever that “it” might be. There’s just no reason to be in a position of even asking the question–that’s the point that I’ve been trying to make, and searching for a way to make it.
O
otjm
Guest
And I would suggest that I have watched Rome longer than you have and talked with more priests about praxis that you have, and that is simply not the case. Note: I am not suggesting that is right, or the correct way to do things, but historically Rome tends not to be as “dress right, dress” (anyone in the military will get that one) than parts farther north.
Let me give you two examples; the first one we could quibble about; the second one is actually written.
- since somwhere around 1965 - 1966 people were holding hands during the Our Father. I know, because I have a picture taken at that time of it being done. there has been crying and moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth ever since then; long, loud, vociferous and continuous. The bishops (I suspect to a man) have heard about it; their staffs have heard about it, and Rome has heard about it.
Rome seems to think either not, or not worthy of discussion - which is effectively continuing to allow it.
- Cardinal George, when the last GIRM was issued, wrote a dubium to the proper dicastery, as the language of the GIRM appeared to require that all stand as Communion starts and remain standing until all have received. Rome’s response was (and I do not have it in front of me, so I am paraphrasing) that Rome did not intend to be that rigid concerning posture. That comes as close I think as we ever will to showing that Rome does not take a rigid, Germanic approach to all liturgical law.
Until Rome says, as above, that they do not intend to be that rigid.
Actually, no (we are not going to see cartwheels up the center isle) as a) that is what they have been doing for longer than we have been around and it has not resulted in chaos. Coupled with a less rigid view of the law (and that is what the Mediterrainian model is - not simply a “throw the doors open approach”) comes both some common sense and that what is being done has some connection to the immediate surroundings.
Actually, if one looks at all the responses int his thread; it appears that it may be far more frequent than we imagined, particularly in other cultures which tend to be outwardly more expressive (there go those Mediterrainians again - along with Hispanics and not a few others).
Your simile breaks down; there is a vast difference between someone eating or using a cell phone, and someone touching a monstrance out of an act of adoration.
Actually you have made the point; it is a very Germanic way of looking at law. The OP obviously brought up the question so it is not irrelevant; it is actually happening. Others have brought other examples semi-related (touching and/or kissling the tabernacle, the luna, etc.).
If you have actually read all of my posts, I have simply responded with opbservations, not conclusions. I can’t answer if it should or should not be done. I am 3/4’s Holland Dutch, which while my grandmother would never tolerate the comment “germanic” comes close enough that most cannot tell the difference. The other 1/4 is Irish and we won’t go there!
It is interesting to see the differences between Europeans in general and people in the US. And in particular this has been noted in the areas of Church law - canonical, liturgical or other: Europeans by and large will nod and agree with Rome, and then do what they will. In the US, we do not at first nod and agree; we chew on it, debate it, and thoroughly wrangle with it, and once we have gotten through that process we tend to follow much more strictly. NOTE: this observation came from a Canon lawyer, so don’t come back at me with examples of liturgical violations. I and the lawyer are both aware of them. He was speaking specifically of the philosophical apprioach the US generally takes; and it applies far beyond Church laws.
It might be noted while we are at it that there are laws which need to be followed striclty (and Rome is pretty good about articulating them), and there my be instances (the OP"s, for example), where we might want to slow down, and re-read the Gospel comments of Christ - the perfect Jew - who, with his Apostles violated specific prohibitions of Jewish law. I don’t recall Him saying the law was wrong; nor that it needed to be discarded. I think, if I recall, He said something about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Funny thing, that. The Jews (and Christ) lived in the Mediterranian…
I am not going to convince you, and frankly, the world will probably keep turing on its axis if I don’t. The short of it is that you have not had much in the way of intimate dealings with Rome, and you are absolutely convinced that the germanic interpretation - if it isn’t in red, it is “irrelevant” (as in, don’t do it) is how Rome approaches everything.
M
malphono
Guest
The utter absurdity of the turn this thread has taken is numbing.
Since nothing has changed, I can but refer to my own earlier [post=5567187]post[/post] in this thread. I will only add that, from the standpoint of liturgy, Fr David is correct.
Since nothing has changed, I can but refer to my own earlier [post=5567187]post[/post] in this thread. I will only add that, from the standpoint of liturgy, Fr David is correct.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. The Jesus in the Eucharist is in human form, body, blood, soul and divinity, both natures: human and divine. As we pray in the liturgy, he is invisible to our senses and looks like bread. But he is present in the very same body that was visible to the apostles after the resurrection.
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
As to the answer to the question, Father David and I tried to give it out before. You’re not supposed to touch the monstrance or the luna in which the consecrated host is kept. However, touching it with reverence is not tragic and getting upset about it is silly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
True or not the concept is widespread. I first heard it from the Judicial Vicar of my diocese.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I would suggest that you are in no position whatsoever to make any assumptions about what I have or have not seen, where I’ve been, or what my educational or especially pastoral experiences have been (I don’t just “talk to priests”). I’ve remained silent on this until this point, but it’s getting tiresome. I can assure you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about since you know nothing about me. Since you’ve studied philosophy, I suggest you refresh yourself on the term “ad hominem fallacy.”
You are missing the entire point of the thread. The question is about what is or is not proper in Eucharistic Adoration.
There is one way, and one way only to come to the proper answer to that question:
Consult the liturgical books approved by Rome. Period.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (or Marks or Lira or Euros). Go directly to the books.
Discussions about a Germanic or Mediterranean outlook might make for an interresting discussion (as I have said from the start), but these methods have nothing to do with the liturgical praxis of the Church. Regardless of whether one has a German or a Mediterranean or any other philosophy on laws, does not change the fact that when it comes to Liturgy, the Church makes it quite clear that the liturgical rites are to be followed precisely. Do the red, say the black. Say it in German or Italian, if you like, it doesn’t change.
N
nlm
Guest
I do not want to take sides in this specific issue but I must agree that that concept," Whatever is not forbidden is allowed"is indeed alive and well in my part of the world. I asked our parish Priest if one particular thing could be done in regards to taking consecrated wine to the bedside of a friend.He said let me check and I will get back to you. He called the next day and those were his EXACT words. So he said let’s do it. That was the first time I had heard a Priest say that but have heard it probably 3 or 4 times since. This Priest also teaches at a local university. NLM
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not sure of the context, so I won’t comment on the rightnes or wrongness of this decision. I do know a case of a young boy whom we visited in the hosptial. He was allergic to flour. We carried it in a special container that made of precious metls but looked like a test tube. It’s the only time that I have seen this doen. But it does not mean that there are not other times when it is allowed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status