Oh dear, this is what I thought. Yes, please read the GIRM… that’s all we need is more GIRMsters… or gripesters
The Church has called for the liturgical and biblical formation of Her members. Many of us simply don’t receive any from our pastors (or anyone else, for that matter). As a result, we don’t know right from wrong (liturgically speaking), and it’s only once we “feel” something is wrong that we decide to take matters into our own hands. I have yet to figure out what your problem is with a person who wishes to address liturgical aberrations (especially when they deal with abuses to – and possible failure to confect – the Most Blessed Sacraments) in the proper way with the priest or pastor. It may not be important to you, but it is important to some of us.
They always miss or forget the whole local Bishop concept… perhaps we need a defintion of “general”.
Yes, I’d like to hear what people think the “General” in “General Instruction” means. I’ve heard some definitions in this thread, some of which seem appropriate to me and others which seems to miss the mark. To think that “General” modifies “Instruction” in such a way that “Instruction” is demoted to “Suggestion” is ridiculous. To think that the “General” Instruction is subordinate to a Bishop’s “specific” instruction is fallacious, unless that Bishop is only acting within his liturgical and legal boundaries. Whitaker’s Words gives this definition:
general, generic; {shared by/common to} a {class/kind}; of the nature of a thing.
For example, the GIRM says: “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America,
for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present)
the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary.” (154) (The Latin says
aliquibus paucis – a small few.) The “In the diocese of the United States…” clause is, first of all, an approved localization of this GIRM entry for the US, which means the Bishops Conference came up with it and Rome approved it. For a Bishop, then, to go
outside this decision and say that he and all the priests of his diocese may work their way through the nave of the church giving handshakes to anyone is
a liturgical abuse: it is outside the power and jurisdiction of that Bishop!
The General Instruction is not “General, unless the Bishop says otherwise”, it’s General unless further specified by the Bishop, to the extent which he has the power to specify. He cannot forbid reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, he cannot forbid people from bowing their heads before receiving Communion, he cannot introduce a new posture (except for the
Agnus Dei), he cannot forbid use of Latin or Gregorian Chant, he cannot allow EMHCs to take the places of priests and deacons during the distribution of Communion, he cannot even allow EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels instead of the priest or deacon!
He’s the
guardian of the liturgy in his diocese, not its master.
that’s all we need is more GIRMsters 
or gripesters 
perhaps we need a defintion of “general”. 
And I didn’t tell you to leave, anyway; I asked you not to “roll your eyes and chuckle and berate those who are concerned about abuses committed against the Most Blessed Sacrament and other desacralizations of the Mass” publicly in this forum. It’s just a request for courtesy.