Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Jan 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Carrie-529869 said: Please cite the rules. While it may be prudent to remove the blessed sacrament...
(Quote) Carrie-529869 said:

Please cite the rules. While it may be prudent to remove the blessed sacrament, I do not believe there is a "must" rule. There most certainly is NOT a rule against classical music concerts. This happens in many large cathedrals...one example being in the Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis, under the direction of a very orthodox and extremely "by the book" Archbishop Burke (now cardinal)/.

I'm not arguing with you and saying that pop concerts would be appropriate. I'm simply challenging the idea of saying "the rules say this" when no such rule exists.

--hide--

A few short minutes with google yielded the following: Go to this web site:

www.adoremus.org

This is a Document from the Congregation for Divine Mercy and the Discipline of the Sacraments: Protocol #125/87 dated 11/5/1987.

If you take the time to read it carefully you will see that it specifically says that any concert must contain only music which is sacred in nature and addresses classical music. In effect it says "Classical Music" whose purpose was sacred is allowed by not other classical music.

Your contention that no such rule exits is wrong.

Jan 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Carrie-529869 said: (Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Correction: dedicated, not consecrated...
(Quote) Carrie-529869 said:

Quote:
Jerry-74383 said:

Correction: dedicated, not consecrated. [The Eastern churches use the term 'consecration' with regard to churches; in the Latin church persons and things are 'consecrated', whereas places (e.g. churches and altars) are 'dedicated']

All Catholic churches are to be dedicated or blessed as soon as possible after construction (a church would be blessed instead of dedicated if it is intended to be used as such temporarily):

Can. 1214 The term church means a sacred building intended for divine worship, to which the faithful have right of access for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.

Can. 1217 §1 As soon as possible after completion of the building the new church is to be dedicated or at least blessed, following the laws of the sacred liturgy.

§2 Churches, especially cathedrals and parish churches, are to be dedicated by a solemn rite.



It's not a mere terminology difference. My understanding is that Consecration is used occasionally, but not often due to the headache of "unconsecrating" ground if it ever ceases to be a church in the future (possible parish closings, etc)

--hide--

First, getting back to my main point:

Churches are not just "a house"; they are places set aside for sacred worship. Thus, it is not reasonable to compare customs for social behavior at a party to the conflict between those attempting to engage in prayer and those engaging in secular social activity in a church.

Those who want to chat can simply relocate into the vestibule or outside the building. This is not a viable option for those who wish to pray before or after Mass for reasons that should be obvious. Thus, charity and common courtesy alone dictate that those engaged in social chatter be the ones to more elsewhere.

For reasons stated below, I can see no reasonable explanation for churches not being at least blessed; further, to not bless or dedicate a church prior to use would be a very serious breach of canon law.

The comments I provided above regarding the distinctions between consecration and dedication are from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. While I don't have convenient access to all of the liturgical books to perform exhaustive research on the question, I have not found anything to suggest the information is incorrect, although I did find some informal usage that appears to be using the term 'consecration' as a synonym for the solemn dedication mentioned in canon 1217 §2.

It appears the term 'consecration' was used in the pre-Vatican II rituals. I don't know if those same rituals also used the term 'dedication', either as a synonym for 'consecration' or for a different level of blessing. In both the old and new rituals a church may also be blessed rather than consecrated/dedicated, as explained above.

I have not yet found anything to suggest that the shift from using 'consecration' to 'dedication' when applied to a church was intended to be more than a change in terminology, but then I haven't found anything that explicitly states this, either.

A complicating factor in comparing the pre-Vatican II consecration ritual to the post-Vatican II solemn dedication ritual is that many of the post-Vatican II rituals, even where they retain the same or very similar name, are significantly less solemn than their predecessors. Thus, comparing them head-to-head may not necessarily clarify anything.

Climbing out of the semantic rat hole...

