If there are liturgical abuses at your parish are you bound, knowing it's wrong, to change?

[Jessie]

Ha ha. This is my new, Spiritual Home it is a taste of heaven on earth. Beatiful church, amazing priests, very reverential. If anyone ever comes to Munich, come to the Damenstiftskirche! It is a joy, a privilege and a blessing to be able to attend Holy Mass there. Only now can I understand the teaching that ‘The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life.’

 

[1ke]

I think with your friend you just share the slow awakening you had being exposed to other liturgies and coming to understand the true nature of what’s going on in that parish.

You let her know if she ever wants to go with you to another parish she’s welcome to.

To answer your other question, whatever sin there is in that parish it is on the priests. It is not a sin for your friend to attend the mass there.

 

[Jessie]

Thank you very much. And for her to participate in the distribution of Holy Communion in this manner?

 

[1ke]

And for her to participate in the distribution of Holy Communion in this manner?

I already answered your question: it’s not a sin.

I agree with you, I wouldn’t keep participating as an extraordinary minister, but if she does she isn’t sinning.

 

[Jen95]

But once she knows better, is it sinning?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m not too sure you’re under any obligation to explain why you just stopped coming. If they ask, then tell.

You’re correct, there’s no obligation to explain yourself to anybody. Even if they ask, it would be fine to just say “it’s a private matter” if you’re not comfortable explaining.

 

[1ke]

But once she knows better, is it sinning?

I already answered the question, twice: no.

 

[Jen95]

But I am asking a different question that you didn’t answer: once your friend knows that the way of distributing communion is a true liturgical abuse, and she participates in the liturgical abuse, wouldn’t she be sinning?
I mean, mainly the sin would be the responsibility of the priest, but why wouldn’t it be a sin for everyone participating, once they know better?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

once your friend knows that the way of distributing communion is a true liturgical abuse, and she participates in the liturgical abuse, wouldn’t she be sinning?

The only sin would be a sin against one’s own conscience - if that person felt that they were doing something wrong whether or not that particular something was actually wrong or not.

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

once your friend knows that the way of distributing communion is a true liturgical abuse, and she participates in the liturgical abuse, wouldn’t she be sinning?

The only sin would be a sin against one’s own conscience - if that person felt that they were doing something wrong whether or not that particular something was actually wrong or not.

So the rubrics don’t matter? At all?

 

[1ke]

once your friend knows that the way of distributing communion is a true liturgical abuse, and she participates in the liturgical abuse, wouldn’t she be sinning?

I answered it: no.

The priest is the chief liturgist at his parish, and the celebrant is in charge. Deviations from the GIRM aren’t sins, per se. Those who are following serving should the priest’s directions in that mass.

 

[1ke]

So the rubrics don’t matter? At all?

These are matters of ecclesial authority, and it is the priest who is accountable. Lay people are not in that chain of command.

The rubrics matter, but it isn’t a sin to follow the direction of the priest at mass as he is the lawful authority.

The priest OTOH, has a accountability when it comes to his responsibility vis-a-vis the authority of the bishops and Holy See and the rubrics.

 

[tafan2]

The priest OTOH, has a accountability when it comes to his responsibility vis-a-vis the authority of the bishops and Holy See and the rubrics.

So there may be sin involved there?

The rubrics matter, but it isn’t a sin to follow the direction of the priest at mass as he is the lawful authority.

The argument “I am following orders” is weak, IMO. If a person knows a major abuse us occurring, it us my opinion he should not be participating as a minister implementing the abuse. We are never cleared of all culpability just because someone with legitimate authority over us told us to do something we know to be wrong.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So there may be sin involved there?

“may be” is not a good enough reason to basically accuse the priest of sinning, or of being ignorant, or whatever. It basically amounts to gossip, or rash judgment, whatever you want to call it.

If a person knows a major abuse us occurring,

That’s not what’s happening here. OP doesn’t have any word from the bishop that anything wrong is happening.

 

[TK421]

In my opinion,

We should have a subsection of the forum dedicated solely to alleged liturgical abuse, allegedly bad music, and allegedly bad social interactions at parishes.

 

[Ilkka]

I don’t understand. If a supposed liturgical abuse makes the liturgy illicit and/or invalid, wouldn’t it be a sin against humility to actively participate in it especially when you are in full knowledge of what is taking place?

