F
fix
Guest
The “custom” discussed here has not been approved by an legitimate authority as far as I know. Do you have evidence it has?
From my link:
- Status
From my link:
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
No. The “lippy thing”, the making the sign of the Cross after the absolution in the Act of Penance, making the sign of the Cross after recieving Communion remain traditions and are not Customs since I don’t know they are required and have the force of law. Or are you talking about the gesture in this thread, it maybe a developing tradition or maybe since it appears to have become pretty universal here to maybe already be a tradition.
Note from your own cite, a tradition practiced for 30 complete and continuous years can become a Custom without approval by the legitimate authority so long as it isn’t contrary to divine or canon law. So maybe all the above have reached the status of Custom. Has this gesture been practiced for 30 complete and continuous years? Maybe it too has graduated to a Custom.
My suspicion is that none of these traditions are Customs as there may be insufficient universality and thus remain traditions. And until a legitimate authority “rebrobates” the Custom/tradition, it is not an abuse.
Fix, the longer I think about this and review your own source, it appears that there is an acceptable mechanism for the development of traditions provided for in the Church. And unless you can specificaly site where this is an abuse and not a component of what the USCCB cites as “Gestures too involve our bodies in prayer. . . .But there are other gestures that intensify our prayer at Mass.”, the quashing that of what could be legitimate may itself be an abuse.
I talked in an earlier post about how gestures can intensify our prayer. What is wrong with the laity giving greater emphasis via this gesture to their fervent prayer that the Spirit “be with” their Pastor/Celebrant in the face of all the challenges facing our Priests?
Or is this just about the gesture/traditions of some are better than those of others?
And this constant citing of “In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully. Accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority” even if he be a priest. Abuse is corruption and not lawful custom." is really getting old. This is taken so out of context as to be . . . . well I won’t say it. Under this standard, the lippy thing itself is an abuse.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Yet I still disagree in principle that it actually adds anything to the liturgy.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Where your argument goes wrong—is that our traditions express the faith of the Church–how She prays —What She believes. They are gestures --which the Church Herself has found meaningful.
The “additions” that have occured within the last 20-30 ys ARE based on personal taste–an imposition on the prayer of the Church.
So WHO here really is trying to impose “traditions of man”.
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html
- Lex orandi, lex credendi
“The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles”. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1124) This is a strong argument in favor of great care in the wording, gestures and norms of liturgical celebrations.
- Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations
W
Walking_Home
Guest
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Context, Context, Context. We are talking about something quite different than this simple gesture, a gesture like so many others that are piously done by the faithful (not in unity but individually done). Both of these are about much more significant issues that fall into the relm of innovation and not a gesture.
But note the first bold says “great care” it doesn’t say prohibited. If that is what they meant, they’d have said it. And the second doesn’t apply here. This gesture isn’t “a new way of celebrating Mass.”
I’ll note nobody addresses these points I’ve made head on but instead cites documents that are intended to address more major items than a pious gesture by the faithful in the context of prayer.
- The Church provides for traditions to “emanate from the faithful” so long as they don’t violate divine or canon law or “reprobated” as an abuse. Why is this gesture emanating from the faithful different from the previous gestures that I’ve mentioned ad infinitum.
- How is this gesture not one to be included in this reference by the USCCB: “Gestures too involve our bodies in prayer. . . .But there are other gestures that intensify our prayer at Mass.”
- Is there something inherently wrong with a tradition emanating from the faithful that “involves the body in prayer” and “intensifies our prayer at Mass”, especially a prayer that needs to be so fervently prayed (that the Spirit be with our Pastor/Celebrant)?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Yes—with great care. This involves the authority of Rome. Anything out side the authority of Rome is nothing more than addition, omission and adaptation.
As the Church already stated not even the bishops or bishops conference have the authority to innovate and use this as away to bypass the Church.
The Churches prayer ----precedes ours. We do not have the authority to “amanate” and neither does the priest.
C
CRW
Guest
The Eucharistic Sacrifice is intrinsically directed to the inward union of the faithful with Christ through communion. Individual participation of the sacrifice, especially prayers and gestures, could be classified as cultured behavior handed down from our parents, our parish and growth in our religious formation. Most gestures and prayers become involuntary reflexes and for some cherished con-celebration of the sacrifice with the priest. Some purpose moderation and some strict compliance with the General Instruction of the Missal. The holding of the hands during the Our Father however, may approach on ones individual space, preference, and distract him/her from the Mass. When one imposes their hand on you, that person provides a situation of acceptance or rejection of the gesture. This can become an awkward moment for both (if rejected); which could be considered a lack of charity by both members. IMHOOur parish holds hands during the “Our Father.” We are a small parish and many are related - it only makes sense that if you’re related, or neighbors or see your parish as one family in Christ, then the hand hold is logical. The Bishop came and celebrated mass with us and never said a word - and he IS a holy man!
Only a few of us remember to bow during the creed… I’ve decide that’s because very few are using the Missal. Everyone just says it from memory - sometimes folks remember, mostly not. We all try hard to do what is right and try not to offend. The only time some one giggles is at our pastor’s jokes…
God love you all for wanting to what is right!
