Are lturgical documents prohibitive

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 19 2005, 09:49 AM']You may see it any way you choose to.  However the proclamation at Nicea was to quell the debate of Christ's nature  within the Church.  The Council officially recognized that Christ is and was  fully human and fully divine.  It officially declared this Truth and therefore, to be part of Tradition.
[right][snapback]616003[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Our understanding of the nature and purpose of dogmatic definitions is clearly different. I hold that a dogmatic definition (whether Papal or conciliar) does not teach anything new; instead, it merely confirms the already existing belief of the Church.

The faith of the Church cannot change in substance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 19 2005, 09:49 AM']For example, the use of the Unity Candle during a wedding.  This is a protestant practice that has been adopted into the wedding mass.  While the GIRM discourages the practice, it does not disallow it.   Is it disharmonious with the Faith? No.  But it  is (rightfully called) an unnecessary redundancy.  When does it occur?  When it has the approval of the local bishop.  But the unity candle was introduced to the wedding liturgy prior to it being addressed in the GIRM. 

Nothing in what I'm saying is in contradiction to Church teachings.  I am simply stating that laity play subordinate but active role in the sensus fidelium.
[right][snapback]616003[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As it says in Constitution [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u]: "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." [Vatican II, [u]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/u], part III, section 22, nos. 1-3; see also the Latin Rite [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], canon 846 § 1]

[Apotheoun]

What is often lost sight of in discussions of this kind, is the fact that the lay faithful have a right to the liturgy of the Church as it is prescribed by the Church in the liturgical books. Consequently, no man should have to suffer through the alterations and additions to the liturgy imposed upon him by either the parish priest or the local congregation, since neither the priest nor the local parish have the authority to change or omit anything in the liturgy. This type of disobedience to the Magisterium by certain individuals within the Church, which then imposes itself by its very nature upon other members of the lay faithful, whose only desire is to celebrate the liturgy of the Church as it is approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities, is reprehensible. The Divine Liturgy is not the private prayer of the priest or of the local congregation, and therefore no individual may arbitrarily take it upon himself to make changes in the public worship of the Church, which by its very nature affects everyone. This type of activity is imbued with a spirit that is contrary to the Catholic faith; and moreover, it clearly offends against the rights of the lay faithful to celebrate the liturgy of the Church as it is approved by the Magisterium.

[Cam42]

I am trying to stay out of this discussion, but this is a very important statement:

[quote name='Apotheoun']The Divine Liturgy is not the private prayer of the priest or of the local congregation, and therefore no individual may arbitrarily take it upon himself to make changes in the public worship of the Church, which by its very nature affects everyone.[/quote]

For those who are interested.......

[journeyman]

Cam, if it gets you in here, I'll start talking about the kazoo as a sacred instrument

I understand and agree that that changes in the liturgy of the Mass are, and should be, prescribed by the official teachings.

so, using this morning's Mass as an example (we had a baptism, so maybe that changes the order of things)

omitted the confiteor

and the gloria


the Creed was mixed in with the baptism

After the general intercession (where our prior priest inserted a Hail Mary - which I think he was doing in response to JPII request - can the Pope ask priests to change the liturgy?) (Year of Mary, and Year of the Eucharist?)

there was a litany of saints, which we haven't done regularly - but occasionally - just often enough to be embarassed when it turns into a litany and not a Hail Mary

somewhere around the Eucharistic prayer was language specifically including the phrase "women and men" which I don't remember hearing before
(but there are multiple Eucharistic prayers, so it might have been a version I'm just not familiar with)


I heard a blurb on ewtn (Raymond Aroyo) that they are considering taking the "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" language out of the liturgy as it is not "theologically" correct . . . if that isn't correct, what's wrong with it . . .

the latter, I presume will be in the form of instruction from Rome - the balance were just "differences" I noticed between this morning's visiting priest and and our former "regular visiting priest."

How much "difference" is permitted between presiders - from the quotes, I'd expect none - but every time we have a different priest (which is often, since we don't have one assigned), there are differences . . . if the clerics aren't going to conform to the GIRM, how can they get irate at the laity for introducing change

And how many of the changes are "accidents" (the pages of the lectionary stuck together) vs "on purpose" (I've never liked talking about sin, so I'm leaving it out)

[Cam42]

[quote name='journeyman']Cam, if it gets you in here, I'll start talking about the kazoo as a sacred instrument....[/quote]

I know what a hook is when I see it, no way....

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 19 2005, 01:19 PM']Our understanding of the nature and purpose of dogmatic definitions is clearly different.  I hold that a dogmatic definition (whether Papal or conciliar) does not teach anything new; instead, it merely confirms the already existing belief of the Church.

