Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quaere_Verum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
YinYangMom:
The laity should pray really hard for two things:

a) That the Holy Spirit descend upon the bishop to streghthen in him the four virtues in order to guide and protect him in such an important matter

b) That the Holy Spirit strengthen in me the gifts of understanding, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord so that I may obey the decision of the bishop trusting in the Lord’s guidance and protection over this decision.

Since you’re praying for the Holy Spirit to particular guide the bishop in this matter then you would be able to have faith in the Spirit to respond to your prayers, especially if said prayers are combined with fasting and alsmgiving, right? Do all that you can then trust in the Lord.

If the decision made rubs you the wrong way after you’ve offered such prayers then the burden is on you to open your heart, ears, eyes, mind to trust in the Lord working through the bishop. Pray earnestly for counsel and wisdom from the Spirit so that you can come to understand this decision and obey it with a loving heart.
You have left out recourse to just authority. Also, let us be careful not to characterize reports, news items, personal experiences as unworthy of discussion, praise or criticism.

Prayer is always the answer, and that may mean diffusion of all these irregularities on sites like this may foment change.

I try hard to not give out specfics. If a news item is reported I will comment on it. If I report a personal item, I do not give names or specifics usually.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Absolutely agreed. There’s a rush to judgement prevalent here against anyone who wishes to expand the experience of the faithful to grow closer to Christ through the Mass and the parish.

Is it not possible that the Holy Spirit works through these ‘instigators’ to improve the faith of the parish community?
The Holy Spirit does not contradict canon law.

I
 
40.png
fix:
Give an example. If you accuse another of such a thing that is not true youy would be as culpable.
Do you really want her to list examples of when you have questioned the motives, bias and intentions of a Bishop? I can find plenty of posts where you accused me of being a modernist, heretic, dissident, etc.

Secondly, she didn’t accuse you of anything. She just warned you that you might be treading on dangerous territory. This was done w/ Christian Charity.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Ttrying to expand the experience of the faithful by liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”.

Good feelings can be mistaken for the Holy Spirit.

In the past the laity did not have access to original documentation. Now we do via this Internet. Rome had to transmit its will through the Bishops. Now Rome can speak more directly to the people.

More people see now than ever before the errors.
True. I can’t help be see a new “liberal” clericalism that seems to want to quell any discussion or criticism of bishops and priests when these items are blatant and contradict documents from Rome.

I am not encouraging suspicion; I am saying that prayer and action are needed.
 
40.png
fix:
Two points.
So we are allowed to reason?
Reason, in and of itself, can be a slippery slope.
Are we allowed to reason? Yes.
Is it safe to assume our reasoning is God’s reasoning? No.

This is why God granted to us, the gifts of the Holy Spirit (not rights and not gifts to be grasped at, grapped at, snatch from - but received humbly):

Wisdom
Understanding
Counsel
Fortitude
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord

As the Catechism states: “They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations

Just because we can read Church documents, just because we can comprehend what it is we’re reading, doesn’t mean we have received full knowledge of the purpose and context of the message. For that, we rely on the Holy Spirit.

Think about it: I’m sure you can think of a passage or story from the Bible which you have read or heard since you were young…and even as an adult, having heard or read it over and over again, finally get that ‘aha moment’ where the meaning of the passage becomes crystal clear for you. It’s not that you didn’t understand it all the previous times, but that the Spirit - this time - wished that you fully understand it now.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Do you really want her to list examples of when you have questioned the motives, bias and intentions of a Bishop? I can find plenty of posts where you accused me of being a modernist, heretic, dissident, etc.

Secondly, she didn’t accuse you of anything. She just warned you that you might be treading on dangerous territory. This was done w/ Christian Charity.
Yes, I want examples when one claims charity that is a thinly veiled insult.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Reason, in and of itself, can be a slippery slope.
Are we allowed to reason? Yes.
Is it safe to assume our reasoning is God’s reasoning? No.

This is why God granted to us, the gifts of the Holy Spirit (not rights and not gifts to be grasped at, grapped at, snatch from - but received humbly):

Wisdom
Understanding
Counsel
Fortitude
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord

As the Catechism states: “They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations

Just because we can read Church documents, just because we can comprehend what it is we’re reading, doesn’t mean we have received full knowledge of the purpose and context of the message. For that, we rely on the Holy Spirit.