F
fix
Guest
The gestures like genuflection and sign of the cross certainly do not need my defense. I think I have seen bishops, and even a pope, perform them so I assume they are permitted by law.
The very new thingy with the toss of the hands seems to be a complete innovation introduced by some. I am no canon lawyer or liturgical expert. The link that I provided does not explain in detail what each of these terms means.
Should this new toss thing be seen as licit simply because some of the faithful introduce it? Does the link I provide explicitly state that?
Not only that, but is it contrary to canon law? I dunno, but someone else has introduced this link in this thread:
I do not understand?
Your opinion is noted. I will leave to the authorities. Is it wise to introduce any novelty by one’s one accord?
It depends. It is best not to introduce things by our own initiative lest we turn the celebration of the Holy sacrifice of the mass into our own personal property.
It is that some are approved and some are not.
I see. That stuff is “out of context”, but a toss up of the hands introduced by one’s own private authority is in keeping with the spirit of the liturgy? Where does it end?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Part 2: In Response to Fix
Will you then do it or will you defy?
I’m sure that a thousand years ago when the first faithful made the sign of the cross after the absolution during the Act of Penance there was somebody who cried out “Who does he think he is to duplicate/copy the blessing just given by the Priest?” And fortunately for us (or at least those who continue this tradition), the person was ignored.
Novelty? Absolutely not. But a gesture that conforms our body to our prayer and intensifies that prayer surely should not be considered a novelty, especially a prayer as necessary as that the Spirit be with our Pastor Celebrant.
This is a discrete, private conformance of our body to our prayer in an effort to intensify that prayer!
Like me, you can choose not to participate in this gesture until the matter is deemed a Custom whereby we are required to do it or reprobated or until the USCCB has listed it among the traditional gestures on their web site. But I will not have a automatic view that all that “emanates from the faithful” must be quashed. This effectively denies the reality of where we have gotten the wonderful traditions we currently hold dear. They started with a discrete personal act of piety (not an effort to make the celebration their own personal property) that spread among the faithful.
Simply yes and yes. To refer to documents that are addressing Celebrants and Liturgists who unilaterally introduce changes to the liturgy outside the GIRM to encompass discrete personal acts of piety is absurd. And until it is reprobated or formally made into a custom, it may or may not be. Like you said, leave it to the authorities.
It ends when the legitimate authorities says it ends or it obviously goes beyond what is currently in law. If neither happen, Fix, you might have a Custom on your hands.
Will you then do it or will you defy?I’m sure that a thousand years ago when the first faithful made the sign of the cross after the absolution during the Act of Penance there was somebody who cried out “Who does he think he is to duplicate/copy the blessing just given by the Priest?” And fortunately for us (or at least those who continue this tradition), the person was ignored.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Nor mine. You keep avoiding the question. There are specifically three traditions that the faithful often perform that are not required (thus their performance must be a personal act of piety or prayer) and are neither approved to be a Custom (making it required), not overtly encouraged as I’ve never been taught formally to do them, and obviously not discouraged.
The reverse is true. Unless it has been reprobated by a legitimate authority, it shouldn’t necessarily be seen as illicit.
Father McNamara makes a case that it may not be “beneficial”, that it may reduce the presidential character of the immediately preceding gesture of the Celebrant, that he believes it “would in all likelihood weaken the expression of this theological and ecclesial rapport”. Thus, he asserts his very learned opinion that it may be something that should/could be reprobated. But he is a long ways from actually asserting that it is illicit.
My point is that the three traditions that are practiced currently as far as I know have not become Custom’s despite having been practiced for 30 complete and continuous years have not become Customs because they lack the universality that I suspect is required.
This has always been my point. This is a private discrete gesture of the faithful from which a tradition/custom may emanate as allowed by the Church unless reprobated by a legitimate authority. Or it may slowly dissipate into disuse and oblivion. All I’ve opposed is that misuse of various Church documents designed to address abuses and not something which appears to be allowed in other documents (thank you Fix for providing some of them).
See Part 2 Below
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Please state the three traditions.
I dont’ understand.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
- Making the sign of the cross after recieving Communion
- Doing the “lippy thing”
- Making the sign of the cross to bless ourself after the Priest has given absolution during the Act of Penance.
F
fix
Guest
Until I receive more clarification from legitimate sources I will stick with Father Edward McNamara:Part 2: In Response to Fix
Novelty? Absolutely not. But a gesture that conforms our body to our prayer and intensifies that prayer surely should not be considered a novelty, especially a prayer as necessary as that the Spirit be with our Pastor Celebrant.
This is a discrete, private conformance of our body to our prayer in an effort to intensify that prayer!
Like me, you can choose not to participate in this gesture until the matter is deemed a Custom whereby we are required to do it or reprobated or until the USCCB has listed it among the traditional gestures on their web site. But I will not have a automatic view that all that “emanates from the faithful” must be quashed. This effectively denies the reality of where we have gotten the wonderful traditions we currently hold dear. They started with a discrete personal act of piety (not an effort to make the celebration their own personal property) that spread among the faithful.
