LA Religious Congress 2014

  • Thread starter Thread starter scylla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizium23 said:
Hmm, yes, I am reading those paragraphs, and it speaks much of “devising rubrics” and “drawing up liturgical books”. I would ask on whose authority were rubrics devised and liturgical books drawn up for the occasion of LAREC 2014 and which Holy Father promulgated these documents for use in the sacred liturgy at such a time and place? Also, which competent territorial ecclesiastical authority carefully and prudently studied these rubrics and obtained permission from the Apostolic See to experiment with them at LAREC 2014?
Click to expand...
Canon 838,1 — The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

Canon 839,2 — Local ordinaries are to see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church.

Due to the logistical realities and pastoral challenges of a specified situation and venue, some variations need to be made. Of course, this is not the norm in Los Angeles.
 
janeway529 said:
Canon 838,1 — The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

Canon 839,2 — Local ordinaries are to see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church.

Due to the logistical realities and pastoral challenges of a specified situation and venue, some variations need to be made. Of course, this is not the norm in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is not an excuse. The canon you quote is a more general guide. When you look at additional canons that go into specifics, the bishop does NOT have the authority go modify the liturgy however he wants.

And please don’t try and make the case that the logistics caused them to do everything they did.That’s not an issue of logistics. It’s an issue of obedience. I know many conference center Masses (indeed, I have assisted in some of them) that went on just fine without disobeying the rubrics.
 
ProdigalSon1211 said:
youtube.com/watch?v=Az8izZdjtbE

youtube.com/watch?v=KqZFIujGi4I
Click to expand...
Watched both, and they were HIGHLY inaccurate. The LA Religious Education Congress started in 1956 as the CCD Institute. Then in 1967, with the cooperation of the dioceses of Monterey-Fresno and San Diego, the agenda for the first three-day “Congress” was set. The purpose, as stated by officials, was “to provide an atmosphere of Christian unity…for the benefit of each and the common good of all mankind.” In 1970, the annual Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine Congress was moved to the Anaheim Convention Center. The happy result was over 10,000 in attendance and use of the surrounding hotels. The Diocese of Orange was established in 1976. The first Youth Rally was held in 1971 for students and set the pattern for what has become Youth Day, which now annually attracts over 15,000 on the Thursday opening of the Congress event. The event didn’t become known as the Religious Education Congress until 1973, under Cardinal Timothy Manning. Cardinal Mahony didn’t become Archbishop of Los Angeles until 1985.
Info taken from: recongress.org/ccd-rec.htm

Most of those speakers mentioned in those videos haven’t been there in decades. Every speaker is required to present a letter of recommendation from the diocesan bishop where they live, regardless if they are Catholic or not.[2] This helps in the approval process for the speaker by the Archbishop.
 
jamessmith said:
Sorry, but this is not an excuse. The canon you quote is a more general guide. When you look at additional canons that go into specifics, the bishop does NOT have the authority go modify the liturgy however he wants.

And please don’t try and make the case that the logistics caused them to do everything they did.That’s not an issue of logistics. It’s an issue of obedience. I know many conference center Masses (indeed, I have assisted in some of them) that went on just fine without disobeying the rubrics.
Click to expand...
Please do not twist my words. I never said that the diocesan bishop has the authority to modify the liturgy. The GIRM (It stands for “General Instruction”, btw) allows the jurisdiction of the local ordinary as having the final say as chief liturgist, especially for legitimate expressions of inculturation and variation due to pastoral sensitivities in his diocese. The liturgy is universal, but do not confuse that with uniformity.
 
Yeah, we get it, the diocesan bishop is in on it, so the liturgy’s legit. I once again ask you, where is the publication of the rubrics devised and the liturgical books drawn up for these events? As far as I can tell, the USCCB is the body with competence here, not the Archbishop alone. Where is their written approval of the hijinks going on at these liturgies? How come liturgical dance can be an outlandish thing forbidden in the United States of America and yet “inculturation” makes it OK here in LA. Which of those cultures practices dance as worship? Chicanos? Hipsters in Silverlake? Really? “Hipster in Silverlake” is now a culture that deserves recognition in the Universal Church with liturgical enhancements?
 
Looking at the Friday night liturgy (not in depth, just scanning key moments):
  1. There was liturgical dance (including the priest). From Notitiae:(snip)
However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.

Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.

For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.

Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet[2] because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation.