Think about it: I’m sure you can think of a passage or story from the Bible which you have read or heard since you were young…and even as an adult, having heard or read it over and over again, finally get that ‘aha moment’ where the meaning of the passage becomes crystal clear for you. It’s not that you didn’t understand it all the previous times, but that the Spirit - this time - wished that you fully understand it now.
How does this address the thread at hand?
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Do you really want her to list examples of when you have questioned the motives, bias and intentions of a Bishop? I can find plenty of posts where you accused me of being a modernist, heretic, dissident, etc.

Secondly, she didn’t accuse you of anything. She just warned you that you might be treading on dangerous territory. This was done w/ Christian Charity.
This is the second time today you try to introduce items from another thread. Please stay on topic.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Clear dennunciation by the Church may not come for many years as in RS.
If the Church in Rome has not been able to declare ‘clear dununciation’ of alleged abuses so far or may not be able to for some time into the future why do we think we are able to make such distinctions in the meantime?
 
40.png
buffalo:
I dont’t know. But I have the feeling that you think there are quite a few. Am I wrong?
I have no clue.
My only points of reference are my own experiences and those shared by people on this board as well as phoned into Relevant Radio.

How many do you think there are?
 
40.png
fix:
Yes, I want examples when one claims charity that is a thinly veiled insult.
From Fix: It happens not infrequently that we find items from parishes conflict with the teaching of Rome and the bishop’s office turns a blind eye.
You are not a canon law expert so you don’t know if all things you characterize are an abuse or a legitimate adaptation. Furthermore, “blind eye” has a very specific accusation attached as it means one turns away such as to be a deriliction of duty.
From Fix: I would think there are many cases where a practice was begun at a parish, by no one’s authority other than the personal whim of a few folks, a bishop may then have become aware and let it continue using the reasoining you mentioned.
Another assertion of deriliction of duty.

Do you want me to post your words from the one about Bishops distancing themselves from the Vatican? This is where your words are much more accusing of the Bishop’s motives. I know you don’t want us to mix threads but the points end up being the same in both these threads- you question the competance, motives and bias of others including Bishops and you claim to have greater clarity into the Mind of the Church than legitimate Church authorities.

As a lay person, I consider it grave matter for me to accept your views over legitimate Church authority (in this case your interpretation of certain adaptations being abuses or that all adaptations are inherently illicit). Additionally, I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to “turn a blind eye” when I see the seeds of disunity and diminishment of the Church being sown.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
If the Church in Rome has not been able to declare ‘clear dununciation’ of alleged abuses so far or may not be able to for some time into the future why do we think we are able to make such distinctions in the meantime?
Because of common sense and an understanding of the Liturgy. To use my cartwheel analogy again - there is no prohibition against cartwheels in the Sanctuary during Mass. We do not have to wait for Rome to denunciate.

However, it does seem clear that some abuses are currently being caught up with by the most recent documents.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Ttrying to expand the experience of the faithful by liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”.

Good feelings can be mistaken for the Holy Spirit.
This is why the Church trusts the competence of the bishop to discern that.
In the past the laity did not have access to original documentation. Now we do via this Internet. Rome had to transmit its will through the Bishops. Now Rome can speak more directly to the people.

More people see now than ever before the errors.
See my other post with regard to what we see and how ‘fully’. It is through the gift of the Holy Spirit that one can truly ‘understand’ what it is God wants us to know. In the meantime, we are to keep reading, keep learning, keep praying that one day it will all make His sense to us.

Also note a previous post where I stated many of those documents were not crafted for the the laity as end users. Any one of us can pick up a dissertation in any academic field of study, read it, and understand most of it. However, since the author is writing for a group of his peers (already holding doctorate degrees in that particular subject) much of what is in the dissertation presumes prior fully knowledge of the subtext. The same goes for these ‘official documents’ of the vatican. Most are written for an audience containing prior expertise in the topic at hand.

It is presumptuous of most of us to believe we can fully appreciate such writings as they are intended to be. Only with the gifts of the Holy Spirit would that be possible, and that is why I believe, there are a select number of faithful who can and do interpret such writings well. I am not one of them.
 
40.png
fix:
How does this address the thread at hand?
You have stated the position that reason is enough to determine what is, or is not, a liturgical abuse and because of said reason you would not only have the right, but the duty to point out such a position to your priest and/or bishop.

What I’m saying is reason alone is not enough to make such a determination when clearly the issues are not as cut and dry by Vatican standards as they are by your own standards of reason.
 
