By the way…Why do you conclude that I am a pessimist? On the contrary, I am optimistic that faithful adherence to the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum will reduce the need for discussions such as this in the very near future.
MrS,
Podo2004 said:
One of the most wonderful prayers in the Church includes in its opening lines… “mea culpa, mea culpa”.
Yes, those things listed are abuses (some of them). Girl alter servers??? NO WAY!!! I like that you won’t cave to abuses, but can you tell me where it might say in the catechism about not having girl alter servers?? Thanks,
Ouch!! Those are some that I’ve seen too. Can anyone tell me what liturgical dancers are too? I’ve got an idea of what they are, but I could use some explanation…
you have got a lot of nerve to degrade a person for his age. if you can’t act like a member of the Body of Christ, you have no right defending the Body of Christ. you embarrass me and everyone else and Jesus himself when you call yourself Catholic and then act that way. is that anyway to welcome a young man into active participation in the Church? you don’t know anything about him. you don’t have to know all the answers to be holy in the eyes of God. do you think our young saints had to pass a test before the Lord let them into heaven? they’d have something to say about the way this young man has been treated.
) by the laity GIRM 66, 109; RS 64-66, 74; numerous other documents as well, including canon law. in GIRM 109, it makes it clear that no “element” of the Mass may be divided among “persons”. therefore, it is illicit for the bishop, priest, or deacon to ‘say a few words’ and then allow a layperson to speak under the guise of a ‘reflection’, etc. the Church is clear that she is serious about this.
GIRM 66
GIRM 324-334, esp. 329. note that 329 has the clause “according to the common estimation in each region” modifying the choice of “worthy” materials. this introduces subjectivity and is ultimately governed by the local bishop if he becomes involved, otherwise (unfortunately) the priest can do whatever. this is a u.s. adaptation. generally, it can be stated that in the united states, glass is not considered “precious” or “worthy”, and that crystal is just high priced glass. all sacred vessels must be reserved and protected from profane, common use. often the distinctive nature of the vessels has aided in such protection.
GIRM 320; RS 48; also canon law. this constitutes “a grave abuse.”
GIRM 24, 362; RS 3, 10, 59. the specific abuse as regards inclusive language is dealt with directly in the Fifth Instruction on the Translation of Texts. the alteration of a text by translations which favor inclusive language over accuracy is forbidden. use of unapproved texts are forbidden. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document on the liturgy from Vatican II explicitly states that the text of the Mass cannot be changed ‘even by a priest.’
GIRM 24. this is not explicitly forbidden. however RS makes it clear that it is not at all acceptable to say that if it is not forbidden, it is allowed. any practice that is not instructed in the rubrics of the Missal constitute a change to the Mass by the celebrant and is therefore forbidden by GIRM 24.
RS 106. this is explicitly forbidden. the Norms for Distribution originally failed to be explicit on this, and the use of pitchers did not directly conflict with the norms. the use was simply a loose implementation. when RS was released, the error became obvious. bishops sought clarification and Rome ordered the Norms to be amended, and in no unclear terms, ordered the practice to cease. see the bishops’ website, department for the liturgy, questions section, ‘preparation of the Chalice.’
utilization of EMHC GIRM 162; RS 88, 154-160. this is entirely subjective. the saga begins in GIRM 162 and is continued in the Norms. the u.s. adaptations have expanded the duties of these ministers in direct conflict with RS, and in doing so have distorted the idea of “necessity” and contributed to other abuses, or at least, laxity. RS attempts to give greater clarity to the idea of “necessity”. the council, and all subsequent documents, favor communion under both species. where there is only one priest, no deacons, etc., generally there is necessity for the administration of the chalice. however, most claims about this abuse have elements of truth to them. RS makes it clear that extraordinary ministers should not be a forgone conclusion. it is assumed that every remedy be put in place to disfavor or exclude their use. RS specifically instructs bishops in this regard.
GIRM 24, et al. this is simple, it is in the rubrics, and mentioned in the Instruction. if it is there, do it.
GIRM 43. posture is controlled by the conference or the local bishop. the rule for the u.s. is inserted in n. 43. the unaltered latin missal says that at minimum, without “good reason” (health, space, etc.) one must kneel during the actual consecration itself.
Sarah,
Thanks! That helped alot!
We weren’t really a church if you really look at it, always alone going to mass and never wanting to be an actual community, vatican II specifies we participate in the mass.(Church by the way means Community of people) I apologize, I meant to say that the form of mass( Tridentine mass) didn’t make sense. I guess since I was kind of mad at the time I didn’t realize what I wrote. Somethings though did change for a good reason after vatican II, we now have altar girls, able to recieve precious blood etc. The church used to think Jews, other christians were are enemies and condemmed many people(who did bad things) instead of trying to help them come back to Christ, then there was the mass of St.Pius V: the mass that looked so beautiful,holy and reverent but had no meaning whatsoever.
To say a Mass has no meaning, any Mass at all, shows you have no idea what the Mass is all about. I’d like to hear what you think the Mass means?
Those were all abuses. I think you need to read the GIRM as well as Redemptionis Sacramentum.
In all charity, Podo2004 likes to make a lot of unfounded assumptions about things and people. Just review some of the previous posts which either demean another person or seem to emptily refer to “recent church teachings” that never seem to be directly quoted. If he is reading the same Church documents that we are, then I suspect that somebody’s copy is missing a few key pages.
We all have lines that we do not like to see crossed. I, for example, do not like to see our mother, Mary compared to a harlot. I am also protective about my Lord, whom I receive in the Eucharist. If I am going to show Him the reverence due at Mass, am I going to fail to honor him here?