Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 04:51 PM'][. . .]

Does that mean that congregations can just arbitrarily change liturgies?  Of course not.  But while Truth does not change, we do continue to grow in our understanding of Truth.  The Holy Spirit is still at work.  The Church is still growing in her understanding.  This includes the liturgy. 

As I've stated, before something is accepted formally as a part of Tradition, it begins as tradition.
[right][snapback]615622[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Are you asserting that the local congregation has authority to make adaptations to the Rite of the Mass? If so, please supply the authoritative documents which support your contention.

The liturgy is not a private prayer of the priest, nor is it the prayer of any particular congregation in isolation from the universal Church; instead it is the prayer of the whole Church, and as such it is for the Supreme Magisterium, or as determined by law, the local Ordinary, to make adaptations to the rite. Moreover, adaptations to the rite should be made only for a good reasons, and again only by the proper ecclesiastical authorities.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 05:22 PM']I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  Feast of Corpus Christi  (para 160) - there is a procession outside the church . . . through the streets . . . but as presented in the Directory is after the Mass . . . I thought I had read some descriptions of the procession being before the Mass (perhaps here on PM?)

Advent procession (para 99) ??

Palm Sunday procession (at our parish, precedes the Mass) (para 139)

These processions take place outside the context of the Mass, but may be so closely related to it in the eyes of the participants that they appear as a portion, as it either precedes or follows the Mass proper .  .  .  which is why I asked if it could be equated with the prelude or postlude in the musical sense - as Cam noted in the music thread that the "strict" requirements of sacred music were not as applicable to the prelude and postlude (I think that was the "Silent Night composed for and played on the guitar" discussion)
[right][snapback]615652[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If the procession is a part of the liturgy of the Church, that is, if it is found within the Roman Missal, then it is not [i]per se[/i] a popular devotion, it is instead a liturgical action.

If it takes place outside of Mass, then it is not a part of the liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

The procession on Palm / Passion Sunday is contained within the Roman Missal (Sacramentary, pages 122-125), and various rites are prescribed in association with it, including certain liturgical prayers of the priest. Thus, it is a part of the rite of the Mass for that celebration, certainly it is not a vital or central element of the liturgy of that day, and so it can be dispensed with, but it is not purely a paraliturgical service. In this sense it is related to the opening procession of the Mass, which it replaces. In addition, there are other rubrics surrounding this liturgical action, including some which indicate when the action can or cannot be done.

The Roman Missal (Sacramentary, pages 348-349) gives no description of the procession of the Eucharistic Body of Jesus as a part of the Rite of the Mass for that day; therefore, that procession is a paraliturgical action, i.e., it is a devotional practice.

[journeyman]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:51 PM']This seems to infer that the sensus fidelium is a gift received only by the Magisterium.  To that I would disagree.  The gift can and usually is revealed to  the congregation.  It is then brought to the Magisterium for confirmation that this was truly revealed by the Holy Spirit. 

Does that mean that congregations can just arbitrarily change liturgies?  Of course not.  But while Truth does not change, we do continue to grow in our understanding of Truth.  The Holy Spirit is still at work.  The Church is still growing in her understanding.  This includes the liturgy. 

As I've stated, before something is accepted formally as a part of Tradition, it begins as tradition.
[right][snapback]615622[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Back to "hand holding" . . . I don't think it is going to qualify as sensus fidelium because there are a lot of people who don't find it appropriate. I personally think that actions within the rite should have some bearing on the language at that point in the rite . . . and the "communal" portion of the liturgy comes later with the sign of peace . . . but that's just me.

I've seen the practice in several churches - all in my diocese, but others have mentioned it also, so it is spread out - or spreading

As long as you have to ask for a head count, it isn't "universal" . . . if it spreads to the point that you have to ask the opposite . . . is anyone "NOT" doing it . . . then you've got universality, and as hot stuff notes, (little t) tradition.

