Infilling of Holy Spirit during Mass

[Suz21]

Hi faithful and knowledgeable Catholics.

Yesterday my charismatic Catholic community had mass in a college hall (with permission from the bishop). Before the Offertory we had an infilling of the Spirit for some new members led by the lay head of our community, while the priest stood to the side. These people came to the front and some members of the community laid hands on them and prayed for them while the entire community (except for me and a couple others) followed the leader in a prayer for the infilling of the Spirit.

I know that this is liturgical abuse, and what I’d like to hear is why exactly it is an abuse. Also, could you explain how it is negatively affecting people’s participation in the Mass.

I do NOT want to start a discussion about charismatic Catholics, Protestant influence and such. Just a reasonable explanation of why it is wrong. My dad (and other people) feel that most people at our church are totally untouched by the normal mass, and although we should stick to the rules, people’s experience of God is more important than rigidly sticking to the rules, or getting upset when they are breached.

I guess I’d like to hear the rationale for the rule- I know ‘the Church says so’ is good enough for me, but I need to understand and lovingly share WHY the Church teaches it.

 

[palmas85]

Hi faithful and knowledgeable Catholics.

Yesterday my charismatic Catholic community had mass in a college hall (with permission from the bishop). Before the Offertory we had an infilling of the Spirit for some new members led by the lay head of our community, while the priest stood to the side. These people came to the front and some members of the community laid hands on them and prayed for them while the entire community (except for me and a couple others) followed the leader in a prayer for the infilling of the Spirit.

I know that this is liturgical abuse, and what I’d like to hear is why exactly it is an abuse. Also, could you explain how it is negatively affecting people’s participation in the Mass.

I do NOT want to start a discussion about charismatic Catholics, Protestant influence and such. Just a reasonable explanation of why it is wrong. My dad (and other people) feel that most people at our church are totally untouched by the normal mass, and although we should stick to the rules, people’s experience of God is more important than rigidly sticking to the rules, or getting upset when they are breached.

I guess I’d like to hear the rationale for the rule- I know ‘the Church says so’ is good enough for me, but I need to understand and lovingly share WHY the Church teaches it.

It is an abuse primarily because it is not specified in the GIRM. The Mass is a highly structured event as opposed to many other religious communities services. The Mass follows a set pattern with very little deviation allowed. This is more true under the Traditional Mass than in the Pauline Rite, but it is still true none the less. Adding things to the Mass that are not specifically called for in the GIRM constitutes abuse, no matter what they are or how well intentioned they may be.

As far as the merits of charismatic Catholicism I agree this is not the time oor place to discuss them Both proponents and opponenets of the practice are unlikely to change their minds by the discussions we have on this forum concerning them.

As far as negatively affecting the people participation in the Mass, I would guess that it takes them totally out of the mass right in the middle of it. The laying of hands and infilling of the Holy Spirit not being specified in the Mass are cl;early not a part of it. that in and of itself seems to be the main reason.

If your father and others are not touched as you say by the mass, maybe they need to re evaluate their beliefs and see if they are in fact Catholic. The Mass is the re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice at Calvary by Christ. If they are untouched by that then they have a serious problem.

At least in my opinion.

 

[Suz21]

Thanks, palmas…

It’s not my dad who is not touched by the mass, but his opinion that many others in our church aren’t. I think it comes down to understanding what exactly Mass is all about. Most people don’t, in my city. It’s more a formality, than an experience of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[puzzleannie]

in the few charismatic Masses I have attended, praying over people was done as part of the prayer of the faithful, so I assume was considered part of the intercessions. Our bishop has laid down rules for this and for other occasions such as healing masses, simply to address what had become rather widespread abuses.

 

[Suz21]

What rules did your bishop lay down?

 

[puzzleannie]

synod guidelines are on the webstite cdob.org

 

[benedictgal]

This is another unfortunate incident of a priest or group putting their own personal idiosyncracies ahead of the Mass. The only thing the bishop permitted was to allow the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to occur in a college hall. That’s certainly allowable.