(snip)

If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical. Moreover, the priests must always be excluded from the dance.
2. The use of multiple incense bowls throughout the liturgy. According to the GIRM, there is to be one thurifer carrying one thurible. Then the celebrant is to incense the altar, the crucifix, the gospels, and so on and so forth, as prescribed. Nowhere is it called for a bunch of lay people to be prancing about carrying bowls of incense. Further, though they made the decision to use incense, I saw no evidence of it being used properly at any place during the Mass.
  1. The altar was not dressed with the cloth until the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This, too, is a violation of the GIRM. This question was specifically asked in Notitiae back in 1999:
    Whether at the offertory, the altar linens with candles can be brought to the altar in the procession with the gifts?
    ℟ In the negative.
    Those are just three things I saw with a really fast glance. I’m sure there are more. None of the points I am pointing out are within the competence of the Diocesan Bishop or even the Bishop’s Conference to change. (Elements of the liturgy, such as posture, translations, etc., must be approved by the Holy See before being implemented, anyway)
Frankly, most of these liturgies fall into the category of what Joseph Ratzinger called “religious titillation” (from his book, the Spirit of the Liturgy)
 
I have not viewed the actual Eucharistic liturgies this year so I cannot comment much on the liturgical content of this particular year’s events, however I did watch the Opening “Rites” and Welcome and some of the talks I watched live with others commenting in the chat room. I will tell you that I am rightly concerned based on ChurchMilitant.TV’s observations about the heterodoxy of many speakers, Fr. Robert Barron excluded (even though CMTV has called him out regarding his postulation of an empty Hell, we can forgive that much) and the pantsuited sister gave an insipid talk about nothing in particular, and at least one non-Catholic liberal lobbyist giving his two-cents worth and no less than two sessions of nothing but stand-up comedy (diocesan catechists are REQUIRED to attend this dreck?)

What truly bothered me the most, though, was the apparent theme of this conference, and the consistent thread of prayer running through all the sessions as they were introduced, was the invocation of “Spark of God”. The prayers were worded to imply that they were invoking the Holy Spirit, but when I looked up this concept I found not the Holy Spirit - far from it - but rather, the Divine Spark, a concept of Gnosticism, Sufism, and Kabbalah that has nothing to do with God but rather an internal aspect of the human person’s soul. So it was all rather amusing to me that through the prayer leaders (who were not priests) the whole assembly at LAREC were praying not to God but to themselves! And suddenly the bogus “inculturations” of liturgy and the gyrations of the priestesses with bowls of incense and the bizarre comedy routines from priests and laity and the secular liberalism spouted by non-Catholics and pantsuit sisters made perfect sense. This was not worship of the Holy Trinity but this was worship of Self, self-deification, self-gratification, totally inwardly focused idolatry.

There is a fundamental disconnect of LAREC from Catholic doctrine and Truth, and it is a systemic problem that may take many years to correct, and I will pray earnestly and fervently for Archbishop Gomez who cannot be comfortable with the goings-on here, and is probably working overtime to correct the grave errors being espoused and promoted in this conference.
 
Elizium23 said:
Yeah, we get it, the diocesan bishop is in on it, so the liturgy’s legit. I once again ask you, where is the publication of the rubrics devised and the liturgical books drawn up for these events? As far as I can tell, the USCCB is the body with competence here, not the Archbishop alone. Where is their written approval of the hijinks going on at these liturgies? How come liturgical dance can be an outlandish thing forbidden in the United States of America and yet “inculturation” makes it OK here in LA. Which of those cultures practices dance as worship? Chicanos? Hipsters in Silverlake? Really? “Hipster in Silverlake” is now a culture that deserves recognition in the Universal Church with liturgical enhancements?
Click to expand...
Was the Roman Missal followed? Yes.

Hip-Hop and B-boys are part of LA street/urban culture, and they include all of the above. I found their dance prayer both moving and reverent. The liturgical character of the Urban Fusion Mass is theme-based, much like a Mardi Gras Mass would be in Louisiana.
 
markomalley said:
Looking at the Friday night liturgy (not in depth, just scanning key moments)
Click to expand...
  1. It was NOT liturgical dance. It was liturgical movement. Yes, there is a difference.
  2. Incense was used a total of 2 times, one of which wasn’t within the liturgy. Mass does not start until the processional cross processes. The second time was for the Gospel procession, and it was one incense pot, not multiple.
  3. Not quite sure what you are referring to. The altar candles were not processed up with the altar cloth and the gifts. I see no GIRM violations with regards to this.
GIRM:
  1. Out of reverence for the celebration of the memorial of the Lord and for the banquet in which the Body and Blood of the Lord are offered on an altar where this memorial is celebrated, there should be at least one white cloth, its shape, size, and decoration in keeping with the altar’s design. When, in the dioceses of the United States of America, other cloths are used in addition to the altar cloth, then those cloths may be of other colors possessing Christian honorific or festive significance according to longstanding local usage, provided that the uppermost cloth covering the mensa (i.e., the altar cloth itself) is always white in color.
  2. The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful’s clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it.
Click to expand...
Remember the joke about the two seminarians who wanted to smoke? This is a prime example of that timeless lesson of nuance. :rolleyes:
 
janeway529 said:
Was the Roman Missal followed? Yes.