Just as I don't think the Church in the Middle Ages required the less literate worshipers to pray the rosary during Mass (didn't understand Latin, were not allowed anywhere near the front, what else was there for the poor publican to do?) . . . , the practice started in the laity and the practice spread . . . today, the Church has to remind people that it is not appropriate to pray the rosary during the Mass (Cam touched on this in distinction between participation (activa vs actuosa?) . . . popular practice, expressly proscribed

like it says on the bumper stickers, stuff happens . . . sometimes it sticks and sometimes it spreads . . . when does stuff become tradition

(broke my own rule - I've got two questions going on the thread)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 05:47 PM']Back to "hand holding" . . . I don't think it is going to qualify as sensus fidelium because there are a lot of people who don't find it appropriate.  I personally think that actions within the rite should have some bearing on the language at that point in the rite . . . and the "communal" portion of the liturgy comes later with the sign of peace . . . but that's just me.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]615674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is irrelevant to the question of whether or not hand holding is permitted during the recitation of the Our Father.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 18 2005, 07:54 PM']The [i]sensus fidelium[/i] is irrelevant to the question of whether or not hand holding is permitted during the recitation of the Our Father.
[right][snapback]615678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

today, I agree - 40 years from now if it has spread to six continents and the bishops still haven't spoken - I wonder

[Jaime]

[quote]Are you asserting that the local congregation has authority to make adaptations to the Rite of the Mass? If so, please supply the authoritative documents which support your contention.[/quote]

Well now that's a tricky question. Its not a yes or no answer. You've already quoted where "with the permission of the bishop" there can be subtle changes. Can a congregation substitute the second reading with a native american prayer just because they want to? Of course not

Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that the liturgy is now free from growth? That there will be no more nuances or changes implemented ever?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:20 PM']Well now that's a tricky question.  Its not a yes or no answer. You've already quoted where "with the permission of the bishop" there can be subtle changes.  Can a congregation substitute the second reading with a native american prayer just because they want to?  Of course not
[right][snapback]615688[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Can they substitute a native American prayer for a reading with the approval of the bishop?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:20 PM']Let me pose a question to you.  Do you believe that the liturgy is now free from growth?  That there will be no more nuances or changes implemented ever?
[right][snapback]615688[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, what I am saying is that any adaptations made to the liturgy of the Roman Rite must be made by the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities, i.e., the diocesan bishop or the bishops conference, with the prior [i]recognitio[/i] of the Apostolic See.

Thus, local parishes are not free to just wing it and start doing whatever they feel is a good thing during the liturgy. As an example, suppose there is a congregation that wants to hold hands at a particular point during the liturgy, in such a situation the pastor of the parish should approach the bishop and express this vital need for an adaptation to the rite of the Mass, and then the bishop, after consulting the Holy See and receiving its [i]recognitio[/i], should issue a particular norm permitting that practice in his diocese.

[Jaime]

A bishop would never approve of that

Edited June 19, 2005 by jaime

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:17 PM']today, I agree - 40 years from now if it has spread to six continents and the bishops still haven't spoken - I wonder
[right][snapback]615686[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In the case you have proposed, If the legitimate authorities have not approved the practice, it follows that in 40 years you will have a liturgical abuse that has spread over six continents. A liturgical abuse does not become a custom properly so-called simply because it has been done for a long time with a wide geographic dispersion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:28 PM']A bishop would never approve of that
[right][snapback]615699[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was only giving a hypothetical example.

[Jaime]

[quote]No, what I am saying is that any adaptations made to the liturgy of the Roman Rite must be made by the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities, i.e., the diocesan bishop or the bishops conference, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See.
[/quote]

But Ap not one of these changes ever originate from legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. They are [i]recognized and officially introduced[/i] by these authorities. This is where sense of the faithful becomes a part of the conversation. The congregation, through the Holy Spirit, recognizes what is in harmony with the teachings of the faith.

