Laity Talk After the Homily?

[diggerdomer]

I love it when I agree with Mark.

I wonder how Mark feels about that.

 

[diggerdomer]

So, there’s your answer to your statement, “There’s nothing in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows ‘additions’ to the Mass/liturgy.” In fact, yes there is. “Numerous bishops ignore it” does not prove “Bishops need not follow it.”

I never said any Bishop ignores liturgical law. I never said Bishops are not required to follow liturgical law. I think you misunderstand. can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[MarkThompson]

I never said any Bishop ignores liturgical law. I never said Bishops are not required to follow liturgical law. I think you misunderstand. can you clarify? Thanks.

So then you you agree that there is something “in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows ‘additions’ to the Mass/liturgy”? You said you agreed “in theory,” but “not in practice, as numerous Bishops have proven.” Were you saying “Yeah, your citation is technically right, but everyone knows bishops don’t follow it so it doesn’t mean much”, or were you saying, “Oh, thanks for the citation, I didn’t realize that was in there; I guess bishops ignore it quite a bit, though, huh”?

I think we’re both confused here!

 

[Canto]

Where does Canon Law say that? Thanks.

CODE OF CANON LAW “The** liturgical books **approved by the competent authority are to be **faithfully observed **in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, **or change **anything in them” (Canon 826.1).

 

[diggerdomer]

So then you you agree that there is something “in Canon Law or liturgical law that a priori disallows ‘additions’ to the Mass/liturgy”? You said you agreed “in theory,” but “not in practice, as numerous Bishops have proven.” Were you saying “Yeah, your citation is technically right, but everyone knows bishops don’t follow it so it doesn’t mean much”, or were you saying, “Oh, thanks for the citation, I didn’t realize that was in there; I guess bishops ignore it quite a bit, though, huh”?

I think we’re both confused here!

I am saying “additions” is, in fact, somewhat vague.

Meaning: yes of course no one is free to add anything to the Mass as if such an addition was a required, or routine, or necessary part of the Mass.

But if an individual priest adds “good morning” during the Introductory Rites, while I personally think it’s a really poor thing to do, theologically and liturgically, I don’t see where canon law or liturgical law precludes it. Or, if, as I’ve often observed ((again, much to my personal lament) a parish includes a specific prayer recited by all during the Prayer of the Faithful (e.g. due to a specific social concern, or the issue or merging parishes) I don’t see that such practice is necessarily absolutely prohibited by law.

Does that help clarify my point? Sorry for any confusion.

 

[diggerdomer]

CODE OF CANON LAW “The** liturgical books **approved by the competent authority are to be **faithfully observed **in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, **or change **anything in them” (Canon 826.1).

I never said anything about anyone adding anything to the liturgical books.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Canto]

I never said anything about anyone adding anything to the liturgical books.

Thanks anyway.

The laity speaking, a video etc after the homily is an addition to the books. The books say after the homily silence then Credo.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

But if an individual priest adds “good morning” during the Introductory Rites, while I personally think it’s a really poor thing to do, theologically and liturgically, I don’t see where canon law or liturgical law precludes it.

This is technically allowed, although I don’t personally like it very much.
GIRM:

1. When the Entrance chant is concluded, the priest stands at the chair and, together with the whole gathering, makes the Sign of the Cross. Then he signifies the presence of the Lord to the community gathered there by means of the Greeting. By this Greeting and the people’s response, the mystery of the Church gathered together is made manifest.

After the greeting of the people, the priest, the deacon, or a lay minister may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.

The above bolded bit is what Priests use in order to say what they wish. They tend to go with the “spirit” of the law, rather than the letter.

Or, if, as I’ve often observed ((again, much to my personal lament) a parish includes a specific prayer recited by all during the Prayer of the Faithful (e.g. due to a specific social concern, or the issue or merging parishes) I don’t see that such practice is necessarily absolutely prohibited by law.

I believe this covers what is being done here.
GIRM:

1. It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer.

So your examples unfortunately don’t work. I am, like Mark, also confused as to what exactly is your point. Can the Bishop decide liturgical law for himself? Yes or no?

 

[diggerdomer]

The laity speaking, a video etc after the homily is an addition to the books. The books say after the homily silence then Credo.

No; no books were changed in order for such to happen. The books did not say such things are proscribed. The Bishop just decided to do something that was neither required nor proscribed by the books. Which is his prerogative.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is technically allowed, although I don’t personally like it very much.
GIRM:

The above bolded bit is what Priests use in order to say what they wish. They tend to go with the “spirit” of the law, rather than the letter.

I believe this covers what is being done here.
GIRM:

So your examples unfortunately don’t work. I am, like Mark, also confused as to what exactly is your point. Can the Bishop decide liturgical law for himself? Yes or no?

No, of course a Bishop cannot decide liturgical law by himself!

However, liturgical law includes three basic elements:

1. Things that are required/necessary.
2. Things that are proscribed/illicit…i.e. you cannot do this.
3. Things that are neither required nor proscribed.

 

[Canto]

No; no books were changed in order for such to happen. The books did not say such things are proscribed. The Bishop just decided to do something that was neither required nor proscribed by the books. Which is his prerogative.

The books prescribe silence after the homily

To add a laity talk or video would be a change to the order, and an adittion to the books, even if the Bishop doesn’t physically get his red pen out - as they do not call for such a thing after the homily

RS says layity may speak before the final blessing though

Break-dancing is neither required nor proscribed by the books - so could a Bishop just decided to do something?