More liturgical abuse?

[chicago]

---

No. 3 is progressive/liberal option. Not the praying part. We should always pray for the priests. But giving in to abuse is what has also contributed to the problems. No. 4 also has a progressive/liberal flavor.

Referring back to post #119 here… I think that something else to be mindful of is that God is in control, we aren’t. We can humbly do our own part as best as possible here on earth. But we can not ultimately change things that only the Lord can effect in his due time. In this sense, it is often best to give it over to Him, trusting that He’s in charge and will look out for the best intentions in divine providence. Even if this means that, for a time, there will continue to be a less than ideal situation. Sort of like many a parent is forced to do in regard to their adult children.

 

[Walking_Home]

Referring back to post #119 here… I think that something else to be mindful of is that God is in control, we aren’t. We can humbly do our own part as best as possible here on earth. But we can not ultimately change things that only the Lord can effect in his due time. In this sense, it is often best to give it over to Him, trusting that He’s in charge and will look out for the best intentions in divine providence. Even if this means that, for a time, there will continue to be a less than ideal situation. Sort of like many a parent is forced to do in regard to their adult children.

---

Nice try—but our Lord works thru the Church and the people in it. The bishops who fought off the Arian heresy did not sit back did nothing. They always knew our Lord was in charge–but instead of rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit resulting in inaction–they held on and were strengthened to do what our Lord needed done.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

No insult intended. If you cannot see the intent of our late Popes statements—there is a problem. That goes for our current Pope statements too.

When Pope John Paul II spoke of the liturgical “norms” in his document, he is referring to the “norms” outlined by Vatican II.

In The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy it says;

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

The document itself is specific in laying out the spirit of participation of the people in the sacred liturgy. The priest in question of this thread was following this precept.

Also;

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

So in the context of this thread, we do not know if the Domimican Priest, who are apparently in control of the Masses celebrated at this chapel, under the local Bishop, my in fact have the authority to deviate from the GIRM as they did. As the OP’er stated, all the priest do the same as far as offering the peace and reception of from the cup.

To presume that they are commiting abuse, is a jumping to conclusions, that I refuse to go.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

---

Nice try—but our Lord works thru the Church and the people in it. The bishops who fought off the Arian heresy did not sit back did nothing. They always knew our Lord was in charge–but instead of rejecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit resulting in inaction–they held on and were strengthened to do what our Lord needed done.

A perfect example of the lack of perspective. Comparing a priest who allows a small group of people to stand around the altar with the Arian heresy.

 

[Walking_Home]

When Pope John Paul II spoke of the liturgical “norms” in his document, he is referring to the “norms” outlined by Vatican II.

In The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy it says;

A) General norms

The document itself is specific in laying out the spirit of participation of the people in the sacred liturgy. The priest in question of this thread was following this precept.

Also;

So in the context of this thread, we do not know if the Domimican Priest, who are apparently in control of the Mass celebrated chapel, under the local Bishop, my in fact have the authority to deviate from the GIRM as they did. Yet at the same time, have not removed the reverence and sacredness of the Mass, as outlined in the Constitution.

To presume that they are commiting abuse, is a jumping to conclusions, that I refuse to go.

Jim

---

JimR-OCDS—please do not make yourself look bad. The fact that he mandated the drawing and publishing of RS–2004 says otherwise. No one–not even priest and/or bishop has the authority to deviate from the GIRM and/or any directive/instruction issued by Rome. A recognitio from Rome is required for any lawful change— otherwise–it is what its–an abuse.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

 

[Walking_Home]

A perfect example of the lack of perspective. Comparing a priest who allows a small group of people to stand around the altar with the Arian heresy.

---

No–What I was comparing is the action of stopping falsehood. Every ambiguity, abuse is falsehood introduced into the Mass.
We do have a responsibility–just as those bishops had a responsibility.

 

[estesbob]

---

No–What I was comparing is the action of stopping falsehood. Every ambiguity, abuse is falsehood introduced into the Mass.
We do have a responsibility–just as those bishops had a responsibility.

This reminds me of a Andy Griffith show episode where Barney Fife and was put in charge and by the end the day at every single citizen of Mayberry was in jail . Every single citizen had indeed violated the law. I suspect you would have been upset when Andy let them out

 

[Walking_Home]

This reminds me of a Andy Griffith show episode where Barney Fife and was put in charge and by the end the day at every single citizen of Mayberry was in jail . Every single citizen had indeed violated the law. I suspect you would have been upset when Andy let them out

---

Still scrapping the barrel–estesbob.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

From the very document you linked;

23.] The faithful “should cling to the Bishop as the Church does to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ does to the Father, so that all may be in harmonious unity, and that they may abound to the glory of God”.[54] All, including members of Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life as well as those of all ecclesial associations and movements of any kind, are subject to the authority of the diocesan Bishop in all liturgical matters,[55] apart from rights that have been legitimately conceded. To the diocesan Bishop therefore falls the right and duty of overseeing and attending to Churches and oratories in his territory in regard to liturgical matters, and this is true also of those which are founded by members of the above-mentioned institutes or under their direction, provided that the faithful are accustomed to frequent them.[56]

 

[Sure]

The Pope merely calls for the Church throughout the world, to follow those norms. The GIRM is the general instruction, but not the absolute norm for every instance for Masses being celebrated throughout the world.
Jim

What do you mean by this?

Are you saying that sometimes it’s okay to disobey the Instruction???

Please clarify.

