Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

error: Post not found!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

After a couple years of pondering, I've come to the tenative conclusion that under the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi conscious liturgical abuse is basically the same as and should be addressed with the same alacrity and severity as public declaration of heresy. I'm looking for input and discussion on both sides of this if possible to facilitate further crystalization of this issue in my head. Thanks for the input.

Oct 4th 2012 new

It depends what you mean by liturgical abuse. Nothing irritates me more than a deliberately bad liturgy. But not every instance of this rises to the level of abuse. Moreover, why the emphasis on punishment? I used to rail against this sort of thing, now I've found a way to greatly benefit by it. When, for example, our Lord is left unattende don the altar during a long and ridiculous sign of peace, I stare at the chalice and paten and speak to Jesus, saying "You're not alone sweet Lord, I'm here and I love you. I'm sorry for all the times I've profaned you or acted indifferently in your presence. Please accept my love in reparation for those times and for what's happening now. You are not alone. I'm here with you and I love you." I used to get angry and even leave when it was really bad. Now I derive the greatest spiritual benefit from consoling and loving our Lord in a bad or indifferent liturgy. Use this opportunity to love God more and more.

One other thing. It's not the NO Mass which caused this sort of abuse. Read old sermons and pre-Vatican II magazines. You'll see that this was a problem even when the Tridentine Mass was being said. It's just human nature.


In one of Christ's parables of the sower, he said that after the farmer sowed good seed, the enemy sowed bad seed and weeds came up with the wheat. His servants asked whether they should remove the weeds and the master said to let them remain until the harvesyt and separate them then. So the Church will always have good as well as bad within it. We are called to holiness - not to police action. Love God even more intensely during a bad or abusive liturgy and much good will come of it.

Oct 4th 2012 new

David, thanks for the input. I guess I do need to clarify a few things. First, by concious liturgical abuse I mean the concious and willful violation of the rubrics, GIRM, or any other document applying to proper liturgy. Second,I am not really looking at the punishment side of things; when I said that it should be addressed with the same alacrity and severity as public declaration of heresy I was talking about the response time and level of the local ordinary in correcting it. Third, this whole topic has nothing to do with my disposition in Mass. I'm wrestling with this as a potential future thesis topic. Thanks again.

Oct 4th 2012 new

Ah. Now I understand. Still, you might try the interior exercises I described. Doing that I've begun to get more spiritual benefit from a poorly done Mass than a good one.

Oct 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said: After a couple years of pondering, I've come to the tenative conclusion that under the pri...
(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said:

After a couple years of pondering, I've come to the tenative conclusion that under the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi conscious liturgical abuse is basically the same as and should be addressed with the same alacrity and severity as public declaration of heresy. I'm looking for input and discussion on both sides of this if possible to facilitate further crystalization of this issue in my head. Thanks for the input.

--hide--


If this is for a thesis, then you will need a smoking gun. If not it official documents from the Church, then at least in iron clad logic. Not knowing of any documents that talk of the equating weight between heresy and willful abuse of the liturgy by priests, the next step would be that of logic. By what means are the two equal?

Oct 4th 2012 new

John, my understanding is that the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi (The Law of Prayer is the Law of Faith) equates the Liturgy, the highest and most perfect prayer, with a complete profession of the Faith.This principle is expouded clearly in CCC 1124. Taking this one step further, intentional violations of the Liturgy correspond with intentional violations of the Faith, in other words heresies.

Oct 5th 2012 new

(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said: John, my understanding is that the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi (The Law of Prayer is ...
(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said:

John, my understanding is that the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi (The Law of Prayer is the Law of Faith) equates the Liturgy, the highest and most perfect prayer, with a complete profession of the Faith.This principle is expouded clearly in CCC 1124. Taking this one step further, intentional violations of the Liturgy correspond with intentional violations of the Faith, in other words heresies.

--hide--
Geoffry,

To some degree, you are correct about Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. For example, when the Anglican body as a whole stated that they no longer believed in transubstantiation, but rather only in consubstantiation, then the Church formally declared that they lost apostolic succession. In that action, it is very clear that the lack of believe on the part of Anglicans directly corresponded to their ability to have valid holy orders (illicit though they may have been).

However, the Church tends to move very slowly in the areas of liturgy, let alone making formal statements on matters of discipline, such as calling out heresies, schisms and excommunications. Consider the 2004 document on liturgical abuses, Redemptionis Sacramentum. I've read through it a few times and while it clearly called a spade a spade in regards to liturgical abuses and their effect on the validity of the mass and the practice of faith of the faithful, nowhere did it equate purposeful changes to the mass by priests and bishops with that of heresy.

Also important to consider is that some liturgical abuses are worse than others. For example, if a priest initiates hand holding at the Our Father, it would certainly be inappropriate and take away from the faithful's ability to participate fully in the Mass. However, it would not invalidate the Mass. But, if a priest decided to change the words of consecration so that the words, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are never uttered ... that would invalidate the mass.

It seems to me that liturgical abuses are more the symptoms and not the disease.

Oct 5th 2012 new

(Quote) John-43975 said: Geoffry,To some degree, you are correct about Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. For example, when th...
(Quote) John-43975 said:

Geoffry,

To some degree, you are correct about Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. For example, when the Anglican body as a whole stated that they no longer believed in transubstantiation, but rather only in consubstantiation, then the Church formally declared that they lost apostolic succession. In that action, it is very clear that the lack of believe on the part of Anglicans directly corresponded to their ability to have valid holy orders (illicit though they may have been).

However, the Church tends to move very slowly in the areas of liturgy, let alone making formal statements on matters of discipline, such as calling out heresies, schisms and excommunications. Consider the 2004 document on liturgical abuses, Redemptionis Sacramentum. I've read through it a few times and while it clearly called a spade a spade in regards to liturgical abuses and their effect on the validity of the mass and the practice of faith of the faithful, nowhere did it equate purposeful changes to the mass by priests and bishops with that of heresy.

