Yes, of course you are correct, however, that is not how the documents on the liturgy are worded. They give the preferences and then the allowances. The ideal and the intent is that the prefrences are used and the allowances are only used when necessary or for some good pastoral reason and should nto be the norm. However, they have become the norm and I challange people to find a parish that practices the preferences described in the liturgical documents.
It is not about following the mind of the Church. It is often about personal ego, emotionalism and novelty for novelty sake.
Please, please, don’t mistake me, Netmil(name removed by moderator). Things are far from perfect in my diocese, better in my parish, but not perfect. Our pastor does not consecrate the Most Precious Blood in the flagons. I cannot say the same for every parish in town. Our pastor is, in fact, meticulous about the rubrics, BUT…he celebrates using a crystal chalice and “paten” (really a bowl). Granted, it’s fine cut crystal (Waterford, if I’m not mistaken), but crystal can be broken and the Most Sacred Species are not supposed to be maintained in breakable materials (I don’t get this, as the Most Precious Blood is spilled whether the material It is in breaks or not). None the less, my pastor is a Vatican master of ceremonies compared to what I saw in Santa Cruz (lay homilist, consecration in flagons, with the Most Precious Blood fractioned by EMHC’s, AND THE PRIEST PARAPHRASED THE ENTIRE CANON OF THE MASS!!! If I nag my priest about the crystal (a precious material, after all), I would tend to think myself out of line. If I protest the egregious abuses in Santa Cruz or the time in New Mexico when the priest at the Sign of Peace said,“Make sure you ask the Jones’ about that new baby!”, I don’t think that’s being a pharisee.
Which is the definition of Modernism.
Indeed, it is not only the heresy that says truth changes with time, but the idea of hyper clericalism that is still around today and found often among those who favor novelty in the mass and in Church teaching.
Well, now I’ve never said he was wrong. But…
Now, that does seem to be a minimalist position to take with regard to the faith. My hyperoble could be just like yours and I could say something like how many more experiments and novelties may we introduce without stepping over the line? Is that the way we should be? I mean we should be legalistic and do as much as we can without actually violating the mind of the Church or Her liturgical rubrics? Is the idea to get away with as much as possible because we over emphasize emotionalism?
No, no…don’t burn the guitar!
Well, I’ve actually been part of a group of daily Mass-goers that corrected a priest without ever even mentioning the abuse to him. He liked to instruct the congregation to say the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer along with him during the elevation (Through Him, with Him, in Him…). Some of us who were not comfortable saying a part of the Mass that is proper to the priest simply didn’t go along with the majority who was following his instructions. Then more people starting remaining silent. Then a few more, and a few more. Although he still had people (simply trying to do as they’re told) obeying his instructions, the priest eventually gave up on it when he realized that a sizable amount of people (was it now a simple majority? maybe, maybe not) wasn’t going to play his game. Oftentimes “the majority” to whom we must be so “pastoral” has simply not been given all the information. They’re very open to change because they want to do the right thing, they just need help doing it.
Here, however, is a type of situation in which I think it is perfectly legitimate to cite the spirit of the law/norm/etc. When the Church says that two things are allowed but that she prefers one of them, shouldn’t we take a good hard look at things before jumping to exploit every exception made available to us? I know that’s not what you’re advocating, but I do think our strivings should be to conform ourselves as closely as possible to the mind of the Church rather than seek to uphold what some might style “minimalist compliance” with her decrees. The exceptions exist for cases where there is a true pastoral or material necessity. But if plan B slowly becomes the norm for a given area (I’m not thinking of specific examples, just trying to extend your thinking to what I see as a possibility), mightn’t it be time to revisit the intent and “spirit” of the rules in question?
I’ll stick to my original statement. If the Bishop permits the laity to rec. in the hand and the Holy See permits it, but prefers that they rec. on the tongue, I’m not going to go with the “spirit” (what is desired), I’m going to go with what is permitted. Why? (hypothetically. I don’t really care) Because I don’t like people sticking their hands in or near my mouth. Does this make me a bad Christian, because I avail myself of something the Church permits? I may well be a bad Christian, but not because of this, because the Church permits it. When they cease to permit it, I’ll comply. Ya know, we hear an awful lot about the binding power of the Holy Father. He also has the authority to loosen, to unbind. Also, I don’t think we need to have goosestepping uniformity…otherwise, the traditionalists who insist on kneeling for communion contrary to the directives of the bishops (and the Holy See recognizes the bishops competance to govern this, though communion may not be refused) would be in the same predicament as those who don’t wish to rec. on the tongue.
Totally agreed. So when the Church says that standing for reception of the Eucharist is the norm even though BOTH are ALLOWED, then we should absolutely conform ourselves as closely as possible to the mind of the CHURCH rather than to uphold minimalist compliance and receive kneeling even after we have been instructed to do otherwise. Simply because uniformity of posture is the preferred norm.
Well ummm, I wasn’t the one who equated OCP Hymnals with liturgical abuse sooooo I wasn’t the first one using the extravagant exaggeration. I have a dictionary too.
See, this is where I decided I was tired of the liturgy police sitting inside my head and carping on and on about Father’s crystal chalice and paten. “Let it go”, says I to myself, “It could be worse,” because you know what? It could well indeed be worse. I’m grateful to have a priest who celebrates Mass reverently. Heck, I’m better off than lots of Catholics in the USA, as I have a pastor, a parochial vicar, and two priests living in the rectory that are assigned solely to sick ministry, but who say Mass for our parish as supply priests. We have Adoration (about to open a 24 hour Adoration chapel), Benediction, prayer groups and Bible studies. There are places in this country where priests say Mass at several different parishes and have to drive long distances to do it. There are places in this world with not priests available for long periods of time. There are places (China) where the Church is persecuted and is underground. I think I’ll let Father slide on the crystal chalice. I’m not saying that we should wing it, as far as the rubrics go. I’m just saying I’m grateful for what I have, a good priest.
Yes. The new rules make sense and we will abide by them. I can see the point, etc… But honestly, we have more important things to worry about than liberal agendas hidden in the chalice.
It is the little Fox , who spoils the vine.
You want to borrow my chemistry set?
Sorry, dont need it!
I had left this thread, but then I remembered something from the adult residence.
…snort…ahem. Netmil(name removed by moderator) is good people, be nice. Besides, I very much doubt you’d see her at a Charismatic Mass.