Thanks

 

[estesbob]

---

Still scrapping the barrel–estesbob.

No-just trying to provide you with a sense of perspective. All liturgical abuses are not equal. All abuses do not need to be reported. And comparing liturgical abuses to the Arian heresy is specious

Every single person Barney Fife put in jail had violated the law. And Javert was perfectly justified , by the law, in his life long pursuit of a man who had stolen a loaf of bread. Accordingly , by the letter of the law it is right for me to write the Pope if my priest leaves a word out of the offertory,. But would it be prudent?

 

[Walking_Home]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From the very document you linked;

The Pope merely calls for the Church throughout the world, to follow those norms. The GIRM is the general instruction, based on the norms from the Vatican II document on the Sacred Liturgy.

The Pope is not changing the norms of Vatican II, but asking to adhere to them.

Jim

---

Again JimR-OCDS–don’t dig yourself deeper into a hole. When the Pope speaks of the norms --it is the norms issued and approved by the Church. The GIRM, directives/instructions and also responses Rome issues to dubias.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What do you mean by this?

Are you saying that sometimes it’s okay to disobey the Instruction???

Please clarify.

Thanks

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not expert on the Liturgy, and I doubt anyone in this forum is.

However, I’m going by my own understanding, and what has been told to me, by priest.

They may deviate within the rules of “The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy.” The GIRM is drawn up in accord to this document, not the other way around.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

No-just trying to provide you with a sense of perspective. All liturgical abuses are not equal. All pieces do not need to be reported. And comparing liturgical abuses to the Arian heresy is specious

Every single person Barney Fife put in jail had violated the law. And Javert was perfectly justified , by the law, in his life long pursuit of a man who had stolen a loaf of bread. Accordingly , by tge letter of the law it is right for me to write the Pope if my priest leaves a word out of the offertory,. But would it be prudent?

---

Again estesbob—I am comparing action vs. inaction. My response to chicago is based on his/her idea of inaction—not acting—which only results in the continued manipulation of the Mass.

 

[Sure]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not expert on the Liturgy, and I doubt anyone in this forum is.

However, I’m going by my own understanding, and what has been told to me, by priest.

They may deviate within the rules of “The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy.” The GIRM is drawn up in accord to this document, not the other way around.

Jim

Can you give me an example of this? I’m having a hard time understanding what you mean.

Thanks

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This debate made me think of the book, “With God In Russia,” by Fr. Walter Ciszek. Fr. Ciszek, spent 25 years in the Soviet Gullag, prior to Vatican II.

While in prison, he said Mass, and did not follow the Rubrics, which of course would’ve been the TLM.

He used wine made from raisins. He used a cracker box as an altar, and he even gave an unsuspecting guard, Holy Communion.

I’m sure people in here would argue, that Fr. Ciszek, abused the Sacred Liturgy.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Can you give me an example of this? I’m having a hard time understanding what you mean.

Thanks

Read the document.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

. All liturgical abuses are not equal.

Agreed

All abuses do not need to be reported.

Reported?, not necessarily. All abuses must be corrected however.

Hopefully, that just involves bringing to the attention of the person who commited the abuse. If not, then the issue SHOULD be brought to the attention of higher authorities until the issue is corrected.

, by the letter of the law it is right for me to write the Pope if my priest leaves a word out of the offertory,. But would it be prudent?

No, by the letter of the law, the first course of action is to address the issue with the abuser and seek redress at that point.

It would be prudent if, and only if, the priest does not choose to correct himself in that matter, and in the hierarchal chain, the next level would be the diocesan bishop.

 

[Walking_Home]

From the very document you linked;

The Pope merely calls for the Church throughout the world, to follow those norms. The GIRM is the general instruction, based on the norms from the Vatican II document on the Sacred Liturgy.

The Pope is not changing the norms of Vatican II, but asking to adhere to them.

Jim

---

The Church has covered that it the following: What you are actually reinforcing is the intrusion of the “Spirit of Vat II”.

RS–2004

4.] “Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.”[10] Even so, “shadows are not lacking”.[11] In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.

 

[Walking_Home]

This debate made me think of the book, “With God In Russia,” by Fr. Walter Ciszek. Fr. Ciszek, spent 25 years in the Soviet Gullag, prior to Vatican II.

While in prison, he said Mass, and did not follow the Rubrics, which of course would’ve been the TLM.

He used wine made from raisins. He used a cracker box as an altar, and he even gave an unsuspecting guard, Holy Communion.

I’m sure people in here would argue, that Fr. Ciszek, abused the Sacred Liturgy.

Jim

---

JPII was on to that scheme of using wartime/prison in order to derail the Mass. It did not fool him–so please don’t try to use it to fool people.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

This subordination of the minister, of the celebrant, to the mysterium which has been entrusted to him by the Church for the good of the whole People of God, should also find expression in the observance of the liturgical requirements concerning the celebration of the holy Sacrifice. These refer, for example, to dress, in particular to the vestments worn by the celebrant. Circumstances have of course existed and continue to exist in which the prescriptions do not oblige. We have been greatly moved when reading books written by priests who had been prisoners in extermination camps, with descriptions of Eucharistic Celebrations without the above- mentioned rules, that is to say, without an altar and without vestments. But although in those conditions this was a proof of heroism and deserved profound admiration, nevertheless in normal conditions to ignore the liturgical directives can be interpreted as a lack of respect towards the Eucharist, dictated perhaps by individualism or by an absence of a critical sense concerning current opinions, or by a certain lack of a spirit of faith.