USCCB Liturgical Adaptations & Exceptions (Who Else Is Sick & Tired of Them?)

[Orionthehunter]

AltarMan:

While he was a great man who is destined to become a saint of the Church, many of these irregularities and abuses began and/or become “legalized” during the nearly 27-year pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

While PJP2 traveled to nearly 100 countries and was the consumate “big picture man” (just look at the fall of communism), a great number of smaller things seemed to slip though the cracks.

With Pope Benedict XVI I see another profoundly able man, but I also see an able manager and leader who will certainly be better than his PJP2 at implementing changes and corrections.

The next three or so years is going to be exciting when it comes to the liturgy.

This is such a good point. I have a Priest friend who came back to the Church because of the charisma of JPII and who ultimately joined the seminary in his 30’s and is now a good Priest very loyal to JPII. However, once in a conversation with him about some of these liturgical abuses, he said all of us will have things that we need to answer for before God. These might JPII’s and that is why we need to remember someone as awesome as JPII in our prayers.

On this same line of thinking, I think we are getting early indications that Pope Benedict will a teaching Pope as this has been his vocation as a theologian and professor much of his life.

I’m sure you have heard the following: You are what you do (meaning talk is cheap) or You are what you eat, etc. Well, us Catholics are what we pray and the Mass is our greatest prayer. IMHO, until we pray in total unity, we will not be truly living up to our responsibility as a Universal Church. Furthermore, in order for the liturgical changes to be adopted eagerly by the faithful, there will have to be some education/catechesis and who better to do it that this old professor. God Bless Pope Benedict in his papacy.

On a side note, on another thread, but related to the subject of this thread, I read a post about someone who didn’t understand or even agree with the Church on a theological matter. However, she followed the Church trusting in Her wisdom. It is easy to follow the Church on an issue when we understand and agree. The real rubber hits the road when we follow the Church when we don’t understand and don’t agree.

Personally, I’ve never taken the Eucharist in my hand and get nervous if I can still taste a throat lozenge in my mouth by Communion even though I know this is excessively scrupulous. I don’t like holding hands during the Our Father. But at the same time, I don’t judge those who take Communion in the hand or reject someone who wants to hold my hand during the Lord’s Prayer (including my wife). I just think we’d all be better off if we accepted in submission and obedience the teachings and directions that come from our Bishop, respectfully and gently counsel our Priests when we see abuses, and if necessary contact our Bishop on grave matters. After that just submit and show by our own prayerful and reverential example our commitment to Christ and His Church. Dissent takes different forms among the “liberals” and “conservatives” (I hate labels) but they are dissent just the same and just as insiduous.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

While I might be more “charitable” in approach to those violating moral law becuase I recognize it is a struggle with their sinful nature, I am not more tolerant of the violation because the eternal consequences are greater. Concurrently, I admit I’m not as charitable to those who hold themselves out as “orthodox” and then criticize with a disrespectful tone Priests or Bishops as to me this is scandalous form of dissent because they should know better.

You can’t read their hearts, so charity should prevail.

Additionally, the characterization of themselves as more “Catholic” in their orthodoxy sometimes comes off as pious pride which I don’t think helps spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this regard, slapping labels on people doesn’t serve our purpose of evangalizing. Instead, I try to use a humble approach designed to help them understand better Christ’s message.

With all respect, can’t you see how some may conclude this is self serving? You are judging others for rightly judging and claim your position is superior? Those who claim orthodoxy often cite references to support their position. You are giving me your opinion.

True conversion requires every Catholic, from the Pope down to the Catholic in name only, to admit and understand that we are all sinners with our own individual “crosses” with none “greater” than the other and that these crosses can only be overcome through the redeeming and sanctifying grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have yet to read anyone hear claim they were sinless. I have read often the false charge that admonisment intends the one giving it was sinless.

Until all Catholics understand that submission to authority is a critical component of being Catholic, orthodoxy is impossible as people on the left and right (both equally hetordox in my opinion) both claim to a right to select which teaching and direction they choose to accept.

I have not read anyone suggesting disobedience.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Those who claim orthodoxy often cite references to support their position.

