Gathering at the Alter

[rpp]

I have already in many threads in the past. I’m tired of it.

Well, I have been here for a while and I have never seen anything that you describe. I can hardly see how you are “tired” of it.

[edited].

 

[agapewolf]

Well, I have been here for a while and I have never seen anything that you describe. I can hardly see how you are “tired” of it.

[edited].

Well, then you’ve missed it. It’s been there, over and over. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Yes, I’m tired of it. This is at least the 5th if not the 10th thread that this argument is happened. [edited]

An article by one source is quoted, and its not accurate. It has no source from where it has added its own comments on things.
I have pasted in the ACTUAL notice from LT to its parishes. (I do not have the energy to search for it…AGAIN). THAT is a real source. I have on audio tape the recount by the administrators of lifeteen that recounted their discussions with Arinze in how the decisions were made.

[edited]The end is that LT should not be doing these practices. Some folks insist on making up “how it happened” when they have no credible source to know such knowledge, and its especially wrong since the vatican has approved the ministry itself.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil, everyone or I will have to close the thread. Thank you all.

 

[benedictgal]

Can you provide a link to these articles?

I went off to lunch and am back (until such time as I have to go back into 100-degree heat to track down some students ). Here is the link:

adoremus.org/0904NewsViews.html

Inasmuch as there are those who may not agree with Adoremus, they are a pretty reliable source. Here is a link to the article regarding the Neocatechumenal Movement and their abuse of the lliturgy. It is from chiesa, an online magazine.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/205382?eng=y

There are, no doubt, some folks with good intentions, who will defend both movements. The movements, themselves, are not the problem. How each has handled the Mass, on the other hand, is a major issue.

While both movements each have their different charisms, the manner in which they regard the Mass does have some similiarities. Each took liberties that were not theirs to take regarding how the Mass would be celebrated. Both, in one form or another, have had these particular matters addressed by the Holy See.

For LifeTeen, it is the matter of “standing around the altar” and other matters, another of which was music, which even the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist found problematic.

For the Neocats, the big issue is their liturgical arrangement, which, if you look at the document from the second link, isn’t too far removed from LifeTeen’s “standing around the altar”. In this case, rather than standing, the Neocats sit around it. Although, unlike LifeTeen, this happened for the duration of the Mass (believe me, I’ve seen it having walked into it by accident).

 

[Cat]

Well, then you’ve missed it. It’s been there, over and over. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Yes, I’m tired of it. This is at least the 5th if not the 10th thread that this argument is happened. [edited]

An article by one source is quoted, and its not accurate. It has no source from where it has added its own comments on things.
I have pasted in the ACTUAL notice from LT to its parishes. (I do not have the energy to search for it…AGAIN). THAT is a real source. I have on audio tape the recount by the administrators of lifeteen that recounted their discussions with Arinze in how the decisions were made.

[edited] The end is that LT should not be doing these practices. Some folks insist on making up “how it happened” when they have no credible source to know such knowledge, and its especially wrong since the vatican has approved the ministry itself.

agapewolf, do you have the time to post links to the various threads? Please? Don’t let them do this to you or to Life Teen.

rpp, I’ve seen this same debate between Benedictgal and agapewolf over and over again, and he has always had good documentation to back up what he says. Yet Benedictgal continues to raise her same points as though they were truth.

I can understand why agapewolf is tired of once again finding and cutting and pasting those links. Perhaps, rpp, you would have the time to do a search on his/her posts and find the many threads where the subject of Life Teen has been dealt with and agapewolf has posted documentation links that refute what Benedictgal says.

I would try to do the search and post the links to the many threads, but I seem to have terrible luck on forum searches and it takes me hours to locate what I’m looking for. I’m so sorry.

What bothers me is that a perfectly acceptable Mass, the Life Teen, is condemned because of past practices. Altar gatherings are still happening, but it is not Life Teen (or any Mass) that is at fault, it is the fault of the presider. Life Teen as an organization has corrected their fault and moved on. Jesus forgave Peter for denying Him and established St. Peter as the first leader of the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t we follow the Lord’s example and let what is in the past be over and done with rather than continuing to bring it up and condemn what has been declared acceptable (Life Teen Mass) by the bishops? Remember that the measure we use for others is the measure that will be used on US at the judgement.

 

[benedictgal]

No authoritative documentation has been submitted to substantiate the claims made by proponents of LifeTeen regarding what has transpired in their liturgies. The mere fact that Rome ordered them to stop gathering around the altar is evidence that something was very wrong.

