GIRM and the local instruction?

[vince2paul]

Dear all,

according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) #43,

1. The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

However, recently the local Conference of the Catholic Bishops released a book, something like how-to celebrate/attend mass.

One point that I noted was the congregation must kneel from “I confess…” and stand for the Gloria. I talked to the priests about it and they said “it should be that way,” and one of them told me that “the rubrics are man-made, so we are not obligated to follow it.”

Honestly, I try not to sweat the small stuff. However, the past few weeks, there’s commentator telling us to kneel, stand, which is very annoying to me.

Which one should I follow?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Dear all,

according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) #43,

However, recently the local Conference of the Catholic Bishops released a book, something like how-to celebrate/attend mass.

One point that I noted was the congregation must kneel from “I confess…” and stand for the Gloria. I talked to the priests about it and they said “it should be that way,” and one of them told me that “the rubrics are man-made, so we are not obligated to follow it.”

Honestly, I try not to sweat the small stuff. However, the past few weeks, there’s commentator telling us to kneel, stand, which is very annoying to me.

Which one should I follow?

If it is a legitimately approved adaptaion by the local episcopal conference, then you should follow their instruction. Unless or until you may learn otherwise, I would presume the bishops are within their competence. :twocents:

I do not know enough about the conferences in Indonesia nor Singapore to speculate further (however, I believe they are separate conferences (but that would not preclude them from issuing similar adaptions)).

tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Dear all,

according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) #43,

However, recently the local Conference of the Catholic Bishops released a book, something like how-to celebrate/attend mass.

One point that I noted was the congregation must kneel from “I confess…” and stand for the Gloria. I talked to the priests about it and they said “it should be that way,” and one of them told me that “the rubrics are man-made, so we are not obligated to follow it.”

Honestly, I try not to sweat the small stuff. However, the past few weeks, there’s commentator telling us to kneel, stand, which is very annoying to me.

Which one should I follow?

That should read “the rubrics are man-made, and we **ARE **obligated to follow it.”

However the U.S. Bishops document must follow, and not add to, or subtract from, the GIRM. Unless the change is approved by Rome.

 

[DOShea]

That should read “the rubrics are man-made, and we ARE obligated to follow it.”

However the U.S. Bishops document must follow, and not add to, or subtract from, the GIRM. Unless the change is approved by Rome.

That is so, but the question is, where there appears conflict in sources of authority, which one do you follow? It is difficult as a matter of conscience to deal with these issues when following one rule puts you apart from the Holy Father, and following the other puts you apart from your Bishop. Sadly, It compounds the confusion when these conflicts are pointed out to our authorities and no clear message follows, or, even worse, one priest says follow A, another says follow B.

Surely there has to be a better process for issuing these kinds of changes.

 

[tee_eff_em]

That should read “the rubrics are man-made, and we **ARE **obligated to follow it.”

However the U.S. Bishops document must follow, and not add to, or subtract from, the GIRM. Unless the change is approved by Rome.

The OP profile indicates he is not in the US, and would have no business following the GIRM approved for the US. (unless he were travelling there)

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

That is so, but the question is, where there appears conflict in sources of authority, which one do you follow?

Is there a conflict, apparent or actual?

tee

 

[puppypatrol]

That is so, but the question is, where there appears conflict in sources of authority, which one do you follow? It is difficult as a matter of conscience to deal with these issues when following one rule puts you apart from the Holy Father, and following the other puts you apart from your Bishop. Sadly, It compounds the confusion when these conflicts are pointed out to our authorities and no clear message follows, or, even worse, one priest says follow A, another says follow B.

Surely there has to be a better process for issuing these kinds of changes.

Rome

They have the final say.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The OP profile indicates he is not in the US, and would have no business following the GIRM approved for the US. (unless he were travelling there)

tee

Ok strike the “U.S.” (I failed to notice the location of the OP) It still reads the same.

 

[japhy]

According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) #43…

Is that quote from the edition of the GIRM in use in Singapore? The Latin GIRM, in paragraph 43, says, after listing the normative Roman postures:
… Est tamen Conferentiae Episcoporum, gestus et corporis habitus in Ordine Missae descriptos ingenio et rationabilibus populorum traditionibus ad normam iuris aptare.

(My English translation: It is, nevertheless, for Conferences of Bishops to adapt the gestures and postures in the Order of Mass ordered to the ability and reasonable traditions of the people, according to the norm of law.)
The Latin GIRM, in paragraph 390, says:
Conferentiarum Episcoporum est aptationes definire et, actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis, in ipsum Missale introducere, quae in hac Institutione generali et in Ordine Missae indicantur, uti sunt fidelium gestus et corporis habitus (cf. supra, n. 43)…

(English GIRM translation: It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include the gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above)…)

However, recently the local Conference of the Catholic Bishops released a book, something like how-to celebrate/attend mass. One point that I noted was the congregation must kneel from “I confess…” and stand for the Gloria.

