I don’t see it as a mistake to expand it beyond the Eucharistic Prayer because of the very reasoning you point out. You are right: in other circumstances, deacons are allowed to extend their hands. Within the context of Mass, however, only the bishop/priest may do so, according to the rubrics. Even the Ceremonial of Bishops nos. 105-106 refer only to the bishop/concelebrants extending their hands over the people/offerings.I don’t see it as “cherry picking” the document. That paragraph starts by pointing out a specific section of the cannon for a specific section of the liturgy to deal with liturgical abuses happening at that point. The mistake is to expand it beyond that point.
My reasoning is that it specifically included deacons, who are under most other circumtances are allowed to extend hands in blessing.
. Within the context of Mass, however, only the bishop/priest may do so, according to the rubrics. Even the Ceremonial of Bishops nos. 105-106 refer only to the bishop/concelebrants extending their hands over the **people/offerings./**QUOTE]
Once again this is during the Eucharistic prayer.
I’m in full agreement, the practice is illicite in the body of the liturgy. All the documents quoted are within the body of the Liturgy. The book of blessings has it’s own specific instructions, no augument.
The practice, as I believe, comes from the Chrismatic movement, which base on one’s opinion may or may not be a good thing, with the practice of laying on hands, when praying with or for some one or a group. Those not able to actually touch, extend thier hands in prayer all asking for the power of Holy Spirit.
It is obvious that there are those who disagree with the use of the action.
It is possible to have a blurring of the lines between the laity and the clergy with such practices, in a number of documents it does warn of this and the need for proper cathicism for people to understand the meaning and use of guestures.
This is part of the tention that the Church is struggling with as to the role of the laity. It is reflected within the same documents when on one had it talks of the laity sharing in the royal priest hood then indicating that it must be within reason. It is also a tention between the leadership of the church who are more conservative, particularly those in the Roman Curia and those who are more progresive.
At this point, under Pope Benidict, the more conservative Roman Curia has some of the upper hand. And yet even with this, the pope calls for a new evangelization, which by it’s nature will mean the need for inovation to bring people to the Lord.
I think the bottom line, is that ministery is not as black and white as some want to make it.
stephraim;8020936:
QUOTE]. Within the context of Mass, however, only the bishop/priest may do so, according to the rubrics. Even the Ceremonial of Bishops nos. 105-106 refer only to the bishop/concelebrants extending their hands over the people/offerings./
Once again this is during the Eucharistic prayer.
I’m in full agreement, the practice is illicite in the body of the liturgy. All the documents quoted are within the body of the Liturgy. The book of blessings has it’s own specific instructions, no augument.
The practice, as I believe, comes from the Chrismatic movement, which base on one’s opinion may or may not be a good thing, with the practice of laying on hands, when praying with or for some one or a group. Those not able to actually touch, extend thier hands in prayer all asking for the power of Holy Spirit.
It is obvious that there are those who disagree with the use of the action.
It is possible to have a blurring of the lines between the laity and the clergy with such practices, in a number of documents it does warn of this and the need for proper cathicism for people to understand the meaning and use of guestures.
This is part of the tention that the Church is struggling with as to the role of the laity. It is reflected within the same documents when on one had it talks of the laity sharing in the royal priest hood then indicating that it must be within reason. It is also a tention between the leadership of the church who are more conservative, particularly those in the Roman Curia and those who are more progresive.
At this point, under Pope Benidict, the more conservative Roman Curia has some of the upper hand. And yet even with this, the pope calls for a new evangelization, which by it’s nature will mean the need for inovation to bring people to the Lord.
I think the bottom line, is that ministery is not as black and white as some want to make it.
No. Again, it appears to me that perhaps you might be misreading and misinterpreting what the Church has stated time and time again. Furthermore, implementation of the “new evangelization” that Pope Benedict XVI envisions does not include tinkering with the rites and rituals that the Church has put forth.
Pope Benedict, himself, noted that the Second Vatican Council was misinterpreted, especially when it came to the liturgy, to the point that a hermeneutic of discontinuity ensued. Innovations were introduced that had no business being included within the rites and rituals of the Church. Pope Benedict is trying to right the ship to restore order to the liturgy.
FAB;8021137:
The tinkering that you refer is were the tention comes from. History shows that the liturgy has changed over and over again. Even the TLM as history does show had changes right after it was implamented.No. Again, it appears to me that perhaps you might be misreading and misinterpreting what the Church has stated time and time again. Furthermore, implementation of the “new evangelization” that Pope Benedict XVI envisions does not include tinkering with the rites and rituals that the Church has put forth.
Pope Benedict, himself, noted that the Second Vatican Council was misinterpreted, especially when it came to the liturgy, to the point that a hermeneutic of discontinuity ensued. Innovations were introduced that had no business being included within the rites and rituals of the Church. Pope Benedict is trying to right the ship to restore order to the liturgy.
The pontiff is working to bring more sacredness back to the liturgy. I don’t disagree with his efforts. At the same time, he is not trying to reject the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and I believe has stated that we are yet to realize it’s full implamenttion and fruits.
Part of those fruits involve the role of the laity. We have the documents that call for active participation of the laity in the liturgy. Has this been taken to an extreme, no doubt in some areas and thus we get Redemptionis Sacramentum.
The Council also indicated that the voice of the laity was to be listened to. Certainly a revelutionary concept in the Church and one that it is still adjusting to.
