Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

The document has been posted for the public on the Bishops site. If it were a private correspondance (of which I am sure they get some) it would not be published. Point conceded that it is for the Bishops to get their house in order, but it is also a call for the laity to hold them accountable for it gives us a clear path for recourse.

Therefore I still conclude it was directed to the faithful as well. When I first read it I felt it was speaking directly to me.

No it is not a call for the laity to hold them accountable, that’s just it.

The document was not written for the laity. It was written for the bishops. The lay people reading it, thanks to the wisdom of the See to make it part of the library resources, need to do so in context. It’s a resource of information we are made privy to.

The path of recourse you keep citing is there as a reminder to the bishops that we do have those available to us so that when we exercise them they handle our concerns properly. It is not a call for us appoint ourselves watchdogs over priests and bishops.

Why is it you can place such an emphasis on the recourse stuff and disregard the bishop stuff? Particularly lines 14, 19 and 23?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Della:

Firstly, this thread has become a grudge match between posters instead of a discussion of the issue, so I demure to add anything more to it.

Secondly, and for the record, I didn’t say any particular kind of music is an abuse. I only mentioned the music as one more reason why the parish I used as an example doesn’t suit us. That would mean nothing, however, if there were no serious abuses taking place at that parish.

Thirdly, and finally, my main point was that when the priest himself is the one who introduces abuses, it usually reflects what a certain vocal or influential element in the parish wants. Instead, the priest ought to be following his bishop’s instructions and the GIRM not the wishes of anyone in his parish.

And finally, I see no reason why people can’t assume good will on the part of other posters. If we can’t do that then there is no good reason to discuss anything on the forum.

Castigation well taken. I apologize for how my stubbornness contributed to a loss of good will.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

That is not what I said, that is your misunderstanding. You want to eliminate right reason and introduce a type of clericalism. No one has stated the bishop does not have proper authority, but to imply the laity can’t comprehend even the most clear and simple item is clericalism of the highest order.

Fix, I think you and I need specifics when we discuss things because this generalism approach muddies the water.

Pick one practice you deem to be an abuse that the Holy See has yet to rule one way or the other on and let’s take it from there. ok?

I’m asking you to do the picking because I don’t recognize any abuses in my experiences. You obviously have, so I defer to your experience for the sake of the discussion.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

It might be fully intended for the Bishops and not the laity. Posting on the internet could be to make it easily available to Bishops and Priests and not to be used by the laity to condemn or criticize the Church’s legitimate authority. However, I’m pretty confident that the document wasn’t intended to be a personal revelation for you.

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT

  [***COMMENTARY ON THE    INSTRUCTION***](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-redemptionis_en.html)***

“REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM”***

   [**     INTERVENTION BY ARCHBISHOP DOMENICO SORRENTINO**](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-redemptionis_en.html)

*Expression of faith *

  The liturgy, and especially the Eucharist, is the privileged place where the Church confesses her faith. She confesses it in the loftiest way possible, that is, in a dialogue of love with her Lord. The liturgical expression of this dialogue is marked by the fact that it is not a single believer or group of believers who are at stake, but the Church herself. It is a matter of "public" prayer whose importance, because of its character, surpasses that of other prayers. In fact, as the Council says, "no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree" (cf. *   [Sacrosanctum Concilium](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html), * n. 7).   

  This prayer is intrinsically determined by the profession of faith. At the same time, it can cast ever new light on the content of the faith in a circular relationship between the *lex orandi* and the *lex credendi,* a fundamental principle that the Document also recalls with these words: "The sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, 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" *(n. 10).   

  **At the very least, this is a risk and explains why nothing can be left to chance in the liturgy:  the stakes are too high!**

In n. 9, the Instruction recalls that the whole tide of faith and tradition flows through the rites and prayers of the liturgy. Abuses sometimes show up an ignorance of the meaning of the norms themselves, through a lack of knowledge of their deeper meaning and antiquity. T**his point reflects the need for a more profound and systematic liturgical formation of the People of God, as the Holy Father reminded us recently: “It is more necessary than ever to intensify liturgical life within our communities by means of an *appropriate formation *of the pastors and of all the faithful with a view to the active, conscious and full participation in liturgical celebrations desired by the Council”

**

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

One might add that the request for observance that sets the tone of this Document entails no prohibition on a deeper examination of it or on recommendations, as occurred in the history of the “liturgical movement” and, today too, is a normal occurrence in the context of theological, liturgical and pastoral studies. What is absolutely forbidden is to make the liturgy a free zone for experimentation and private arbitration, which can in no way be justified by any good intention.