Protestants also cite Scripture to support their position. But Jesus did not set up a Church where each person interprets matters for himself. Instead, He created a living Magisterium, with the Pope and Bishops in authority. (And I can cite references for this, if you want!)

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Let’s use a specific case without names. Say there is a diocese with a history of being called liberal. One thing that goes on is lay homilists. The bishop claims his reading of Church law allows this. Others claim the Vatican says no way. Also, there is a long history of dissenting speakers, questionable liturgical practices, and other things that the bishop has been informed about, yet nothing changes.

Is it fair, and just, that some faithful label such things as liberal and not in keeping with what the Church actually intends?

Here is an example of what I think an appropriate, obedient response to this situation is. Well done, Deacon2006!

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Protestants also cite Scripture to support their position. But Jesus did not set up a Church where each person interprets matters for himself. Instead, He created a living Magisterium, with the Pope and Bishops in authority. (And I can cite references for this, if you want!)

Who disputes that? Interpretaion is left to the clergy, that does not mean the laity may not read these things and form a conclusion. Are you claiming that lay Catholics are forbidden to form conclusions? For example, if a priest claims ABC is licit and Rome will change this teaching is your position a well informed Catholic must “obey” the priest or bishop in this matter?

Again, we must not fall into a hyper clericalism. No one has rejected any legitimate authority. That is a red herring. What some here have stated was that some priests and some bishops appear to be not following various directives, and perhaps teachings, as given by Rome.

These issues warrant discussion. The tenor and vehemence may vary from poster to poster, but the issues are legitimate.

That canon law makes specific demands on how these things are expressed is a valid issue, however, it becomes somewhat disingenuous when some complain the laity have no “right” to interpret Church teaching based on the authority of another who is him or herself interpreting Church documents that claims another may not interpret Church documents. Confusing? Yes, because it becomes almost a circular argument.

In the end I agree proper channels should be followed, that does not mean such issues may never be discussed. If that were true this entire forum would be disobedient and I know of no decree from any bishop binding one under pain of mortal sin to stop it all.

 

[fix]

Here is an example of what I think an appropriate, obedient response to this situation is. Well done, Deacon2006!

I would like to read the entire thread. Can you post the link or the thread title? The answer given by the deacon does not address my post. I was referring to lay homilists such as a a nun, or a non religious, non seminarian giving the homily.

 

[fix]

fix:

I would like to read the entire thread. Can you post the link or the thread title? The answer given by the deacon does not address my post. I was referring to lay homilists such as a a nun, or a non religious, non seminarian giving the homily.

I found the thread. I think a better response would be to write to the bishop to get some clarification and if that is not productive then on to Rome.

The really sad part of all this is that Rome has said Catholics have a “right” to a properly celebrated mass. This type of thing only breeds confusion and resentment. Notice I have not called for disobedience, but discussing this is important.

Also, dioceses that do this type of thing and have a long history of other “irregularities” develop a reputation as liberal. I see no reason to overlook what is obvious.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

I found the thread.

Just FYI, you can go to the thread from a single post view by clicking on the thread name in the upper right hand corner.

 

[fix]

A good read:

**** Obedience to a Priest

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur91.htm****

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Just FYI, you can go to the thread from a single post view by clicking on the thread name in the upper right hand corner.

Thanks

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Again, we must not fall into a hyper clericalism.

At one end, we have the extreme of hyper clericalism. At the other end, we have the extreme of Protestantism. Both extremes are wrong; we need to find a middle ground.

Having said that, I agree with Orionthehunter’s assessment that we are nowhere even remotely close to the extreme of hyper clericalism. However, we are close to teetering on the edge of Protestantism.

 

[msproule]

fix:

What some here have stated was that some priests and some bishops appear to be not following various directives, and perhaps teachings, as given by Rome.

Even if the Bishops make decisions that are within their capacity and scope of authority (which presumably is the majority of the time), the questions still remain surrounding why such local variations have developed. It is not like the U.S. has hundreds and hundreds of years of local custom to accommodate.

