10 Most Common Liturgical Abuses

[japhy]

doncha think it’s a bit legalistic if we need to read other documents to interpret this document?

Well, when dealing with documents of law, it’s expected that you’lll be “legalistic”, I suppose.

But the point is that not every document is meant to be exhaustive. The GIRM is not exhaustive, but refers back to the Ceremonial of Bishops in places.

It’s not “legalistic”. It’s just logical.

 

[Newbie2]

OK. So now I think I understand what you’re saying. Apparently I misunderstood your posts to indicate that you thought the 1-hour fast was optional bases upon the use of the word “should.”

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that the fast is required, but the wording of the document is ambiguous because it leads the reader to believe that it’s optional when in fact it’s only optional in unusual circumstances which won’t apply to the vast majority of readers?

Am I on track now?

Yes, exactly.

I’m smiling right now because I’ve heard this exact argument in the military but between ‘shall’ and ‘will’: “shall” leaves no doubt but ‘will’ is not as strong. That just means that someone is willing to use a word to justify doing what he/she wants to do regardless of what the rules say. To me whether it says “You shall”, “You will” or “You must” it means “DO IT!” or “Do it THIS way” so, I do. Anything less is like dealing with a teenage son who thinks “No” is an acceptable response to “Would you empty the dishwasher please?”

LOL I never ask my teenage sons if they would do anything, otherwise I’d end up doing it myself.

Well, when dealing with documents of law, it’s expected that you’lll be “legalistic”, I suppose.

But the point is that not every document is meant to be exhaustive. The GIRM is not exhaustive, but refers back to the Ceremonial of Bishops in places.

It’s not “legalistic”. It’s just logical.

Perhaps legalistic isn’t the best term…it just seems to me that if someone needs to read one or more documents to understand another, the “another” could have been better written. But then, 99.9% of Catholics will never read any of the documents we’re discussing.

 

[japhy]

it just seems to me that if someone needs to read one or more documents to understand another, the “another” could have been better written.

The “another” was a condensation/compilation of existing laws, and yes, it was done with ambiguous language. The Church in the US is suffering from that lately. I don’t really have anything more to add.

 

[Ignatius]

I would like to call readers’ attention to an article right here on Catholic.com The title is “The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses and Why They’re Wrong.” By Kevin Orlin Johnson. It appeared originally in the January 1999 issue of the magazine “This Rock” published by Catholic Answers–the same Catholic Answers that sponsors these forums (and a thanks go out to them for their good work, by the way!)

It’s a very good read, and I highly recommend the article.

Here’s the link
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

Fr. I have a question. There is a great disparity in stance after the Pater Noster during the Agnus Dei up until procession to communion. About half of the congregation kneels and the other half stands. What is the correct posture during this period? Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Fr. I have a question. There is a great disparity in stance after the Pater Noster during the Agnus Dei up until procession to communion. About half of the congregation kneels and the other half stands. What is the correct posture during this period? Thank you.

The “correct” posture is indicated by the GIRM but ultimately determined by your diocesan Bishop.

 

[Phemie]

Fr. I have a question. There is a great disparity in stance after the Pater Noster during the Agnus Dei up until procession to communion. About half of the congregation kneels and the other half stands. What is the correct posture during this period? Thank you.

It all depends on where you go to Mass.

In the Latin GIRM the posture is standing. The adaptations for the US say kneeling unless the bishop decides otherwise.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. I have a question. There is a great disparity in stance after the Pater Noster during the Agnus Dei up until procession to communion. About half of the congregation kneels and the other half stands. What is the correct posture during this period? Thank you.

Here’s what the GIRM says:

43…In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer…The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.*

In other words, from the “Amen” until after the Agnus Dei, everyone is to stand–there are no variations on this. After the Agnus Dei, the default position is that the congregation kneels, “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” So if there’s no specific directive from the bishop, the posture is kneeling. If the bishop has directed some other posture, then the congregation is to follow that directive (and here, the bishop may even direct that people stand, sit, or kneel at their own discretion).
* Here's the part I excised: "except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration."

 

[FrDavid96]

The “correct” posture is indicated by the GIRM but ultimately determined by your diocesan Bishop.

That’s only partly right. The bishop can explain the rubrics, but he cannot change them. The bishop has been given the option to change the posture after the Agnus Dei, but not before it.

 

[diggerdomer]

That’s only partly right. The bishop can explain the rubrics, but he cannot change them. The bishop has been given the option to change the posture after the Agnus Dei, but not before it.