I personally don’t see how the moral culpability of our personal choices to participate in liturgical abuses is diminished by the fact that the priest is ultimately in charge. For example, if a priest gave you penance that would be sinful to follow through, it would be a sin for the one actually doing it while the priest would be responsible for giving penance that requires sinning. (Btw, I don’t think there are very many cases like this but it’s just an example.)

I’m not implying anything related to the incidents OP mentioned because I don’t have enough background information. This comment is purely OT in relation to the events mentioned by OP but related to the general subject.

 

[1ke]

So there may be sin involved there?

May be. May not be. There are rubrics and there are customs (holding hands) and some have force of law and some don’t. Some are universal, some have particular laws of their bishops, in this case Jesuits report to their own authority structure, not the diocesan bishop, and custom does play a role-- for example kneeling after the Agnus Dei was a custom in the US which has now become a norm, except where the bishop prescribes standing.

So, lay people are not the GIRM police, because there are many more aspects to the liturgy including norms for a bishops’ conference or even an individual bishops/superior, there are different liturgical rubrics some orders have, etc.

IF there is any sin, it is in the priest’s disobedience. But, the lay person is to take direction from the priest–who is the chief liturgist and has authority in his own parish/congregation. So, the lay person does NOT sin by following the priest’s instructions in that particular mass.

If the lay person isn’t personally comfortable with it, there is nothing forcing them to be in ministry. But if they are in ministry, they follow the priest’s instructions. And “sin” isn’t in this equation in the way you are trying to imply that it is. None of the rubrics are formulated as “binding under pain of sin”.

The lay person is also certainly free to, and probably should, enter dialog with their pastor, their bishops, the religious superior, etc., as to the desire to have the mass celebrated according to the rubrics, why the particular things going on in the liturgy are the way they are, etc.

If intinction is happening the way the OP describes, that is definitely something to be discussed in the ecclesial chain of command, even to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. But it isn’t a SIN.

The other things described are either not directly “abuses” or frankly none of his business: who is receiving communion (because there are provisions under canon law for non-Catholics to receive communion under certain circumstances, and the state of a particular marriage may have facts the OP isn’t aware of), the priest’s love of a certain TV show has nothing to do with the liturgy, his style of homily may not be what you like but it isn’t an “abuse” to be interogative, asking people to say the doxology isn’t in the rubrics but it isn’t a SIN.

The argument “I am following orders” is weak, IMO.

If something were inherently sinful, yes.

But, trying to apply “sin” to the following of the rubrics of the liturgy is misplaced.

my opinion he should not be participating as a minister implementing the abuse.

Fine.

We are never cleared of all culpability just because someone with legitimate authority over us told us to do something we know to be wrong.

I don’t think “wrong” and “right” and “sin” are the right paradigm here. That’s what I think.

 

[tafan2]

That’s not what’s happening here. OP doesn’t have any word from the bishop that anything wrong is happening

It does not take a word from a Bishop to know that self intinction of the previous blood is a serious abuse. A EMHC should excuse himself/herself from serving as opposed to assisting in this abuse.

may be” is not a good enough reason to basically accuse the priest of sinning, or of being ignorant, or whatever.

My “may be” was just to point out the imolication that violating the GIRM is not sinful. I would not accuse a priest if dinning, I would consider sinful if I assisted in the practice described by the OP.

 

[Jen95]

In my opinion,

We should have a subsection of the forum dedicated solely to alleged liturgical abuse, allegedly bad music, and allegedly bad social interactions at parishes.

Yes, and people who don’t want to read the threads can avoid that area. Or, they could just read thread titles as they are now, and avoid the ones that don’t interest them.

 

[tafan2]

I don’t think “wrong” and “right” and “sin” are the right paradigm here. That’s what I think.

The GIRM is very precise of how intiction is to be done.
Each communicant, holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the chalice. At his side stands a minister holding a vessel with the consecrated particles. The priest takes a host, dips part of it into the chalice, and, showing it says, The Body and Blood of Christ. The communicant responds, Amen, and receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest." (GIRM 2000 #287)

The communicant cannot do it themsrlf, it must be received in the tongue.

One cannot simply say it’s okay to violate this because the priest says so.