I will again cite the example of using a flagon to contain the wine until it is consecrated, only then to pour into individual glasses, chalices, ebony cups, ceramic bowls, or whatever has been deemed “noble” by the ordinary. Common sense (as well as common theology) says that this is historically and traditionally baseless, not to mention risky.

We have argued on other threads about whether or not this practice may legally continue, but I would like to understand why this practice was ever started in the first place! It must have started somewhere. Who was the brilliant salesman who convinced the other Bishops that is was a good idea?

 

[buffalo]

msproule:

. Who was the brilliant salesman who convinced the other Bishops that is was a good idea?

Probably the “hand-holding” guy!

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

At one end, we have the extreme of hyper clericalism. At the other end, we have the extreme of Protestantism. Both extremes are wrong; we need to find a middle ground.

Having said that, I agree with Orionthehunter’s assessment that we are nowhere even remotely close to the extreme of hyper clericalism. However, we are close to teetering on the edge of Protestantism.

The latest instance of deviation from Rome we are speaking of, lay homilists, is in a noted liberal diocese where the bishop uses his authority to force the faithful to accept what Rome has said is wrong and that issue is couched by posters here as being authoratative because of his position, regardless of whether it is just and correct.

That is clericalism.

The other end is Prostestantism that too is liberal. Note the wide acceptance of ABC by those who claim to be faithful Catholics.

The extreme right that rejects Papal authority are only a handful compared to the huge numbers who reject Church authority or use legalisms to foist a liberal agenda.

 

[fix]

msproule:

Even if the Bishops make decisions that are within their capacity and scope of authority (which presumably is the majority of the time), the questions still remain surrounding why such local variations have developed. It is not like the U.S. has hundreds and hundreds of years of local custom to accommodate.

A valid point that will be dismissed by some as disobedient under the heading of clericalism.

It seems obedience means accepting everything, even when one is aware there is a conflict between America and Rome. Note, I mean a false charge of disobedience because I have yet to read that someone is actually disobeying any Bishop who is doing something Rome has said not to do.

  Certainly, and not only in the developed world, the days are past when a  		priest was the exclusive source of doctrinal information. Today, most  		educated Catholics can find out for themselves what the Church teaches  		or regulates on any topic. 
  
  Yet this extra knowledge should be an aid to mutual understanding rather  		than a weapon of discordance and the attitude should always be one of  		construction rather than confrontation.[ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur91.htm](http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur91.htm)

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

The latest instance of deviation from Rome we are speaking of, lay homilists, is in a noted liberal diocese where the bishop uses his authority to force the faithful to accept what Rome has said is wrong and that issue is couched by posters here as being authoratative because of his position, regardless of whether it is just and correct.

That is clericalism.

The other end is Prostestantism that too is liberal. Note the wide acceptance of ABC by those who claim to be faithful Catholics.

The extreme right that rejects Papal authority are only a handful compared to the huge numbers who reject Church authority or use legalisms to foist a liberal agenda.

Nobody is supporting in any way lay homilists or Priests who promote artificial birth control or homosexual unions or anything else that is clearly against Church Teaching. While others were quick to accuse everything as a “red herring”, I think these issues you have raised are the Trojan Horse for undermining the authority of our Bishops. We are talking about local exceptions that have been granted. Please read what we were talking about in the beginning of this thread:

Among these exceptions:

Standing for Holy Communion (and a Simple Bow of the Head as the Sign of Reverence)
Pouring of the Precious Blood
Sacred Vessels Made of Hard Woods, etc.
Wooden Altars
Holy Days of Obligation Relegated to the Nearest Sunday

In all of these cases, the Bishops have gotten an exception and there are additional ones to accommodate local custom (ie a Sudanese parish and a Mexican Parish in my diocese).

It wasn’t long before exceptions were interpreted to mean hetorodoxy and some type of liberal agenda. And the more I read the comments from certain so-called “ortho’s” I got a sense of disrespect for Bishops and a license to claim that their “need” to kneel at Communion despite the fact that their Bishop/Priest asked them not to seemed like Protestantism cloaked in hyper orthodoxy. Read the thread before you accuse someone of being “liberal” (again I hate labels) or promoting an agenda.

