These are the words of an indulgence that is supposed to be spoken quietly (not aloud) at this time. It was granted by Saint Pope Pius X in 1907.
- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Perhaps there is a language challenge here?
“Aloud” means something vocalized, whispered, stated, etc.
Something said quietly is still said aloud.
If something is not said aloud it would be mental ideas only, not a vocal prayer.
The word “aloud” has no reflection on the volume of an utterance.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
So you are saying that because the reference does not say, "to be prayed silently at Mass’ that one can pray it aloud? (we are talking about Mass in English) That the custom of a silent ejaculation has morphed into a spoken one?
The pious custom (I remember it well) was for silent prayer in the “English-speaking world”.
The GIRM lists specifically what may be spoken aloud and by whom.
When IT references that the above words may be spoken aloud at the Elevation by the faithful, I’ll say it aloud.
Until then, I’ll say it silently.
And I’ll say it again, it is the people who just can’t let well enough alone and think that they can add on and make things ‘relevant’ or ‘personal’ or that they somehow in AD 2019 have magically divined a true and completely different meaning from that historically given and historically acted, who are to a great extent responsible for the MESS that is the sad situation of too many things that are put forth as "Catholic Mass’ today.
Now I’m not saying this about any given poster, because I have no idea what people actually ‘do’ at Mass, and when they write something, it could be entirely theoretical, so I am not leveling any charges at anybody here whatsoever.
The pious custom (I remember it well) was for silent prayer in the “English-speaking world”.
The GIRM lists specifically what may be spoken aloud and by whom.
When IT references that the above words may be spoken aloud at the Elevation by the faithful, I’ll say it aloud.
Until then, I’ll say it silently.
And I’ll say it again, it is the people who just can’t let well enough alone and think that they can add on and make things ‘relevant’ or ‘personal’ or that they somehow in AD 2019 have magically divined a true and completely different meaning from that historically given and historically acted, who are to a great extent responsible for the MESS that is the sad situation of too many things that are put forth as "Catholic Mass’ today.
Now I’m not saying this about any given poster, because I have no idea what people actually ‘do’ at Mass, and when they write something, it could be entirely theoretical, so I am not leveling any charges at anybody here whatsoever.
Last edited:
In my dictionary (the New Oxford American Dictionary) the definition for aloud is as follows:PeterT:
Perhaps there is a language challenge here?
“Aloud” means something vocalized, whispered, stated, etc.
Something said quietly is still said aloud.
If something is not said aloud it would be mental ideas only, not a vocal prayer.
The word “aloud” has no reflection on the volume of an utterance.
aloud |əˈloud|
adverb
1 audibly; not silently or in a whisper: he read the letter aloud.
2 archaic loudly: he wept aloud.
So in both definition (modern or archaic) saying something is a whisper is NOT considered to be saying it aloud.
In the archaic definition (which might have been applicable during Saint Pope Pius X time, it meant saying something loudly.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Well, I cannot respond as I do not own a New Oxford American Dictionary.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
This is irrelevant as it’s a directive to priests, not laity.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
And the GIRM is modified by each bishops’ conference for various needs, and further modifications locally are still permitted from time to time. That’s why the US is such an anomaly with our kneeling. That’s why in Africa, they applaud at the consecration instead of using sanctus bells. Why do we insist on our own understanding (and preference) being the one and only worldwide possibility?
C
CRV
Guest
I was thinking of it being a Custom too. If it’s been occuring for at least 30 continuous years then it may have the force of law for that place. Custom
S
stpurl
Guest
Wait. Are you implying that I am setting some sort of imperialist demand by asking that people in the US (I was specific about that) follow the directions as given them by the US bishops?
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Nope - just saying we may not have all the info for the OP’s case, and as such, our pontificating here may be of little help or value.
S
stpurl
Guest
And it may not.
If parish A (let’s call it a parish somewhere in Portland OR) has, in defiance of the bishops, allowed ‘lay preaching’ (and this actually did occur for close to 30 years in parishes in NY under Bishop Clark), does that make the practice allowable by force of law in that place? No.
If parish A (let’s call it a parish somewhere in Portland OR) has, in defiance of the bishops, allowed ‘lay preaching’ (and this actually did occur for close to 30 years in parishes in NY under Bishop Clark), does that make the practice allowable by force of law in that place? No.
C
CRV
Guest
Can 24 §2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.
Whilst in the EF it is said interiorly by the laity, and I haven’t experienced it myself (being said out loud in the OF), then I do not see how in time it couldn’t become legal custom provided it met all the other criteria.
Could you direct me to a Church document or law/rubric that forbids the laity from making that response?
Whilst in the EF it is said interiorly by the laity, and I haven’t experienced it myself (being said out loud in the OF), then I do not see how in time it couldn’t become legal custom provided it met all the other criteria.
Could you direct me to a Church document or law/rubric that forbids the laity from making that response?
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I believe that my post earlier said that when and if that phrase became customary I would say it aloud. . .
So I’m not sure why you’re asking me to ‘prove a negative?’ To find a document which lists things the laity are ‘forbidden’ to do or say?
We aren’t forbidden by any canon law/church document from standing up and reciting the St. Michael Prayer during the Elevation. . .or before or after the Prayers of the Faithful. . .or at the beginning of Mass. . .or after the last ‘hymn’. We aren’t forbidden specifically to do or say many things, because quite frankly, with the spirit of disobedience and self-will in most Catholic parishes today, a list of ‘what you cannot/should not say or do’ would wind up being a multi-volume encyclopedic set that would constantly need additions as people dreamed up more and more, “I think it would be so kewl if we did/said this at Mass.”