40.png
thistle:
I don’t agree with that at all. Global things which take place in most Masses in every country like holding hands during the Our Father, Singing the Our Father which traditionalist claim are abuses (sometimes they claim they are innovations) are allowed specifically by the bishops. Are you seriously trying to tell me thousands of bishops in so many countries have no clue if this is allowed or not. I think they know better than you and me.

An example of how permission is made known can be seen at the following website (got it from poster needmorelight in another thread).

www.rcam.org/news/2005/no_ban_on_our_father_singing_holding_hands.htm
Some things are at the option of the bishop; others are not…again, this should be spelled out in the documents of the liturgy. I’m not sure whether “holding hands” is a good example because, as I understand it, the U.S. bishops attempted to get permission for the laity to use the orans position as a remedy for the predilection toward hand holding. It was not permitted by Rome if I recall. Bishops have a lot of authority in their dioceses, but they are not always correct in what they allow. That the Vatican does not crush the disobedience is perhaps an enabler. By the way, singing the Our Father is NOT an abuse; it is alluded to in the GIRM this way:

Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the profession of faith and the Lord’s Prayer, set to simple melodies.[27]

christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girm.html
 
40.png
fix:
Give an example. If you accuse another of such a thing that is not true youwould be as culpable.
The Our Father and the orans thing…
some people are absolutely convince this is an abuse.

The Church, however, has not made that determination.

Those who go to their priests accusing them of allowing abuses in the liturgy because they did not stop people from holding hands during the Our Father or from raising their own hands during the Our Father, and/or tell everyone in their parish and here on the boards that their priest allows abuses during the liturgy certainly bears close resemblence to bearing false witness about that priest/bishop, does it not?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Because of common sense and an understanding of the Liturgy. To use my cartwheel analogy again - there is no prohibition against cartwheels in the Sanctuary during Mass. We do not have to wait for Rome to denunciate.

However, it does seem clear that some abuses are currently being caught up with by the most recent documents.
I love it when the strength of the argument is reduced to “cartwheels” and “laity giving homilies.”

If one were to read the Church’s rationale on the encyclical on the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual Virginity of Mary (I think the Assumption was also included at this time but may be mistaken) 1800 years after Mary died, the Church specifically mentioned that the infallibility of the doctrine was always in the Mind of the Church as evidenced by the tenacity with which the faithful held this belief w/o official sanction from the Church. Thank God for this innovation and adaptation!!!
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
This is why the Church trusts the competence of the bishop to discern that.

See my other post with regard to what we see and how ‘fully’. It is through the gift of the Holy Spirit that one can truly ‘understand’ what it is God wants us to know. In the meantime, we are to keep reading, keep learning, keep praying that one day it will all make His sense to us.

Also note a previous post where I stated many of those documents were not crafted for the the laity as end users. Any one of us can pick up a dissertation in any academic field of study, read it, and understand most of it. However, since the author is writing for a group of his peers (already holding doctorate degrees in that particular subject) much of what is in the dissertation presumes prior fully knowledge of the subtext. The same goes for these ‘official documents’ of the vatican. Most are written for an audience containing prior expertise in the topic at hand.

It is presumptuous of most of us to believe we can fully appreciate such writings as they are intended to be. Only with the gifts of the Holy Spirit would that be possible, and that is why I believe, there are a select number of faithful who can and do interpret such writings well. I am not one of them.
RS and the GIRM are written for us. RS directly speaks to the faithful.

The trust is placed in the hands of the Bishop within his competence. He is not competent to change the Liturgy outside of Rome’s directives.

From RS:

[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]

…[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.[23] Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,[24] it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,[25] so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.[26]

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.
 
con’t

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.[57]

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See** announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass**[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]
 
Dear YYM,
Also note a previous post where I stated many of those documents were not crafted for the the laity as end users. Any one of us can pick up a dissertation in any academic field of study, read it, and understand most of it. However, since the author is writing for a group of his peers (already holding doctorate degrees in that particular subject) much of what is in the dissertation presumes prior fully knowledge of the subtext. The same goes for these ‘official documents’ of the vatican. Most are written for an audience containing prior expertise in the topic at hand.
Right on! 👍 Good job. I am praying in the background as I watch this thread evolving.

I happened upon a post by a nineteen-year-old yesterday that presumed to know more than the hierarchy, and it chilled my bones! So many who read internet documents think they know as much as our clergy who have trained for many years and walked the walk for many more. The clergy have access to letters and communications, meetings in their diocese with fellow priests, and so much more than a proudful scholar who happens to think (s)he is capable of disseminating one’s own superior knowledge to the Bishop. :eek:

Carole
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top