Hip-Hop and B-boys are part of LA street/urban culture, and they include all of the above. I found their dance prayer both moving and reverent. The liturgical character of the Urban Fusion Mass is theme-based, much like a Mardi Gras Mass would be in Louisiana.
Click to expand...
What in the world is a Mardi Gras Mass? I sure don’t recall ever hearing about any Mardi Gras style Mass at the Cathedral of St Charles…but, hey, I only lived in that neck of the woods for a couple of years, so I probably missed it.

Oh, by the way, I’ve also done Fasching in Germany and Carnevale in Italy…and I sure don’t remember any special themed Masses for then.

Liturgical dancers are a no-no and liturgical dancing priests, doubly so. Period.
 
liturgical…dd-dd-dance??

:hypno::dts:

Now imagine Jesus at Calvary. Tortured, open flesh wounds.
Now imagine all this dancing and what not happening under him.

no.non. nonononon
 
janeway529 said:
  1. It was NOT liturgical dance. It was liturgical movement. Yes, there is a difference.
  2. Incense was used a total of 2 times, one of which wasn’t within the liturgy. Mass does not start until the processional cross processes. The second time was for the Gospel procession, and it was one incense pot, not multiple.
  3. Not quite sure what you are referring to. The altar candles were not processed up with the altar cloth and the gifts. I see no GIRM violations with regards to this.
Remember the joke about the two seminarians who wanted to smoke? This is a prime example of that timeless lesson of nuance. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh, please…

Why don’t you just say “You peons are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the true artistry we presented at that conference…”

I see I wasted my time here.
 
There is one other question, though…

Do you all have clown masses out there, too? (Don’t worry, this peon won’t appreciate that, either)
 
I remember my youth minister told me about this congress. When I heard there were these different forms of Masses I could understand cultural elements in the Mass (like Native American, African, and others), but urban fusion? What the heck.

Other than a sense of not being alone. I probably will not go to this Congress.

I’d not be surprised that there wasn’t even a TLM or Eastern Catholic Liturgy.
 
adawgj said:
I remember my youth minister told me about this congress. When I heard there were these different forms of Masses I could understand cultural elements in the Mass (like Native American, African, and others), but urban fusion? What the heck.

Other than a sense of not being alone. I probably will not go to this Congress.

I’d not be surprised that there wasn’t even a TLM or Eastern Catholic Liturgy.
Click to expand...
I think I can safely say that no Eastern priest, Catholic or Orthodox, would touch this sort of event with a 1000 mile pole. The liturgical “experimentation” of the West has been a major sore spot in relations with the East. More than a few Catholics have left the Church for Orthodoxy for chiefly liturgical reasons.
 
markomalley said:
There is one other question, though…

Do you all have clown masses out there, too? (Don’t worry, this peon won’t appreciate that, either)
Click to expand...
I don’t know what a clown Mass is. It certainly did not originate where I’m from. It may surprise you, but our previous bishop did not take kindly to the certain years we had either too much flowers or banners.
adawgj said:
I’d not be surprised that there wasn’t even a TLM or Eastern Catholic Liturgy.
Click to expand...
There are photos from the 60’s version of the Religious Ed Congress of Cardinal McIntyre celebrating the EF, although I don’t know why the altar is facing north. There was a Byzantine Divine Liturgy this year, and has been for some years. I’ve been asking friends to suggest the Maronites for next year’s Eastern Rite Liturgy. 🙂
 
twf said:
I think I can safely say that no Eastern priest, Catholic or Orthodox, would touch this sort of event with a 1000 mile pole. The liturgical “experimentation” of the West has been a major sore spot in relations with the East. More than a few Catholics have left the Church for Orthodoxy for chiefly liturgical reasons.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix sponsored a booth this year at the Exhibitor’s Hall and they coordinated a Byzantine Divine Liturgy on Saturday, which was presided over by the Most Rev. Gerald Dino. I also met a really nice Slovakian Byzantine priest who told me and gave some pamphlets about the International Theological Institute in Austria. 😃
 
Did the Byzantine Divine Liturgy also feature gyrating liturgical movement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top