That is my point. Tradition springs from tradition

[journeyman]

I think it depends on the issue. Our current bishop is the former bishop of Hawaii. It was important to the Catholics of Hawaiian ancestry that certain aspects of liturgical dance be permitted. Bishop DiLorenzo went to bat for his parishioners and did get the recognitio

Since I picked hand holding I guess I'm stuck with it . . . Has any bishop even asked? It's been around for at least 7 years in this parish, and I really don't think our little town is that innovative . . .

I have a sneaking suspicion the bishops don't think this is a "real" liturgical issue, so they don't tell the local parish to stop, and they don't ask Rome if it is ok

but for those who make such lists, it remains on lists of liturgical abuses

[journeyman]

ok, I'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch two guys who know what they're doing

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:38 PM'][. . .]

Since I picked hand holding I guess I'm stuck with it . . . Has any bishop even asked?  It's been around for at least 7 years in this parish, and I really don't think our little town is that innovative . . .

I have a sneaking suspicion the bishops don't think this is a "real" liturgical issue, so they don't tell the local parish to stop, and they don't ask Rome if it is ok

but for those who make such lists, it remains on lists of liturgical abuses
[right][snapback]615704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The bishops of the USCCB did discuss this problem at one of their general meetings, because I remember reading about it, but they did not request that the Holy See recognize holding hands during the Our Father as a legitimate liturgical practice. In fact the bishops discussed various ways of getting ride of the practice, even by trying to replace it with a more appropriate gesture (like the Orans posture), but they were ultimately unable to decide on what to do, and so the abuse continues because the bishops refuse to act like bishops.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 06:36 PM'][. . .]

That is my point.  Tradition springs from tradition
[right][snapback]615703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This view of Tradition ultimately would destroy Tradition. Tradition is something received not created. Certainly there can be developments within Tradition, but only over time, and not within a single generation. Abrupt changes harm the fabric of the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, and was not delivered several times over.

What you are proposing sounds more like the evolution of Tradition. There must always be a stable fixed element within the Tradition of the faith, or corruption is inevitable.

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps you mean that traditions (i.e., particular customs) spring from Tradition, and if that is the case, that is less problematic, but it still requires the guidance of the Magisterium of the Pastors in determining whether or not a practice is consonant with the faith of the Church as a whole.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 18 2005, 09:08 PM']Perhaps you mean that tradition (i.e., particular customs) spring from Tradition, and if that is the case, that is less problematic, but it still requires the guidance of the Magisterium of the Pastors in determining whether or not a practice is consonant with the faith of the Church as a whole.
[right][snapback]615736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No

Let me give you an example. The Council of Nicea in 325 officially declared that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus it was recognized to be Tradition. Was this the first time that this was revealed? No. This was when it was declared. The congregation believed this to be true and the Council discerned this to be Truth.

That is what I mean that Tradition springs forth from tradition.

And Ap, it is impossible to destroy Tradition.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 18 2005, 07:40 PM']No

Let me give you an example.  The Council of Nicea in 325 officially declared that Christ was both fully human and fully divine.  Thus it was recognized to be Tradition.  Was this the first time that this was revealed?  No.  This was when it was declared.  The congregation believed this to be true and the Council discerned this to be Truth. 

That is what I mean that Tradition springs forth from tradition.

And Ap, it is impossible to destroy Tradition.
[right][snapback]615771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, I see Nicaea as a dogmatic reaffirmation of the pre-existing Tradition. Thus, Nicaea itself is not "tradition," rather, it is a Council which formulated a dogmatic creed.

I am concerned that your view of Tradition admits of an evolution of doctrine that would be unacceptable. Dogmatic development properly understood is not an evolution of doctrine from one thing to another thing. Moreover, the particular customs surrounding the Mass are not [i]de fide[/i], only the substance of the sacramental rite is [i]de fide[/i]. Of course the sacraments all contain immutable and mutable elements, but nevertheless the sole organ that can make adaptations to the liturgy for pastoral reasons is the Magisterium of the Church. I stand by the general norms enunciated by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], and so far nothing you have said can overcome that conciliar statement of fact.