Also important to consider is that some liturgical abuses are worse than others. For example, if a priest initiates hand holding at the Our Father, it would certainly be inappropriate and take away from the faithful's ability to participate fully in the Mass. However, it would not invalidate the Mass. But, if a priest decided to change the words of consecration so that the words, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are never uttered ... that would invalidate the mass.

It seems to me that liturgical abuses are more the symptoms and not the disease.

--hide--


John,


I'm going to go logician here real quick. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi is formulated in much the same way as an iff (no the second f is not a typo), or if and only if, statement. It cannot be looked at as simply an if-then primarily because of the example you cite. If it was simply an if-then the Church would be guilty of the fallacy of denying the consequent falsifying their statement and we know that this cannot be so. We are left with the iff status. This means whatever affects one side of the equation will have a direct effect on the other. I actually theorize that the decrease in the number of Catholics who hold to the teaching of the Real Presence is directly correlated to the increase in liturgical abuses and vice versa, and that these two issues will continue to feed off of each other until something happens to break the cycle.


Once again, this whole discussion is not moving in any way toward practical application, but only toward academic.

Oct 5th 2012 new

(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said: (Quote) John-43975 said: Geoffry,To some degree, you are correc...
(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said:

Quote:
John-43975 said:

Geoffry,

To some degree, you are correct about Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. For example, when the Anglican body as a whole stated that they no longer believed in transubstantiation, but rather only in consubstantiation, then the Church formally declared that they lost apostolic succession. In that action, it is very clear that the lack of believe on the part of Anglicans directly corresponded to their ability to have valid holy orders (illicit though they may have been).

However, the Church tends to move very slowly in the areas of liturgy, let alone making formal statements on matters of discipline, such as calling out heresies, schisms and excommunications. Consider the 2004 document on liturgical abuses, Redemptionis Sacramentum. I've read through it a few times and while it clearly called a spade a spade in regards to liturgical abuses and their effect on the validity of the mass and the practice of faith of the faithful, nowhere did it equate purposeful changes to the mass by priests and bishops with that of heresy.

Also important to consider is that some liturgical abuses are worse than others. For example, if a priest initiates hand holding at the Our Father, it would certainly be inappropriate and take away from the faithful's ability to participate fully in the Mass. However, it would not invalidate the Mass. But, if a priest decided to change the words of consecration so that the words, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are never uttered ... that would invalidate the mass.

It seems to me that liturgical abuses are more the symptoms and not the disease.



John,


I'm going to go logician here real quick. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi is formulated in much the same way as an iff (no the second f is not a typo), or if and only if, statement. It cannot be looked at as simply an if-then primarily because of the example you cite. If it was simply an if-then the Church would be guilty of the fallacy of denying the consequent falsifying their statement and we know that this cannot be so. We are left with the iff status. This means whatever affects one side of the equation will have a direct effect on the other. I actually theorize that the decrease in the number of Catholics who hold to the teaching of the Real Presence is directly correlated to the increase in liturgical abuses and vice versa, and that these two issues will continue to feed off of each other until something happens to break the cycle.


Once again, this whole discussion is not moving in any way toward practical application, but only toward academic.

--hide--


Geoffrey,

I'm in agreement with you that there is a direct correlation between the increase in liturgical abuses and the lack of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence. However, I would still be reluctant to classify all willful liturgical abuses under the same category as heresy. The abuses may be symptomatic of heresy, for sure. But the weight of the two is not necessarily the same. Your idea of a balanced side of the equation is on the right path, but it is not considering all factors (i.e., how badly the abuse affects the validity/licitness of the Mass).

I'd venture that almost 2000 years of brilliant minds in the Church would have given equal weight to heresies and liturgical abuses by now if it could be proven logically, but none have. Not Augustine, nor Aquinas, nor any others. Now, it could be that liturgical abuses were not so common in their day so they didn't have to address it much. Or, it could be that the smoking gun is not available ... or ... perhaps it has not yet been fully explored, no? There isn't anything new in the Church's teachings, but there sure is room for development.

So, don't let any of my musings distract you. I think it's a worthwhile project to consider the damages that liturgical abuse has done to the faithful. At best, you pave new ground by developing further Catholic teaching. At worst, you gain a greater understanding of Church teaching.

Keep us posted on the project.

Oct 7th 2012 new

(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said: John, my understanding is that the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi (The Law of Prayer is ...
(Quote) Geoffrey-901219 said:

John, my understanding is that the principle of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi (The Law of Prayer is the Law of Faith) equates the Liturgy, the highest and most perfect prayer, with a complete profession of the Faith.This principle is expouded clearly in CCC 1124. Taking this one step further, intentional violations of the Liturgy correspond with intentional violations of the Faith, in other words heresies.

--hide--

I think that your logic fails due to faulty premise. While, as St. Thomas teaches, the degree of evil of sin can depend upon the perspective one takes, I think that the perspective may be skewed here due to the faulty premise. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" is not translated correctly: the law of prayer is the law of belief (legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi : the law of our belief is indicated by the law of our worship). It is not the law of faith as you've rendered it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also confuses this issue in the correlating statement (in 1124) "Lex orationis est lex fidei" which doesn't follow either the preceding or following propositions logically.

Even Dei Verbum #8 which is given as a citation does not make the equation of faith and belief (since they're not the same thing, anyway).

To abuse the liturgy is a gravely wrong action, there's no doubt of that, but I personally would not equate it to the evil of heresy. I would rather say that the current general state of vernacular liturgy in the USA reflects the sin of heresy already committed.

Posts 1 - 10 of 22