My point, as you noted regarding:

• Here’s the part I excised: “except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.”

is that it’s proper for the Bishop of a diocese to regulate/interpret/apply (whatever) the above i.e. when such reasons exist.

 

[pnewton]

My only criticism is that I can’t tell if these are numbered by frequency or importance. I have never seen number one (changing the words) yet it must be one of the more serious abuses. Whereas other things are considerably less important. I have seen differing opinions on the hand-holding thing even among CA staff and contributors and see both sides of the issue. Yet in the worse case, it is a minor issue compared to changing the words of consecration or allowing non-Catholics to receive communion. And the holy water font issue is technically not even part of the Mass as that takes place before or after Mass.

I like the information. I just question whether or not worrying about marginal issues detracts from some serious stuff that happens.

 

[zab]

My point, as you noted regarding:

• Here’s the part I excised: “except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.”

is that it’s proper for the Bishop of a diocese to regulate/interpret/apply (whatever) the above i.e. when such reasons exist./

 

[diggerdomer]

No, it says that in the USA, they should kneel except when prevented by reasons of health and so on. **Then **

 

[zab]

zab;5600844:

I know what it says.

So if you disagree with me, who determines the legitimacy of an “other good reason” that would preclude kneeling following the Sanctus? I suggest it’s the diocesan Bishop. You suggest whom?

Sorry,
I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

 

[zab]

Here’s what the GIRM says:
43…In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer…The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.*
In other words, from the “Amen” until after the Agnus Dei, everyone is to stand–there are no variations on this. After the Agnus Dei, the default position is that the congregation kneels, “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” So if there’s no specific directive from the bishop, the posture is kneeling. If the bishop has directed some other posture, then the congregation is to follow that directive (and here, the bishop may even direct that people stand, sit, or kneel at their own discretion).

• Here’s the part I excised: “except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.”

I’m in one of those diocese where the bishop has directed us to remain standing after the Agnus Dei. There are several people who kneel. I remain standing because that is what our bishop has directed. So I agree with what you have said, people should follow the directive of their bishop. But should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error? Just asking.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m in one of those diocese where the bishop has directed us to remain standing after the Agnus Dei. There are several people who kneel. I remain standing because that is what our bishop has directed. So I agree with what you have said, people should follow the directive of their bishop. But should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error? Just asking.

There are some differences.

First of all, the Holy See has very specifically said (by approving the GIRM) that the posture of the congregation after the Agnus Dei may be determined by the local bishop–if he says nothing, then all should kneel. So the local bishop does indeed have the authority to require a certain posture at this moment in the Mass because Rome has given him the authority to do this.

When it comes to receiving Communion either kneeling or standing, we must keep in mind that the universal norm is kneeling, but Rome granted recognition to a suggested adaptation by the USCCB under certain conditions. Here’s the quote from the CDWDS
“…this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.” Therefore Rome very specifically limited the bishop’s authority in this regard and for all practical purposes forbade either the conference of bishops or any individual bishop from requiring that communicants stand.

Also, I’m going to anticipate what some others might post with a general reminder about something:

Yes, Catholics should follow the directives of their pastors in liturgical matters, but that does not in any way mitigate the fact that pastors (whether parochial or the shepherd of the diocese) are only acting with legitimate authority when they are implementing the liturgical norms of the Church. Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.

There is legitimate authority on the one hand, and there is a false usurped authority on the other hand. We cannot fail to distinguish between the two.

 

[FrDavid96]

… But should this be treated the same as the reply from the CDWDS regarding people who kneel when receiveing Communion when the norm is to stand? Are they not to be regarded as doing anything in error? Just asking.

I missed that last question.

The Holy See has answered this one directly by saying
“Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”

So, of course, it is a given that the answer is no, they are “not to be regarded as doing anything in error.”

 

[zab]

There are some differences.

First of all, the Holy See has very specifically said (by approving the GIRM) that the posture of the congregation after the Agnus Dei may be determined by the local bishop–if he says nothing, then all should kneel. So the local bishop does indeed have the authority to require a certain posture at this moment in the Mass because Rome has given him the authority to do this.

When it comes to receiving Communion either kneeling or standing, we must keep in mind that the universal norm is kneeling, but Rome granted recognition to a suggested adaptation by the USCCB under certain conditions. Here’s the quote from the CDWDS
“…this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.” Therefore Rome very specifically limited the bishop’s authority in this regard and for all practical purposes forbade either the conference of bishops or any individual bishop from requiring that communicants stand.