You first stated that "most catholic churches are not consecrated", then added in a subsequent post, "My understanding is that Consecration is used occasionally, but not often due to the headache of "unconsecrating" ground if it ever ceases to be a church in the future (possible parish closings, etc)"

Several points on these statements:

(a) While it can indeed be difficult to convert sacred places to profane use, much of the difficulty arises from the procedures for terminating the use of the building for sacred worship, not from rescinding the consecration, dedication, or blessing. The requirements that are responsible for the most difficulty in many cases are that the (arch)bishop must: (1) determine that there is a grave cause for doing so; (2) determine that the good of souls will not be harmed; and (3) obtain consent from those who may legitimately claim rights to the property.If the property is to be sold there are additional financial requirements that are not affected by whether the property is blessed. For a more detailed explanation, see www.jgray.org

(b) Church closings were not at all common until sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s, so it is unlikely that this concern would have been on anyone's radar screen before that. Obviously, the vast majority of churches would have been built and consecrated/dedicated/blessed before that time. Thus, even if these concerns have led to a change in practice with regard to consecration/dedication/blessing of churches, only a small portion of the churches in use would be affected. It is important to note that any such changes would very likely be a violation of canon law and, as explained in (a), would have little effect on expediting the disposition of the church should it be closed or sold in the future.


Jan 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Carrie-529869 said: this is a chicken and egg question. The difference in the liturgy, in my opnion, is NOT to blame...
(Quote) Carrie-529869 said:

this is a chicken and egg question. The difference in the liturgy, in my opnion, is NOT to blame for lack of faith. Rather, in the sexual revolution and loss in the understanding of human dignity, and acceptance of relativism.

--hide--

Lack of faith is only part of the problem; distorted faith is, I would say, an even bigger issue.

There are many theologians who disagree with your assertion that the liturgical changes have not had a significant negative impact on the faith of Catholics and much has been on this subject. In summary, lex orandi, lex credendi- the law of prayer is the law of belief.

Arguably, the decline in faith is responsible for much of the increase in immorality and relativism: if one embraces the Catholic faith they would reject the evils. On the other hand, the liturgy didn't change itself -- those responsible for the liturgical distortions had already been corrupted. All of this is the result of a long, initially slow decline that began with the so-called Enlightenment in the mid-17th century.

Jan 29th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: When the CIC 1983 came into force it only abrogated four things (Can. 6 §1):
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



When the CIC 1983 came into force it only abrogated four things (Can. 6 §1):

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

None of this applies to what I quoted in Liturgicae instaurationes. What I quoted was not from the CIC 1917, is not contrary to prescripts of the CIC 1983 (as it is merely a specification of what Can. 230 allows), is not penal law, and is not completely reordered in the CIC 1983.

Yes, apparently I've been using the wrong GIRM all these years and that's my own fault, but the knowledge of the traditional norm that women are barred from serving the priest at the altar is still in effect (not abrogated by CIC 1983) under the authority of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI, who commanded all who are concerned with it to observe it.

--hide--

None of the above addresses the possibility that Liturgicae instaurationes was explicitly abrogated or suppressed by some means other than the promulgation of the 1983 Code. As it turns out, this doesn't matter.

Note that LI 7 does not establish restrictions related to the presence of women in the sanctuary. With regard to altar servers, the first sentence explicitly expresses that it is restating existing norms; there is no indication of an intent to establish a norm. With regard to female lectors, LI 7 (a) does not even restate the norm, but refers to directions issued by the conference of bishops (presumably the GIRM).

Canon 230.2 of the 1983 Code reads:

§2 Lay people can receive a temporary assignment to the role of lector in liturgical actions. Likewise, all lay people can exercise the roles of commentator, cantor or other such, in accordance with the law.

There are two ambiguities pertinent to this discussion: (a) It is not explicitly stated that lay "people" includes women, and (b) altar servers are not explicitly mentioned. Both of these were clarified in 1994, when the CDW announced a decision by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts that (a) canon 230.2 applies to men and women, and (b) service at the altar is included in the liturgical functions covered by canon 230.2 (tinyurl.com )

Even if LI were still in effect at this time, clearly the restriction against female altar servers could no longer apply since it would conflict with the subsequent interpretation of the PCILT. While neither canon 230.2 nor the PCILT ruling address where female lectors should stand, the GIRM, which was the apparent source of that norm, has been modified to remove any distinction between male and female lectors.

In conclusion, the use of female altar servers is clearly permissible as decided by the PCILT. If you wish to argue that female lectors are not permitted in the sanctuary, first you will have to identify a source for this norm other than the old GIRM and establish that its authority is such that it supersedes the revision to GIRM 70 (now 101-103).