 

[Lizbert]

All the details aside, the overridding affects of all of these adaptations and exceptions, approved or otherwise, is confusion. For those of us returning to the church after a long absence, it is confusion and a disheartened feeling that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. If new converts are brought into the Church, without much instruction before they receive any of the Sacraments, you will have a lot of confusion and resentment if they get told to do something different. All in all the feeling of “one holy, Catholic and apostolic church” is lost.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Lizbert:

All the details aside, the overridding affects of all of these adaptations and exceptions, approved or otherwise, is confusion. For those of us returning to the church after a long absence, it is confusion and a disheartened feeling that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. If new converts are brought into the Church, without much instruction before they receive any of the Sacraments, you will have a lot of confusion and resentment if they get told to do something different. All in all the feeling of “one holy, Catholic and apostolic church” is lost.

I generally agree with your comment. I don’t approve when Priest’s take it upon themselves to make unapproved adaptations. Such adaptions can cause confusion and be harmful.

However, we need to also be tolerant that there are sound reasons for adaptations. I fondly recall the more hip Masses during my college days at the Newman Center as it spoke to me there at that stage of my life. Next year when we go visit my soon to be Freshman daughter, I’m sure Mass will be different from my parish but I will be grateful if she is going and getting the graces from Mass. Or when I go to our local Hispanic or Sudanese parish, it has a flavor consistent with that culture. Or even in my own parish we have an 8 a.m. Mass that is chants, organ music and very traditional and nobody holds hands during the Our Father. The 11 a.m. Mass is pretty contemporary and hand holding is the norm. I attend the 9:30 Mass as I guess I’m in the middle. My sister just moved to Nashville where the Priest is a Baptist convert and alot of the parishioners are either converts or just affected by the local culture. Anyway, she called to tell us that it sure is different. I’m actually looking forward to visiting and experiencing the “Amens” and “Alleluias”. Or when I was in Germany (I couldn’t understand the language even though I knew what was happening), the Mass was very stoic and I was glad that wasn’t our culture. Finally, we had a visiting Associate from the Congo who was getting educated on Canon Law and Tribunal Law in the Diocesan Office. He got permission from the Bishop to do some things unique to the Congo. It was enriching to my parish to the point that the older, daily Mass “church ladies” became his biggest fans. He recently was back in the US for a visit and his Mass was standing room only just to hear his chant in French during the Eucharistic Prayer as he was available for visiting before and after ever Mass. My point is that we can celebrate our individual cultures and the cultures of others while staying true to the universality of the Mass. It is in our ability to make some accommodations to culture and where people are at in their life (age or background) that actually celebrates our universality not detract from it.

 

[oat_soda]

Or even in my own parish we have an 8 a.m. Mass that is chants, organ music and very traditional and nobody holds hands during the Our Father. The 11 a.m. Mass is pretty contemporary and hand holding is the norm. I attend the 9:30 Mass as I guess I’m in the middle. My sister just moved to Nashville where the Priest is a Baptist convert and alot of the parishioners are either converts or just affected by the local culture.

if you compare the tridentine mass to any of these variations, you will see that we are dealing with totally different asthetics. in fact, there was a complete break in ethos between the tridentine and normative mass.

within the normative mass, these variations are not too noticeable. i really don’t care if the new mass is said in english or french. within the framework of the pauline mass, you have to accept diversity because it was intentionally created to allow flexibility and adaptation.

 

[AltarMan]

msproule:

Judge for yourself:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/chalice.shtml

Like female altar servers, it likely began as an abuse only to be made an authorized exception at a later time. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum and the link I provided, it seems that pouring the Precious Blood is once again considered an abuse by the Holy See. Personally, I agree. However, there are many who contend that the law (allowing it) is still in effect.

Why our Bishop’s would desire such a dangerous and illogical practice to continue is beyond me!

Those US bishops who chose to ignore the Holy See on this matter gave all US bishops a bad name. They should be ashamed for relying on some fine technical point to “support” their position, rather than simply following the Church. It is issues like this that have erroded respect for bishops in the USA.