Furthermore, to disregard and/or invent rubrics just for the sake of creativity is wrong, as evidenced by Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.14 Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him’”.15 For in the presence of God’s power and divinity16 and the splendor of His goodness, made manifest especially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting that all the faithful should have and put into practice that power of acknowledging God’s majesty that they have received through the saving Passion of the Only-Begotten Son.17

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

What has occurred with LifeTeen and the Neocatechumenal Movement is a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have creativity in the Liturgy. This creativity is restricted only to the choice of propers and readings from approved texts and suitable sacred Music. Personal idiosyncracies and other “creative” measures have no place in the Mass. Standing around the altar is one such abusive practice.

Even Jesus was very quick to condemn abusive practices, especially those that occurred in His Father’s house. The moneychangers and animal vendors were treating the Court of the Gentiles, which was a sacred space (the only space for prayer allowed for non-Jews), like a mall rather than an area for devotion. He didn’t shy away from taking the whips and chords.

St. Paul, too, addressed the first instance of Christian liturgical abuse when admonishing the Corinthians for their bad practices.

The bottom line is that to not take liturgical abuse seriously, and think that we can do with the Mass as we please is wrong. As Cardinal Arinze notes:

Liturgical abuses can confuse the congregation and occasion uncertainty, perplexity, scandal, opposition and factionalism. In more severe cases, they can obscure the Catholic faith and prevent the people from sharing fully in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ. To ignore liturgical norms can also reinforce a false understanding of freedom. In ecumenical efforts it introduces problems and sometimes a wrong presentation of the Catholic faith.17

To ignore liturgical norms can in a subtle way introduce secularization and gradual banalization into the liturgy. In this short-sighted vision, a church building may no longer be seen as a sacred place. Do the people then come to church for Mass as to a “meeting” like in a stadium or congress hall? Do they talk in church as if it were not appreciated as a sacred place separated from secular daily events? Does this tendency regard the norms on the use of liturgical vestments as triumphalism? Does it lead to a type of secular leveling down which prefers to say cup instead of chalice, plate instead of paten, dress instead of vestment, and president instead of priest celebrant?

To ignore liturgical norms can gradually introduce such erosions

In other words, “good intentions” don’t justify liturgical abuse.

 

[rpp]

Okay, I think we have beaten the LifeTeen thing about gathering about the altar to to death.

Let’s move on.

 

[benedictgal]

This is untrue. They were offered an indult by Cardinal Arinze, and LT turned it down.

Do you have proof of this? Surely, as orthodox as Cardinal Arinze is, and, as very direct as he has been with the Neocats, such an indult would not have been offered, especially if it goes squarely against statements that he has made regarding “creativity.”

Remember, the Neocats made that same claim and it was effectively refuted by both Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict XVI.

The bottom line is that no one, no movement in the Church, has the right ot tinker around with the rubrics and norms of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[agapewolf]

Do you have proof of this? Surely, as orthodox as Cardinal Arinze is, and, as very direct as he has been with the Neocats, such an indult would not have been offered, especially if it goes squarely against statements that he has made regarding “creativity.”

Remember, the Neocats made that same claim and it was effectively refuted by both Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict XVI.

The bottom line is that no one, no movement in the Church, has the right ot tinker around with the rubrics and norms of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

sigh

As I have said, repeteadly before, I have to audio tape of the admins at LT reporting the discussions they had with Arinze.

There would be no document reoorting this, as it didn’t happen. They wouldn’t write one on something that didn’t happen.

PLEASE STOP making me repeat myself over and over.

 

[Colin_Adian]

I think that this thread has served its purpose and is no longer anything but a back and forth over lifeteen (which is not what I intended it to be).

 

[benedictgal]

I think that this thread has served its purpose and is no longer anything but a back and forth over lifeteen (which is not what I intended it to be).

The reason why LifeTeen had been brought up was because the movement employed a practice similar to what was described in your original post. That was until Rome said they had to stop it. No one has yet been able to provide documented proof that such an indult to have this group do with as they pleased was even considered. Furthermore, such an indult from Cardinal Arinze would fly in the face of everything he has ever said or written about creativity in the Mass.

I brought up the Neocat mvoement because they have also taken excessive liberties with the Mass and Pope Benedict had to personally intervene. The Neocats, oddly enough, made the same argument that there was an indult involved, but, Cardinal Arinze noted that no such documentation existed for them.

The fact of the matter remains that what was described in your OP does entail a liturgical abuse. Only the celebrant, concelebrants (if there are any), the deacon and the altar servers should be there; no one else.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.