Jan 29th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Lack of faith is only part of the problem; distorted faith is, I would say, an even bigger issue.<...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Lack of faith is only part of the problem; distorted faith is, I would say, an even bigger issue.

There are many theologians who disagree with your assertion that the liturgical changes have not had a significant negative impact on the faith of Catholics and much has been on this subject. In summary, lex orandi, lex credendi- the law of prayer is the law of belief.

--hide--


In life we have to generalize occasionally and no generalization applies to all people. However, if there are people having a chat in my Church on a Sunday morning (and it does disturb me), a betting person would place a large bet on those people being there waiting for the next Mass (using a different liturgical style) rather than those remaining after the previous Mass. It is a matter of fact. The way we worship dictates how we act/behave in a Church and often how we accept Church teaching. Before my Sunday Mass, a Rosary is recited. It is another option to having a chat about what you did last week. We can speculate about which approach God prefers.


Jan 29th 2013 new
The solution is so obvious that it pains one to have to mentiin it; but it is the parish hall when available.
Jan 29th 2013 new

A priest from a parish I belonged to once asked before mass. How many people ever went to a birthday party, wedding, anniversary party etc and never said a word ?? He then stated that these are all "celebrations". He then stated and rightly so that we "Celebrate" mass every time we go. Sooo---given that we are at a "celebration" he asked us to visit, talk and laugh with each other before mass started and sing loud when it was going on. The mass he said was filled to overflowing every Sunday. Hummmm--maybe he hit on something....I also remember studying about the life of Jesus, and there were usually lots of crowds around Him, and He went to a few documented parties, and I really don't beleive that no-one said anything at these "affairs" or gatherings. Just something to think about.

Jan 30th 2013 new

(Quote) Curt-927424 said: A priest from a parish I belonged to once asked before mass. How many people ever went to a birthd...
(Quote) Curt-927424 said:

A priest from a parish I belonged to once asked before mass. How many people ever went to a birthday party, wedding, anniversary party etc and never said a word ?? He then stated that these are all "celebrations". He then stated and rightly so that we "Celebrate" mass every time we go. Sooo---given that we are at a "celebration" he asked us to visit, talk and laugh with each other before mass started and sing loud when it was going on. The mass he said was filled to overflowing every Sunday. Hummmm--maybe he hit on something....I also remember studying about the life of Jesus, and there were usually lots of crowds around Him, and He went to a few documented parties, and I really don't beleive that no-one said anything at these "affairs" or gatherings. Just something to think about.

--hide--


I once attended a Mass where the 2 priests con-celebrating made up the Mass as they went along, at Holy Communion distribution time they sat down to let the team of women distribute Communion and the sermon was about some "nothing" irrelevant topic as well. The Mass was full to the brim- is that a fair measure of right or wrong? Those priests may be leading their entire flock to a very unpleasant place (for those who believe in that place?).

The sacrifice on Calvary being a big party is way off the mark. Jesus did throw the traders in the temple out and he was pretty angry about it.

Jan 30th 2013 new

(Quote) Gabor-19025 said: One of the modern day issues that the Church is grappling with is acceptance of Catholic teaching ...
(Quote) Gabor-19025 said:

One of the modern day issues that the Church is grappling with is acceptance of Catholic teaching and belief in the Real Presence. The reasons for this are numerous and cannot be summarized in a paragraph or two.


Yesterday, I watched part of a speech on YouTube by a man who appeared to be well known in the USA (not by me but I googled him later) in a Church. His talk was fine and included discussion of the Real Presence. However, all the associated carry on, including encouraging his wife to stand up and receive a round of applause (for being his wife) made me think that while all this was going on that the theatrics were actually taking the focus away from the Church being the home of the Holy Eucharist. Is it appropriate to have concerts and other events in a Church and does that have an impact in dumbing down the belief in the Sacred Species being in the Tabernacle? Should we be having chats inside a church and generally acting casually or does Christ deserve better?

I can't stand wearing a suit but I am much more productive when I get dressed up and go to an office rather than work in the casual environment at home. Is nurturing our Faith similar?
The church space is a sacred space and I think that we should do all we can to keep it that way.





--hide--

Jan 30th 2013 new

(Quote) Loretta-678584 said:
(Quote) Loretta-678584 said:

--hide--
The church is a sacred space and I think that we need to do all we can to keep it that way

Posts 41 - 50 of 51