This brings me back to the original issue. When a practice starts to become wide spread, like this one, there are those who react, such as those on CA who say that isn’t to be done, see it says so in the documents, there are others who say, wait minute, let’s look at the pro and cons, is the practice something that brings people into a closer relationship with the Lord or is it causing some kind of harm. There is then a triangular discusion between the magisteruim, laity and theolgians, which eventually allows it to be settled.
In the mean time the discussion continues.
FAB, there is really no need for continued discussion, as all of the documents, including the ritual books (namely, the De Benedictionibus) have already addressed the matter. This is something, that, as I read your responses, you seem to disregard. Inserting things into the rites and the rituals when they do not belong in there actualy do harm to the faithful because they promote things that the Church does not allow.The tinkering that you refer is were the tention comes from. History shows that the liturgy has changed over and over again. Even the TLM as history does show had changes right after it was implamented.
The pontiff is working to bring more sacredness back to the liturgy. I don’t disagree with his efforts. At the same time, he is not trying to reject the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and I believe has stated that we are yet to realize it’s full implamenttion and fruits.
Part of those fruits involve the role of the laity. We have the documents that call for active participation of the laity in the liturgy. Has this been taken to an extreme, no doubt in some areas and thus we get Redemptionis Sacramentum.
The Council also indicated that the voice of the laity was to be listened to. Certainly a revelutionary concept in the Church and one that it is still adjusting to.
This brings me back to the original issue. When a practice starts to become wide spread, like this one, there are those who react, such as those on CA who say that isn’t to be done, see it says so in the documents, there are others who say, wait minute, let’s look at the pro and cons, is the practice something that brings people into a closer relationship with the Lord or is it causing some kind of harm. There is then a triangular discusion between the magisteruim, laity and theolgians, which eventually allows it to be settled.
In the mean time the discussion continues.
benedictgal, if it is so clear cut as you indicate, why is it not stopped?FAB, there is really no need for continued discussion, as all of the documents, including the ritual books (namely, the De Benedictionibus) have already addressed the matter. This is something, that, as I read your responses, you seem to disregard. Inserting things into the rites and the rituals when they do not belong in there actualy do harm to the faithful because they promote things that the Church does not allow.
We participate in the Holy Sacrifice by exercising what is proper to us. For the celebrant, this means handing the prayers, the gestures and the actions that are proper to him. The same holds true for the deacon (if he is present at Mass). As the faithful, we participate in our responses and in our posture (sitting, standing, kneeling), uniting our feeble efforts and prayers to those of the celebrant.
There are a lot of abuses that have crept into the Mass that have not yet ceased either because the ones perpetuating the abuse either don’t know that the authoritative documents of the Church exist or they outright ignore them.benedictgal, if it is so clear cut as you indicate, why is it not stopped?
I am not disregurding the documents, they are refering to specific action to specific blessings and liturgies. They are not catch all nets.
As example, a deacon is prohibted to bless the oil used for the annointing of the sick,
but yet he is allowed to bless oil for other purposes. It can be found in the book of blessings. Specific blessing for specific use.
The truth is, despite what you might be reading into my post, is that I do adhere to the rites very closely. I have spent the last few years eliminating cetain practices in our liturgy which my previous pastor allowed to get them in line with the rites.
However, this example probably does not work for this thread because Mary’s actions were not framed within a liturgical context. This occured during a home visit and not within the confines of sacrificial, temple worship.Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus adoring Him, and her sister Martha was busy making sure that she was maintaining an approved posture, that her arms were not raised too high or at too wrong of an angle, and that no one would then confuse her for one of the apostles.
This is our disagreement. I don’t see it as abuse, so much as the laity sharing in the royal priesthood, nor do I see that it deminishes the preisthood. What I see is people do understand their limits and the differnence between sharing in a blessing of asking the the Lord to bless and infering a blessing as does the preist or deacon.FAB, it is laudable that you are doing what you can to curb the abuse, but, as I read your post, you seem to dismiss the serious abuse of having the laity use a gesture that is proper to the celebrant during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Such a gesture diminishes the ministerial priesthood and is a misunderstanding of the common priesthood of the faithful. Eccleisa de Mysterio says that such blurring of the lines needs to stop.
FAB, but, even the Church notes that this should not be happening. It is a misguided notion that the faithful “share” in the blessing of someone or something in the Mass by virtue of the common priesthood. Even the items that you posted as your references do not make that statement.This is our disagreement. I don’t see it as abuse, so much as the laity sharing in the royal priesthood, nor do I see that it deminishes the preisthood. What I see is people do understand their limits and the differnence between sharing in a blessing of asking the the Lord to bless and infering a blessing as does the preist or deacon.
Because liturgists are not issued automatic weapons. You cannot imagine how this slows down the response time.benedictgal, if it is so clear cut as you indicate, why is it not stopped?
It is a misguided notion of liberty. This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:We had a Priest fill in this past Sunday for our usual one. During the 1100 Mass the Children leave the Mass to go learn in the Chapel. When he called the children up, he asked all of Laity to help him bless them. He asked that we all raise our right hand while he said the blessing. This was done in the middle of the Liturgy. I have never seen this done before and felt uncomfortable doing it, but I did it anyway because I didn’t know any better. Why are Priest doing these things to the Liturgy?
7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19
We cannot make things up as we go along during the Mass.[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.