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on what is and what is not allowed:

[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

Furthermore, no one, on their own initiative, has any authority to add or subtract from the norms, rubrics and approved texts. Francis Cardinal Arinze makes that very clear in remarks he had prepared for a liturgical conference in St. Louis:

Then the Council adds the warning: “Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)

These rulings are not a sign of lack of respect for anyone. They follow from the fact that the liturgy is a celebration of the universal Church. “The prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church”. (SC 33)

From these considerations ***it follows that a do-it-yourself attitude is not acceptable in the public worship of the Church. It does damage to the Church’s worship and to the faith of the people. ***The people of God have the right that the liturgy be celebrated as the Church wants it. (cf RS 12) ***The mysteries of Christ should not be celebrated as personal taste or whim may indicate. ***“The ‘treasure’ is too important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise through forms of experimentation or practices introduced without a careful review on the part of ecclesiastical authorities”. (EE 51)

If the priest remained insistent on doing what he did, then such activity should have occurred after the post-Communion prayer (just before the final blessing). That would have been a more appropriate time.

Some will perhaps argue that the imparting of the Sacrament of Confirmation happens just after the homily. However, we have to be perfectly clear about one thing: Confirmation is a Sacrament and it has an established norm and rubric for its administration, as found in the Roman Pontifical, the Bishop’s book. It is a ritual of the Church, albeit, an ancient one. What happened at the college hall was not a sacrament, nor should it have been treated as such. Therefore, it should have occured after the post-Communion prayer.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…These people came to the front and some members of the community laid hands on them and prayed for them while the entire community (except for me and a couple others) followed the leader in a prayer for the infilling of the Spirit.

I know that this is liturgical abuse, and what I’d like to hear is why exactly it is an abuse. Also, could you explain how it is negatively affecting people’s participation in the Mass. …

It sounds like what you are calling “infilling of the Spirit” was a blessing. So it would be an abuse on this basis, from the General Introduction to the Book of Blessings:

1. Because some blessings have a special relationship to the sacraments, they may sometimes be joined with the celebration of Mass.
   This book specifies what such blessings are and the part or rite with which they are joined; it also provides ritual norms that may not be disregarded. No blessings except those so specified may be joined with the eucharistic celebration.

Incidentally, this also makes blessing people in the Communion Procession a clear abuse.

Pretend that it was an actual blessing from the Book of Blessings. For example, they were using the Blessing of Familes and Members of Families in Chapter 1. How would it have been an abuse then?

The presiding priest is to be the one with hands outstreched over those being blessed. He is to be the one saying the prayer of blessing.

Some blessings can be done by lay people. But as it has in the General Introduction to the Book of Blessings:

1. … But whenever a priest or a deacon is present, the office of presiding should be left to him.

And in Mass a priest will always be present.
Reference: Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8.

 

[Suz21]

It sounds like what you are calling “infilling of the Spirit” was a blessing. So it would be an abuse on this basis, from the General Introduction to the Book of Blessings:

1. Because some blessings have a special relationship to the sacraments, they may sometimes be joined with the celebration of Mass.

This book specifies what such blessings are and the part or rite with which they are joined; it also provides ritual norms that may not be disregarded. No blessings except those so specified may be joined with the eucharistic celebration.

Pretend that it was an actual blessing from the Book of Blessings. For example, they were using the Blessing of Familes and Members of Families in Chapter 1. How would it have been an abuse then?

The presiding priest is to be the one with hands outstreched over those being blessed. He is to be the one saying the prayer of blessing.

Some blessings can be done by lay people. But as it has in the General Introduction to the Book of Blessings:

And in Mass a priest will always be present.
Reference: Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8.

Thanks, John, that made it quite clear.

 

[Suz21]

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on what is and what is not allowed:

Furthermore, no one, on their own initiative, has any authority to add or subtract from the norms, rubrics and approved texts. Francis Cardinal Arinze makes that very clear in remarks he had prepared for a liturgical conference in St. Louis:

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.

thanks… this will definitely help in explaining the whys and wherefores.