In the last chapter, abuses are identified in relation to their gravity, with a reminder that even lesser abuses should not be glossed over.

     However, while making distinctions that are only right, it should be said that the observance of all the norms of major and minor importanceclarifies the sense of Church. Nor can abuses be justified in the name of pastoral adaptation, taxing the current norms with rigidity. 


     To use the Pope's words: "The liturgical renewal that has taken place in recent decades has shown that it is possible to combine a body of norms that assure the identity and decorum of the Liturgy and leave room for the creativity and adaptation that enable it to correspond closely with the need to give expression to their respective situation and culture of the various regions" (*[Spiritus et Sponsa](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20031204_sacra-liturgia_en.html), *n. 15).

 

[buffalo]

Now we can look at who *Sacrosanctum Concilium is dedicated to:

*Dedication To the bishops
priests and deacons
men and women
in the consecrated life
and all the lay faithful
on the Eucharist
in its relationship to the Church

 

[buffalo]

Now the whopper from the Preamble:

It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms;[9] to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal.

 

[YinYangMom]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

But also, ego can get in the way of the Holy Spirit. Even in Bishops.

Oh certainly. I think I’m just more patient in my trust in the Lord to protect His church. I view things in the long term, recognizing how many years it took for the promise of Jesus’ coming to be fulfilled and all the coming to God, forgetting about God, turning from God, returning to God the Jewish people went through. It seems we Catholics are going through similar cycles…it’s daunting, really. But just as the proof was in the pudding with regard to God’s promise to send a savior to the Jews, I trust completely He will protect His Church just as He said He would. Because of that I view all these abuses/reforms/changes from a wider lense. I consider them growing pains of the Church and trust She will correctly remedy anything which needs to be - with or without my taking on the role of parish watchdog.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

cont’d

One might add that the request for observance that sets the tone of this Document entails no prohibition on a deeper examination of it or on recommendations, as occurred in the history of the “liturgical movement” and, today too, is a normal occurrence in the context of theological, liturgical and pastoral studies. What is absolutely forbidden is to make the liturgy a free zone for experimentation and private arbitration, which can in no way be justified by any good intention.

In the last chapter, abuses are identified in relation to their gravity, with a reminder that even lesser abuses should not be glossed over.

     However, while making distinctions that are only right, it should be said that the observance of all the norms of major and minor importanceclarifies the sense of Church. Nor can abuses be justified in the name of pastoral adaptation, taxing the current norms with rigidity. 


     To use the Pope's words: "The liturgical renewal that has taken place in recent decades has shown that it is possible to combine a body of norms that assure the identity and decorum of the Liturgy and leave room for the creativity and adaptation that enable it to correspond closely with the need to give expression to their respective situation and culture of the various regions" (*[Spiritus et Sponsa](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20031204_sacra-liturgia_en.html)*, n. 15).

I sure like the last paragraph as it makes it clear that the Church allows creativity and adaption. Now lets agree that certain of these matters may be legitimate within the limits of competence of our respective Bishops, even among and across diverse diocese right here in the U.S. And until we have clarification from the Church, agree that our particular views may not be the views of hte Church.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Now the whopper from the Preamble:

It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms;[9] to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal.

Yes, and who’s responsibility is it to get that information to the laity? THE BISHOP’S! We, the faithful, must cling to our bishops, look to them for guidance and instruction - and we must trust they speak the Truth at all times.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Therefore I still conclude it was directed to the faithful as well. When I first read it I felt it was speaking directly to me.

You know, buffalo, I’ve read many people warn others around these boards to be wary of taking ‘feelings’ to be ‘convictions’.

It’s quite possible that you are one of those few blessed faithful I referred to previously - perhaps the Spirit has indeed granted you the gifts necessary to gain full appreciation for this document.

But, just because you may be so blessed, does not change the Truth of the matter that it was written for the bishops. It was not intended for the laity at all, anything pertaining to the laity was supposed to be shared with the laity through the bishop.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Yes, and who’s responsibility is it to get that information to the laity? THE BISHOP’S! We, the faithful, must cling to our bishops, look to them for guidance and instruction - and we must trust they speak the Truth at all times.