Assuming the Conference of Bishops had its adaptations approved by the Holy See, they are perfectly legitimate. I think you can assume them to be so approved and thus legitimate.

I talked to the priests about it and they said “it should be that way,” and one of them told me that “the rubrics are man-made, so we are not obligated to follow it.”

Any lawfully mandated rubric should be followed. The adaptations of your Bishops’ Conference are probably lawfully mandated. You should follow them with the assumption that they were approved by Rome. You can ask, but until you hear otherwise, assume they were approved.

 

[DOShea]

Rome

They have the final say.

Yes they do. That does nothing to alleviate a problem like this though, does it? A member of the faithful loyal to Rome and in opposition to his own Bishop. What is one supposed to do the next time the Bishop makes a decision - follow it in obedience or call Rome to check and make sure the Bishop is right or wrong on that decision also? It breeds doubt that leads to loss of confidence and that leads straight to loss of faith.

All I am trying to say is that when decisions are made that put people into this conflict, and they are pointed out, I believe there should be some kind of affirmative response either retracting the misinformation or modifying it to be in compliance.

Consider two scenarios:

1. Mom says you can go to the movies. Dad says you can’t. How does the child honor his mother AND father, as commanded? You see the conflict? You see who is imposing that conflict? Who should fix it?
2. A child is sitting in CCD and the teacher says, “there are 4 people in the Trinity.” The Pastor, also in the room, says “No, that’s incorrect, there are only 3 in the Trinity.” Every child in the room knows who has the higher authority in that situation. Does the teacher have an obligation to say, “The Pastor is correct, I was wrong,” or should the teacher just plow right ahead without any attempt to reconcile the apparent separation of teaching? If they do not, what effect does it have on the child’s ability to accept teaching whenever the Pastor doesn’t happen to be in the room?

 

[StillWondering]

Yes they do. That does nothing to alleviate a problem like this though, does it? A member of the faithful loyal to Rome and in opposition to his own Bishop. What is one supposed to do the next time the Bishop makes a decision - follow it in obedience or call Rome to check and make sure the Bishop is right or wrong on that decision also? It breeds doubt that leads to loss of confidence and that leads straight to loss of faith.

All I am trying to say is that when decisions are made that put people into this conflict, and they are pointed out, I believe there should be some kind of affirmative response either retracting the misinformation or modifying it to be in compliance.

Consider two scenarios:

1. Mom says you can go to the movies. Dad says you can’t. How does the child honor his mother AND father, as commanded? You see the conflict? You see who is imposing that conflict? Who should fix it?
2. A child is sitting in CCD and the teacher says, “there are 4 people in the Trinity.” The Pastor, also in the room, says “No, that’s incorrect, there are only 3 in the Trinity.” Every child in the room knows who has the higher authority in that situation. Does the teacher have an obligation to say, “The Pastor is correct, I was wrong,” or should the teacher just plow right ahead without any attempt to reconcile the apparent separation of teaching? If they do not, what effect does it have on the child’s ability to accept teaching whenever the Pastor doesn’t happen to be in the room?

I like the analogy. I remembered when there was a change in the parish I attended, the priest wanted to make sure there was no confusion as to why there is a change and whether it is properly done. He went to each Mass that week and made announcements as well as talked to leaders within the parish directly so they can correct those they see as needed. So hopefully something similar is done at the parish of the OP and if not maybe a suggestion could be made to clarify the situation from the pastor’s office. Just like in some homes parents are great at communicating to both each other and their children different points of view and the final decision, some parishes do a great job at pastoral care for their members. I would not call it a right that the laity have wonderful care but if something is missing, I would guess bring it up.

The only thing is some pastors are bad at pastoral care and even worst at listening to concerns and comments that are not complaints from the laity. I hope they won’t stay that way though since we are all humans after all.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes they do. That does nothing to alleviate a problem like this though, does it? A member of the faithful loyal to Rome and in opposition to his own Bishop. What is one supposed to do the next time the Bishop makes a decision - follow it in obedience or call Rome to check and make sure the Bishop is right or wrong on that decision also? It breeds doubt that leads to loss of confidence and that leads straight to loss of faith.

All I am trying to say is that when decisions are made that put people into this conflict, and they are pointed out, I believe there should be some kind of affirmative response either retracting the misinformation or modifying it to be in compliance.