Also, I’m going to anticipate what some others might post with a general reminder about something:

Yes, Catholics should follow the directives of their pastors in liturgical matters, but that does not in any way mitigate the fact that pastors (whether parochial or the shepherd of the diocese) are only acting with legitimate authority when they are implementing the liturgical norms of the Church. Someone who has no authority to make changes to the Mass likewise has no authority to either require or even so much as suggest that others make illicit changes to the Mass. If the directives are licit, then they should be obeyed. When directives are illicit, they should not be obeyed–because it is never morally right (and indeed is is always morally wrong) to disobey a higher authority who is competent to give a law (in this case, the Holy See) in favor of a lesser authority who is not competent to change that law, and indeed owes obedience to the higher authority.

There is legitimate authority on the one hand, and there is a false usurped authority on the other hand. We cannot fail to distinguish between the two.

Sometimes there is no question when a pastor’s or bishop’s directives are illicit. For example when we know what the directives are and we see that things are not being done they way they should be. But I am speaking of a specific directive- that the people are to kneel after the Agnus Dei “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” How are we, to know that the bishop is acting illicitly in this case? Do we not owe our bishop the same respect, not to accuse him of acting illicitly when he has been given the authority to rule otherwise?

We could also make the point that If people are kneeling out of respect and personal piety that is one thing. But if while kneeling they assume everyone else is not being as respectful as they and/or that the bishop was wrong to make this directive (when they have no knowledge to support that) then they are at fault. We do not know why some people kneel after the Agnus Dei any more than the average person in the pew knows why a bishop has ruled that we should remain standing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sometimes there is no question when a pastor’s or bishop’s directives are illicit. For example when we know what the directives are and we see that things are not being done they way they should be. But I am speaking of a specific directive- that the people are to kneel after the Agnus Dei “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.” How are we, to know that the bishop is acting illicitly in this case? Do we not owe our bishop the same respect, not to accuse him of acting illicitly when he has been given the authority to rule otherwise?

Well…I thought I already wrote about that part. Since the GIRM adaptations approved by Rome very specifically state that the bishop can determine the posture after the Agnus Dei, that means that if he does issue such a directive, it’s licit beyond any doubt. I thought that was what I said in the earlier post, so I’ll have to re-read them to make sure I didn’t say otherwise.

We could also make the point that If people are kneeling out of respect and personal piety that is one thing. But if while kneeling they assume everyone else is not being as respectful as they and/or that the bishop was wrong to make this directive (when they have no knowledge to support that) then they are at fault. We do not know why some people kneel after the Agnus Dei any more than the average person in the pew knows why a bishop has ruled that we should remain standing.

Right. Especially the part that we shouldn’t assume that someone who is kneeling is doing so out of disrespect or that some people think that the bishop is wrong for making that decision. People can have their own opinion on the matter, and they’re free to have a different opinion than the bishop, but that it not the same thing as saying that the bishop is wrong, or that his directive is illicit. Kneeling is a well-established form of Catholic piety. It’s a gesture of respect. So this isn’t like something else (like some other illicit gestures which I’ll leave unmentioned), which are not in harmony with the Church’s Tradition, and which contradict legitimate liturgical practices.

But one more thing: sometimes when the bishops issue such directives, they do provide their reasoning behind them–not always but sometimes. But whether we know the reason or not, it doesn’t change the fact that he can make the directive.

 

[zab]

Well…I thought I already wrote about that part. Since the GIRM adaptations approved by Rome very specifically state that the bishop can determine the posture after the Agnus Dei, that means that if he does issue such a directive, it’s licit beyond any doubt. I thought that was what I said in the earlier post, so I’ll have to re-read them to make sure I didn’t say otherwise.

Well, I* thought* that you did, too, that is until your post # 35 then it became a little confusing because I thought we were talking about a specific directive. It seemed that you were trying to say that if we knew the bishop was actly illicily by giving the directive to remain standing after the Agnus Dei that we did not need to obey. I was just wondering how we could possibly know what his reasons were if we were not told.
Or was it that you were trying to guess my motive for my question and you were trying to cover all the bases with what you thought that I may be thinking?

 

[zab]

Right. Especially the part that we shouldn’t assume that someone who is kneeling is doing so out of disrespect

Didn’t you mean standing?