But even if something is not set out in ‘red letters’ and "thou shalt not’, the GIRM (as others have helpfully pointed out/quoted) does say that there should not be additions to what is already there.
It seems pretty clear that people uttering ‘aloud’ what had previously been silent is one of those ‘hairsplitters’. It really should not be done, but oh, just try to tell people they should not do something to ‘add on’ and the attempts to justify or permit come forth as though this ‘one little thing’ was the source and summit of the Catholic faith and its ‘denial’ was akin to chaining up Bibles and calling Deus Vult for the latest Crusade. . .
Sigh.
So I’m not sure why you’re asking me to ‘prove a negative?’ To find a document which lists things the laity are ‘forbidden’ to do or say?
We aren’t forbidden by any canon law/church document from standing up and reciting the St. Michael Prayer during the Elevation. . .or before or after the Prayers of the Faithful. . .or at the beginning of Mass. . .or after the last ‘hymn’. We aren’t forbidden specifically to do or say many things, because quite frankly, with the spirit of disobedience and self-will in most Catholic parishes today, a list of ‘what you cannot/should not say or do’ would wind up being a multi-volume encyclopedic set that would constantly need additions as people dreamed up more and more, “I think it would be so kewl if we did/said this at Mass.”
But even if something is not set out in ‘red letters’ and "thou shalt not’, the GIRM (as others have helpfully pointed out/quoted) does say that there should not be additions to what is already there.
It seems pretty clear that people uttering ‘aloud’ what had previously been silent is one of those ‘hairsplitters’. It really should not be done, but oh, just try to tell people they should not do something to ‘add on’ and the attempts to justify or permit come forth as though this ‘one little thing’ was the source and summit of the Catholic faith and its ‘denial’ was akin to chaining up Bibles and calling Deus Vult for the latest Crusade. . .
Sigh.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I would suggest at this point that if the OP is bothered by this practice, he take it up with his pastor.
If the meeting with the pastor is unsatisfactory, then he can call the diocesan office and complain.
In any event, as someone else said, I hardly think that people who are performing a traditional adoration of Jesus at the Consecration too loudly are going to send the Mass down the slippery slope to perdition. Nobody is preaching, and the prayer being said dates back to at least the early 1900s and probably well before that.
I would feel a bit weird complaining to the bishop that people were adoring Jesus too loudly at the Consecration, when I suspect the more usual problem is that the Consecration is happening and half the congregation’s minds are wandering and thinking about where they will go after Mass, or what they want for lunch, instead of Our Lord.
If the meeting with the pastor is unsatisfactory, then he can call the diocesan office and complain.
In any event, as someone else said, I hardly think that people who are performing a traditional adoration of Jesus at the Consecration too loudly are going to send the Mass down the slippery slope to perdition. Nobody is preaching, and the prayer being said dates back to at least the early 1900s and probably well before that.
I would feel a bit weird complaining to the bishop that people were adoring Jesus too loudly at the Consecration, when I suspect the more usual problem is that the Consecration is happening and half the congregation’s minds are wandering and thinking about where they will go after Mass, or what they want for lunch, instead of Our Lord.
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
ETA - Just to clarify - I was responding to @stpurl , but whilst still typing my reply @Tis_Bearself replied - which I did not see.
I normally like a lot of your posts. I can’t say the same for the ones in this thread.
I too am a firm believer of say the black, do the red. I have changed parishes simply due to the issues you have raised in this thread. Incrementalism is a problem.
But as this thread is based on the title and opening post, I wished to include the possibility that it could be a legit custom of that parish, or it may be on the way to being a legit custom of that place.
This is the full section from Canon Law-
TITLE II: CUSTOM (Cann. 23 - 28)
Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.
Can. 24 §1 No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.
§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.
Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.
Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.
So whilst we may not agree with what is occurring in that Parish, my reading of the above, provides for such things to become custom once it’s been approved by the competent legislator.
I normally like a lot of your posts. I can’t say the same for the ones in this thread.
I too am a firm believer of say the black, do the red. I have changed parishes simply due to the issues you have raised in this thread. Incrementalism is a problem.
But as this thread is based on the title and opening post, I wished to include the possibility that it could be a legit custom of that parish, or it may be on the way to being a legit custom of that place.
This is the full section from Canon Law-
TITLE II: CUSTOM (Cann. 23 - 28)
Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.
Can. 24 §1 No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.
§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.
Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.
Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.
So whilst we may not agree with what is occurring in that Parish, my reading of the above, provides for such things to become custom once it’s been approved by the competent legislator.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I am sure that a letter, properly addressed to the correct dicastery, will elicit a response.
It likely will be a very quiet one.
Like the sound of the letter hitting the bottom of the “round file”.
And the reference to the black and the red, while it might apply a little to the congregation, is generally a reference to the priest.
It likely will be a very quiet one.
Like the sound of the letter hitting the bottom of the “round file”.
And the reference to the black and the red, while it might apply a little to the congregation, is generally a reference to the priest.
O
otjm
Guest
To which I would add, I had read a comment by Peter Kreeft, a published Canon lawyer, concerning custom. I was my understanding that something such as this occurring for 40 years became law; and I last saw a comment which was attributed to him indication it only to 30 years.
FWIW
FWIW
- Status