I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Apples and oranges. The rubrics proscribe that laymember read the Gospel. Lay members can, however, read the other readings.
- Status
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Unless Pope Benedict is conveying a message about the Novus Ordo and the true spirit of Vatican II…in other words, it’s **ok **that lay people read the other readings (not the Gospel).
Follow his lead already and stop complaining about it. It is not disrespectful. It is not a shame. It is not an indication of shortages of deacons or anything else.
J
justme
Guest
ByzCath was not making a comparison here. He was just stating that the use of one thing may make people think that the use another is ok.
I have a question about the rubrics, someone brought them up earlier in the thread.
Can some one point me to the rubrics that cover the part where the children processed down and placed flowers before the baby Jesus. Or is this one of those cute abuses that no one complains about?
B
BillyT92679
Guest
I think the Holy Gospel’s text on “let the little ones come to Me” addresses this quite nicely.
J
justme
Guest
Hmmm, so now that is the rubrics rather than the GIRM?
Can’t have it both ways, we can not complain about abuses just becuase we do not like then while allowing abuses that we like.
An abuse is an abuse. If it is not in the GIRM then it shouldn’t be done.
Why was this done after the beginning of the Mass? It could have easily been done before the start of the Mass or after the end of it.
O
oat_soda
Guest
i agree with your observations, but i personally feel that there are bigger problems in the liturgy, like the priest facing the laity during the eucharistic prayer and the wide spread use of profane music at mass- especially at charismatic and life teen masses.
i think that the jews would let the laity read from the scriptures but i know they couldn’t be female. i’m not really familiar with the history of the laity’s involvement in mass and if women and laity were readers in the early church. perhaps they were and maybe this was a function of a deaconess. but i also remember reading that this was considered an abuse.
i’m not too sure about what SC says about this either. does anyone know who instituted the change? B16 doesn’t seem to have an issues with it so i don’t think anything will change.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
oat soda:
I have also seen what is stated above, that some people ignore some abuses because they either think they are cute or pious. As was said, an abuse is an abuse is an abuse, no way around it.
Oh, with out a doubt, there are bigger issues. All I was pointing out is that those bigger issues may have a start with the smaller ones.
I have also seen what is stated above, that some people ignore some abuses because they either think they are cute or pious. As was said, an abuse is an abuse is an abuse, no way around it.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
my simple blanket answer is. the vatican did it therefore its right.
M
MusicMan
Guest
There are exceptions and allowances made in the GIRM for “local custom.” If the children processing down and placing flowers before the baby Jesus is an “abuse” that occured early during JPII’s reign, and continued throughout it, it has perhaps become a “local custom” and is no longer an abuse… especially when it’s been maintained at the liturgy of a new Pope.
On the flip side, the “local custom” allowance is what people use to ram the hand-holding during the Our Father down the Church’s throat.
Someone commented with the blanket statement, “the vatican did it therefore its right.” While it is certainly a way for Rome to do these things, authority must set the tone and standard of excellence by their actions as well. If Rome wants us to follow the rubrics it sets forth and have abuse free Masses, then they must also follow the rubrics and have abuse free Masses. Lead by example.
On the flip side, the “local custom” allowance is what people use to ram the hand-holding during the Our Father down the Church’s throat.
Someone commented with the blanket statement, “the vatican did it therefore its right.” While it is certainly a way for Rome to do these things, authority must set the tone and standard of excellence by their actions as well. If Rome wants us to follow the rubrics it sets forth and have abuse free Masses, then they must also follow the rubrics and have abuse free Masses. Lead by example.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Well Holy Writ of course supercedes the rubrics.
I live in the Diocese of Rochester. I have seen things that will make your head explode, so please don’t lecture me on abuses. There is a difference between allowing something for a local custom on a very rare occasion, and abuse. My parish priest, who makes any of us here look heterodox, passes out flowers to mothers on Mother’s Day. You know what, it is perfectly acceptable.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is a new argument. Please show me in the Scriptures where it speaks of how the Mass should be done.
I to live in Rochester and if your parish priest does this during then Mass then it is an abuse as it should not be done during the Mass.
Once again, an abuse is an abuse is an abuse. Even if you happen to like it.
The GIRM spells out how the Mass is to go and that is it.
O
oat_soda
Guest
this is exactly what B16 said. JPII liturgies had many instances of liturgical abuse during his pontificate, his fault or not. it seems B16 is looking to be more proactive in establishing that the vatican’s liturgy is the standard. so maybe male and female lay readers are here to stay.
it is interesting that he mentions that it is the job of the master of ceremonies to deternine how to celebrate a mass in the sistine chapel. this is more evidence that JPII didn’t support or institute many abberant liturgical practices, but his MC did, which has been widely attested.
this is why i have problems with the neocatechuminal way liturgy, and the charismatic movement/life teen mass. in each case, we have completely novel liturgical practices that do not follow the directives of SC. yet, they have been permitted. which leads to the idea that it is entirely arbitrary as to what constitutes a liturgical abuse. this undermines the giveness of the liturgy, that it has an apostolic origin that shouldn’t be refashioned like a piece of clay.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Tell him that David.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
All I ever see here is constant kvetching about Rome, about the American Bishops, and Priests. Are there abuses? It’s redundant to say so. But this tedious exercise in what this Pope did wrong or that Bishop, without ever just submitting to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. It’s arrogant and prideful. If folks like Jim Callan and Mary Ramerman (two dissident folks from Rochester) are out there concelebrating the Mass and do not repent, then they should be clearly kicked out, as they were. But it seems like folks just want to see every single speck in every priests’ eye.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Bill,
I agree with you here.
All I was trying to do is to point out two things.
- That some small things might be the reason for the larger things.
- That abuse is abuse. There are some posters here who like to complain about “clown” Masses and point out every failing that they do not like but then support abuses that they think are pious.
- Status