Consider two scenarios:

1. Mom says you can go to the movies. Dad says you can’t. How does the child honor his mother AND father, as commanded? You see the conflict? You see who is imposing that conflict? Who should fix it?
2. A child is sitting in CCD and the teacher says, “there are 4 people in the Trinity.” The Pastor, also in the room, says “No, that’s incorrect, there are only 3 in the Trinity.” Every child in the room knows who has the higher authority in that situation. Does the teacher have an obligation to say, “The Pastor is correct, I was wrong,” or should the teacher just plow right ahead without any attempt to reconcile the apparent separation of teaching? If they do not, what effect does it have on the child’s ability to accept teaching whenever the Pastor doesn’t happen to be in the room?

1. Mom didn’t say you had to go to the movies, only that you could. Dad said you can’t therefore you can’t!

 

[otjm]

Yes they do. That does nothing to alleviate a problem like this though, does it? A member of the faithful loyal to Rome and in opposition to his own Bishop. What is one supposed to do the next time the Bishop makes a decision - follow it in obedience or call Rome to check and make sure the Bishop is right or wrong on that decision also? It breeds doubt that leads to loss of confidence and that leads straight to loss of faith.

Where Rome grants the bishop authority, not following the bishop is not following Rome. One cannot “follow Rome” by doing other than what the bishop directs (that is, doing what Rome suggests overall, or specifically) when Rome has, in that rule, said that the bishop has the perogative of determining otherwise.

All I am trying to say is that when decisions are made that put people into this conflict, and they are pointed out, I believe there should be some kind of affirmative response either retracting the misinformation or modifying it to be in compliance.

A lot of the problem is made by those doing the questioning. And they start with the unspoken premise that a bishop is not much more than a mid-level manager following trhe directions of the CEO. They fail to acknowledge that the bishop is a direct decendant of the Apostles, and while Peter may have been the head, they, too had “Apostolic Authority”. In short, too many people treat the bishop as if he has no authority except what Rome may give him in a very limited way.

It is further presumed that each and every rule and law is absolute, of equal value and dignity, and that Rome is the law-giver and the bishop the law-follower. Rome has preemptive rights in making law, but the laws are not as absolute and all encompassing as some seem to presume.

A minor example: the GIRM at one point said in effect that people stood for Communion; it was written in such a way that it was being interpreted that after you received and returned to your pew, you had to remain standing until all else had received. Cardinal Archbishop George wrote to Rome asking clarification; Rome’s response was that one could sit or kneel after returning to the pew and before all else had received, and made a further comment that they did not intend the rule to be read that strictly.

That does not say that there are no strict rules; it does say that some view any rule as strict and absolute. They are not all so.

Consider two scenarios:

1. Mom says you can go to the movies. Dad says you can’t. How does the child honor his mother AND father, as commanded? You see the conflict? You see who is imposing that conflict? Who should fix it?

The two of them should get their act straight; they obviously did not communicate about the issue. And consider another scenario: Mom says you an go to movies and Dad says you can’t go to this one. Conflict? None whatsoever.

1. A child is sitting in CCD and the teacher says, “there are 4 people in the Trinity.” The Pastor, also in the room, says “No, that’s incorrect, there are only 3 in the Trinity.” Every child in the room knows who has the higher authority in that situation. Does the teacher have an obligation to say, “The Pastor is correct, I was wrong,” or should the teacher just plow right ahead without any attempt to reconcile the apparent separation of teaching? If they do not, what effect does it have on the child’s ability to accept teaching whenever the Pastor doesn’t happen to be in the room?

Not a praticularly relevant question. It might be more polite to say “Thank you, Father” but it also may be that the teacher is short on time, accepted the correction, and is trying to get the rest of the material out.

 

[Ockham]

A lot of the problem is made by those doing the questioning. And they start with the unspoken premise that a bishop is not much more than a mid-level manager following trhe directions of the CEO. They fail to acknowledge that the bishop is a direct decendant of the Apostles, and while Peter may have been the head, they, too had “Apostolic Authority”. In short, too many people treat the bishop as if he has no authority except what Rome may give him in a very limited way.

What happens when a bishop or even their council acts against the teachings of the Church? If a middle manager acted against the best interests of the company he/she would be terminated. When bishops sold indulgences to pay for St. Peter’s it partly caused the Reformation. When bishops transfered pedophile priests from one dioces to another it created the greatest scandal our Church has endured. When cardinals [edited] take the liturgy as their personal toy it reduces the Holy Mass to a carnival. Our first obedience is to Christ, then the Vatican, then the local bishop assuming he is acting like a Catholic bishop. The four marks of Chirst’s Church are: one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic. If we act like independent entities under one ambiguous commonality then we’re no better than the Protestants.