Simply yes and yes. To refer to documents that are addressing Celebrants and Liturgists who unilaterally introduce changes to the liturgy outside the GIRM to encompass discrete personal acts of piety is absurd. And until it is reprobated or formally made into a custom, it may or may not be. Like you said, leave it to the authorities.
It ends when the legitimate authorities says it ends or it obviously goes beyond what is currently in law. If neither happen, Fix, you might have a Custom on your hands.
I’m sure that a thousand years ago when the first faithful made the sign of the cross after the absolution during the Act of Penance there was somebody who cried out “Who does he think he is to duplicate/copy the blessing just given by the Priest?” And fortunately for us (or at least those who continue this tradition), the person was ignored.
And I offer this:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The problem here—Orionthehunter----Why are “WE” putting the Church in a position of having to reprobate—that which She has already stated is not allowed. The Mass is not our property. The Mass is how the Church prays. Her prayer preceeds ours.
The Church has already stated that no one is to add, omit, adapt----yet here we are—trying to use any loophole to introduce our own ideas and idiosyncrasis.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Well, I appreciate that someone took the initiative on this issue: I’m sure that a thousand years ago when the first faithful made the sign of the cross after the absolution during the Act of Penance there was somebody who cried out “Who does he think he is to duplicate/copy the blessing just given by the Priest?” And fortunately for us (or at least those who continue this tradition), the person was ignored.
And more importantly, I’m grateful that the faithful held onto the Teaching of the Assumption and Mary Queen of Heaven for nearly 2,000 years without definitive clarification from the Church until it was finally declared an infallible Teaching by the Pope.
I know that I’ll never change the minds of some. And I really don’t want to. I don’t do this gesture and probably won’t unless my Bishop or Pastor encourages/teaches that it should be done. And I’m not going to beat this horse any more with Walking Home or Fix nor argue against what I believe are a misuse and misapplication of Church documents and the words of legitimate important Church authorities. But I will stand up for the Church’s teaching that allows new traditions to “emanate from the faithful” as an expression of gratitude for those who came before and gave us the traditions that I hold dear. And I’ll continue to monitor the thread in the event someone introduces a new thought or new documentation on this issue besides what I believe is a misuse and misinterpretation of what has been provided.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Yes our great liturgical traditions developed thru the centuries and have become part of how the Church prays.
The Church has expressly stated that no experimentation is to occur apart from the authority from Rome. This puts into context the Churches great liturgical tradition and the adaptations and innovations that are being imposed upon the prayer of the Church.
As the Church has also stated no one—not even priest and also bishop on their own have the authority to innovated our Mass.
F
fix
Guest
No, they are here. They say customs need to be approved by legitimate authority.Canon law specifically allows for ways that things can become law and custom, yet those applicable documents that specifically address the issue are discounted.
Authentic unity is when we all obey the rules, not when we go freestyle because we think the mass belongs to us.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
fix;1601271:
making innovations to the liturgy within the realm of Redemptionis Sacramentum. This has to do wit the section in RS that refers to not making changes to “liturgical texts and other things that are prescribed”. It has absolutely nothing to do with what individuals do with their hands as there is no prescription for this even if the passage could legitimately be applied to the laity.
Like Orion, I find that the discussion just keeps repeating the same inapplicable statements and quoting the same inapplicable documents in trying to stretch them to cover something they were never meant to address. Canon law specifically allows for ways that things can become law and custom, yet those applicable documents that specifically address the issue are discounted.
As I said earlier, we clearly have here an argument of “my positions that aren’t specified or required are better than your positions that aren’t specified or required.” As such, unless someone offers something new that actually does speak to the issue, I will also leave while continuing to seek peace for our Church.
If then–as you say—the priest has to stay within the norms—but we the laity are outside the norms. We have the authority to adapt–to innovate. We can impose ourselves over the prayer of the Church.
adoremus.org/0505Arinze.html
First of all, it is necessary to bear in mind that the public worship of the Church is something that we receive in faith through the Church. It is not something that we invent. Indeed the essentials of the sacraments are established by Christ Himself. And the detailed rites, including words and actions, have been carefully worked out, guarded and handed down by the Church along the centuries. It would, therefore, not be the proper attitude for an individual or a committee to keep thinking and planning each week how to invent a new way of celebrating Mass.
- Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations
Moreover, a priority at Mass and other liturgical acts is worship of God. The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes. Idiosyncrasies tend to attract attention to the person rather than to the mysteries of Christ being celebrated. They can also upset, puzzle, annoy, mislead or confuse the congregation.
Redemptionis Sacramentum is therefore able to say that “ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to established liturgical norms”. (RS 39) The last phrase is important: “according to established liturgical norms”. The paragraph of Redemptionis Sacramentum concludes with a recall of the crucial observation that “it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated”. What the people are asking for every Sunday from their pastor is not a novelty but a celebration of the sacred mysteries that nourishes faith, manifests devotion, awakens piety, leads to prayer and incites to active charity in daily life.
- Status