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

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

Actually, you and I are on the same track. I think that exceptions (defined as those liturgical changes that require permission from teh Bishop or Rome) need to be rare and adaptations (accommodation for different cultures or age groups within a diocese) need to be carefully scrutinized for their application. My reaction is that so many who advocate more traditional Masses want it applied across the board with virtually no accommodation to the worshippers. For instance, I occassionally attend Mass at my daughter’s high school as I did yesterday for All Saints Day. In their Mass, their joyful expression thru their music to them was more reverrent than chants and organ music. We need to look at some things thru the eyes of others rather than applying our particular preferences to them.

I think we’re on *roughly *the same track, but I think I’d always come down on a more rigorous push for extreme rarity than the impression I’ve gotten from you. I’ll always favor education over adaptation unless pushed to a desperate last resort. I just think the identity of the liturgy as a gift to rather than creation of the community is most meaningful, and would rather not tie it to a particular culture if at all possible (I know its roots are particular, but it’s been transformed into a universal).

 

[ncjohn]

Andreas Hofer:

I think we’re on *roughly *the same track, but I think I’d always come down on a more rigorous push for extreme rarity than the impression I’ve gotten from you. I’ll always favor education over adaptation unless pushed to a desperate last resort. I just think the identity of the liturgy as a gift to rather than creation of the community is most meaningful, and would rather not tie it to a particular culture if at all possible (I know its roots are particular, but it’s been transformed into a universal).

That’s an interesting position, but contrary to the Church’s position. The Church’s position was to intentionally make the Liturgy more flexible to more fully meet the needs of different peoples.

Additionally, keep in mind that there is nothing magical about the current or any other liturgy. They have changed through the centuries and differ substantially already from Eastern Rite liturgies, which differ from each other. JP2 himself instructed the Eastern Rite churches to “de Latinize” and go back to their roots. That is hardly the mandate to make everything strictly uniform or a belief that everyone needs to march in lockstep liturgically.

I realize that there’s a fine line to be walked between allowing flexibility and having abuses creep in, and that line gets crossed some from time to time. In a large, universal church though, there has to be flexibility for the local shepherd (Bishop) to tend his flock according to their needs. If abuses occur, there are systems in place to deal with them. As I mentioned before, Redemptionis Sacramentum shows that the Church is ready–and probably even more ready under the current Pope–to tackle abuses when necessary.

Peace,

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ncjohn:

That’s an interesting position, but contrary to the Church’s position. The Church’s position was to intentionally make the Liturgy more flexible to more fully meet the needs of different peoples.

Additionally, keep in mind that there is nothing magical about the current or any other liturgy. They have changed through the centuries and differ substantially already from Eastern Rite liturgies, which differ from each other. JP2 himself instructed the Eastern Rite churches to “de Latinize” and go back to their roots. That is hardly the mandate to make everything strictly uniform or a belief that everyone needs to march in lockstep liturgically.

I realize that there’s a fine line to be walked between allowing flexibility and having abuses creep in, and that line gets crossed some from time to time. In a large, universal church though, there has to be flexibility for the local shepherd (Bishop) to tend his flock according to their needs. If abuses occur, there are systems in place to deal with them. As I mentioned before, Redemptionis Sacramentum shows that the Church is ready–and probably even more ready under the current Pope–to tackle abuses when necessary.

Peace,

The position of Vatican II was “no change unless strictly necessary.” The Council did not want a flexible Mass that would vary from region to region, it simply wanted to allow the Mass to adapt, as a whole rite, if absolutely necessary. That is why Vatican II then also suggested a limited use of vernacular and the reinstitution of a few practices. These were areas where the Council saw some flexibility (all Latin or mostly Latin) as beneficial. If the council fathers had known just how many options a “reformed” missal would include I’m not sure they would have signed on to the idea.

The rite that was then created with a loose base in the mandate of the council is something else entirely. If you see the production of that rite as the will of the Church, then yes, you’re correct, the Church wants something that’s very locally adaptable. But since Charlemagne requested the Roman liturgical books for imperial unity, there has developed a strong theology of universality within the Latin Rite, and our current pope, as comes out in his “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” stands firmly in the tradition of rationale of the Latin Mass. When you talk about Eastern churches you’re talking about a whole new ballgame which is not entirely relevant to the nature of the Latin Rite. Just as the Easterners, though, were instructed to return to fidelity to their liturgical traditions, the Church wants the West to remain faithful to its own traditions.