Yes it is true that most of RS speaks to the clergy, however, the Bishops are getting this out to the people via their posting it on their site, it is posted on the Vatican site. I didn’t the method of deleivery to be snail mail to 1 billion Catholics.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Yes it is true that most of RS speaks to the clergy, however, the Bishops are getting this out to the people via their posting it on their site.

I look to the Church to aid in the proper interpretation of the Bible which was written in large part for the laity. I’ll be darn sure to look to the Church and its legitimate authorities for proper interpretation of its “administrative rules.” Furthermore, I won’t consider every posting on the Vatican or USCCB or Diocesan website to be specifically or even tangentially meant for me.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I sure like the last paragraph as it makes it clear that the Church allows creativity and adaption.

I have never disagreed with this.

Can we agree that liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”?

 

[YinYangMom]

Eileen T:

I don’t accept that priests and bishops can be regarded as infallible in these matters. I suspect that they make certain changes believing they are “improvements” rather than liturgical abuses.

They are not infallible in these matters. I never said they were.
What I said is what RS said, in #19 and 23.

Sure some bishops can be wrong. Sure, we have the right and duty to call them on it - when it is an obvious and documented abuse - but there seems to be a fuzzy line between innovations and abuses.

The thing is, any wrongs will be righted with or without a call to all faithful to read these documents and take it upon themselves to interpret them and act upon their interpretations. The Vatican is already working on all this. Can’t we just be patient and trust they will do the right thing in time? It’s not going to happen on our timetable, but God’s and God’s alone. I believe fully that the strayings the Church has undergone in the centuries is part of Her growth and strength. Who was it who referred to them as labor pains? But yeah, sometimes things have to go wrong in order for the right ways to be fully realized, for growth stems from change.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I look to the Church to aid in the proper interpretation of the Bible which was written in large part for the laity. I’ll be darn sure to look to the Church and its legitimate authorities for proper interpretation of its “administrative rules.” Furthermore, I won’t consider every posting on the Vatican or USCCB or Diocesan website to be specifically or even tangentially meant for me.

That clears things up fo me.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

I have never disagreed with this.

Can we agree that liturgical innovation is not the “mind of the Church”?

I’m not sure that you and I agree what is a liturgical innovation. Describe one and I’ll tell you what I think. Furthermore, if I think I have insight into the Mind of the Church (probably unlikely but possible), I’ll let you know.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

From RS:

[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]

Which is why it is up to the faithful to determine for themselves whether or not hand holding and orans position is appropriate for them (not for others, for them). It is not binding on all the faithful because the proper representatives of the church have not yet ruled on the matter. One day, we hope, they will and we can put the matter to rest.

Though I wonder if they rule ‘yes’ if there will be the complaint that they ‘caved in’ to pressure. Personally, I’ll keep praying they rule “no”.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

They are not infallible in these matters. I never said they were.
What I said is what RS said, in #19 and 23.

Sure some bishops can be wrong. Sure, we have the right and duty to call them on it - when it is an obvious and documented abuse - but there seems to be a fuzzy line between innovations and abuses.

The thing is, any wrongs will be righted with or without a call to all faithful to read these documents and take it upon themselves to interpret them and act upon their interpretations. The Vatican is already working on all this. Can’t we just be patient and trust they will do the right thing in time? It’s not going to happen on our timetable, but God’s and God’s alone. I believe fully that the strayings the Church has undergone in the centuries is part of Her growth and strength. Who was it who referred to them as labor pains? But yeah, sometimes things have to go wrong in order for the right ways to be fully realized, for growth stems from change.

If it is not clear, the faithful can make inquiries to clear it up. This is legitimate and encourages a greater understanding of the faith.

 

[netmilsmom]

YinYangMom:

She will correctly remedy anything which needs to be - with or without my taking on the role of parish watchdog.

True, but how do you know that by the laity taking the role of Parish Watchdog, we are not doing just what God wants?

Afterall, He sent a little abused nun from Ohio to bring the Eternal Word to all the world. Who is to say that He doesn’t have a plan in all of it to involve us, to overcome the egos of the Bishops?

If I can inform one poor lost soul on the internet, who hates these innovations and is told he is “Old Fashion” or “Sentimental” so live with it, I will have done my part.

We who dislike the innovations are just as correct as those who love them. But we are disregarded at the Parish level and in some cases on the level of the Diocese.

(and at the same time told that there are not that many of us around, because we have been silenced for so long! Catch 22 there)