The faith of the Church cannot change in substance.
[right][snapback]616095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How is this different from what I'm saying? I'm not saying that the laity created or changed anything. I have said that the Council confirmed what was already true.

Where we differ in opinion is where this revelation originates. You claim that the Magisterium is the first to recognize the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit. I am stating that it is the laity that first recognizes it and it is the responsibility of the Magisterium to confirm this truth and proclaim it as part of Tradition.

And again for the third time (since you seem to constantly overlook this) I have never suggested that any adaptations occur without the consent of the bishop.

[Jaime]

Ap

Just answer this question for me.

When adaptations do occur and are proclaimed by the Magisterium,



Where do they learn of these adaptations?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 19 2005, 06:01 PM'][quote name='journeyman']Cam, if it gets you in here, I'll start talking about the kazoo as a sacred instrument....[/quote]

I know what a hook is when I see it, no way....
[right][snapback]616283[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


LOL

Why is Journeyman so interested in seeing us duke it out Camster?

That cracks me up.

[Cam42]

I don't know, I guess that he doesn't know that you and I agree almost exclusively about everything in the Church except guitars....Even the state of the Liturgy, as a whole.

Perhaps I need to make him an offer he can't refuse.

[journeyman]

cause I'm a sucker for people who know what they're talking about? The guitar debate is a good example - you had positions, you had documents - but you weren't convincing each other - and I learned a couple of things in spite of myself

Plus, I think this is the debate you should have been having, because it answers that question . . . and more . . .

I'm not in a position to debate, I don't know enough . . . I can ask a few leading questions now and again . . . but that's about it. I figured either one of you could take either position - and probably had somewhere in the past

It might not be as much fun as "el kabong" reruns - but just as dUSt figured you and Michael could debate a generally disallowed issue - I figured you and hot stuff could debate this one - with verve, with credibility, and with style (and I mean that)

Although I have to admit Apotheon is doing a good job of knocking my lobs out of the park

[Apotheoun]

Journeyman,

The way to determine whether a specific action is an abuse or not, is to look at the liturgical books.

Is what you described contained within the [u]Roman Missal[/u]? If it is, it follows that it is permitted; if it is not contained within the properly approved liturgical books, if it is instead something that the priest or the local parish has devised, it follows that it is a liturgical abuse.

This is not rocket science.

[Apotheoun]

The [u]Roman Missal[/u] is not a book of "suggested, but completely optional prayers" for the celebration of Mass, nor is the [u]Lectionary[/u] simply a book of "hints about what could be read" during the liturgy of the Word, and the [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] is not simply a book of "optional rules" for governing the Church. The Latin Rite will continue to experience problems until the desire for novelty in the Divine Liturgy, and in the life of the Church in general, is suppressed.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:08 PM']Journeyman,

<snip>

This is not rocket science.
[right][snapback]616504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is probably part of my problem - if it were rocket science there would be clearly objective ways of determining validity

A large part of Christ's ministry on earth seemed to be one of tossing rules out the window. From a purely personal standpoint, I have trouble placing emphasis on rules and rites - there is more to the Christian message than that.

At the same time, Jesus taught that the Old Testament laws were imperfect, because men were imperfect, and that his laws would be even more stringent (hating a man = killing a man).

It could be the real question is which aspect of the Trinity controls? The Old Testament "fire and brimstone" father; the New Testament "go and sin no more" son; or some other aspect?

I can see the theologians getting into a debate over phrasing in the Creed and/or liturgy, for instance stating we believe He is human; divine; both; semi; mostly; evenly split (those were topics for Nicea and Constantinople). . . but something like hand holding . . . I have trouble seeing Jesus getting upset over it . . . although I can see Paul likening it to meat in Corinth (or wherever he was and to be avoided for the benefit of those not as strong.

Like I said, I don't know enough to be asking these questions . . . but everytime I try to start reading something on philosophy or theology, my brain glazes over - small doses are good

Edited June 20, 2005 by journeyman

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:08 PM']Journeyman,

The way to determine whether a specific action is an abuse or not, is to look at the liturgical books.

Is what you described contained within the [u]Roman Missal[/u]?  If it is, it follows that it is permitted; if it is not contained within the properly approved liturgical books, if it is instead something that the priest or the local parish has devised, it follows that it is a liturgical abuse.

This is not rocket science.
[right][snapback]616504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ok Apotheon

You still have to answer my question.


When the Magisterium make adaptations to the Liturgy,

Where does the Magisterium find these adaptations?



Like you said... Its not rocket science.