 

[5Loaves]

I so wish here in the US our Diocese websites would have a section with clarification for things like:
GIRM 43 In the dioceses of the United States of America… The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

We’ve had a new bishop since May and I notice now at the Cathedral almost no one is kneeling. In the past at least when the Bishop was celebrating we knelt. In my home parish it’s been few kneeling all along.

I was visiting another area last weekend and on Friday in one parish they knelt and Sat. next town over, same priest same diocese, most didn’t.

 

[otjm]

What happens when a bishop or even their council acts against the teachings of the Church? If a middle manager acted against the best interests of the company he/she would be terminated. When bishops sold indulgences to pay for St. Peter’s it partly caused the Reformation. When bishops transfered pedophile priests from one dioces to another it created the greatest scandal our Church has endured. When cardinals [edited] take the liturgy as their personal toy it reduces the Holy Mass to a carnival. Our first obedience is to Christ, then the Vatican, then the local bishop assuming he is acting like a Catholic bishop. The four marks of Chirst’s Church are: one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic. If we act like independent entities under one ambiguous commonality then we’re no better than the Protestants.

One first, before presuming that the bishop is acting contrary to the Church, needs to actually determine that. My comments were to the repeated assertions that start with the presumption that all bishops act [edited] [improperly].

But to answer the question, one needs to first go through the proper channels, as Rome will not respond if they get an inkling that the bishop is being bypassed, even when he is wrong.

One of the doceses in the midwest to east (ok, somwhere the other side of the Rockies) had an egregious problem. The people who took up the issue did so in a far more intelligent and organized manner than most do. They made a very thorough analysis of the issue and then made a very thorough paper trail of their process of requesting relief. They then proceeded to Rome because of no satisfaction whatsoever, and they did so with videos.

That got a response from Rome.

John Paul 2 was not a good disciplinarian, and I think he even admitted that. It was not that he did not care; but in part he wanted to lead, rather than shove people; and part of it was that he had a very different perspective sitting in Rome after having lived in Poland, than did those who live, say, in Seattle, or L.A all their lives.

I have not seen a lot of public disciplinary actions by Benedict 16, and his style seems to not be to go public, but he is moving to more forcefully address issues (RS as an example).

And the very bottom line is that Rome has not been, is not now, and will not in the future be a micro manager of each diocese, let alone each parish. Which means that it will be up to the bishops to clean up the mess; and that means that some of the messes will not be cleaned up until certain bishops either retire or die. And perhaps not quickly after that. We had one bishop retire recently; in reading about it it sounded as if he was on track technically, on track in his understanding of the law, but was a public relations disaster and seemingly lacking in leadership; in other words it sounded as if he could not lead but rather stirred things up. Going in and “house cleaning” while it may fit our sense of the way things should go, is not going to affect the changes we want. Priests are not going to be jerked out of parishes for much less than really really egregious acts (lack of control of funds, sexual abuse, gross drug or alcohol abuse, or extremely flagrant abuses of doctrinal matters or rubrics). And the latter two issues are more likely to be resolved by retirement or death than removal. And that is pretty much the way it is.

A bishops’ council acts publicly; that is, it is not as if Rome is not going to hear of it; and Rome will eventually bring them around. And if Rome does not act, then it is most often a misperception on the part of observers that the council is acting against the teachings of the Church. But the presumption is too often made that Rome is not acting; it is far more likely that Rome is more discrete in how it acts and doesn’t see the need to deal with it publicly.

I have said something elsewhere and people have not wanted to hear what I say. There are two general philosophical approaches to law: the northern or germanic and the southern, or mediterranian. Neither are absolutes, but they are ways of looking at law. The germanic approach is that what is not permitted is forbidden; the southern is what is not forbidden is permitted. The former is often categorized as anal, for lack of a better term; the latter could get the psychological term “oral”.

In spite of the fact that we have a germanic Pope, the center of the Church is in Rome, and that creates a certain somewhat pervasive approach to things. Rome does not get as upset about issues as people in the US do. They are not as rule oriented as we are. It has been said that in Europe (including the germanic areas to some extent), when Rome speaks they all assent; then they go off and do as they will. In the US, there is much more loud discussion, but when the discussion is over, we obey very well.

And yes, I am quite aware of the liberal element in the Church in the US; but there are far fewer hard core liberals than is most often stated. Most people are in the middle, waiting to find out what direction everyone else (that is, the two ends) is going.