Is it morally binding on a priest to

[Laudate_Dominum]

You call God a dictator?

dic·ta·tor   [dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2.
(in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3.
a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.

 

[maryj]

Bishops understand what is happening ,in each parish, that is within their diocese. Our priests are in contact with their Bishops on a regular basis. When priests are tranferred in and out of different parishes, it is done for a specific reason. As was stated, some priests are better at interpersonal communications, some are better with economic issues, some are better at healing…if a Priest is transferred into a parish where liturgical abuse has been happening, you can be certain that that specific bishop and that priest are well aware of what is happening in that parish, and that priest was most likely chosen to go there because he has strengths in a particular area needed to help that parish community. Things don’t happen overnight…they observe first, and then implement change.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So the proper way to is do it in love and charity, even if it takes a long time. The purpose of everything is to open people’s hearts to God. Forcing things upon them, even though it is the right thing, will only push them away. It is doing the right thing the wrong way.

This. It may be that the bishop has assigned this particular pastor to this particular parish for the purpose of “cleaning things up”. I would still expect that the bishop and pastor have a reasonable timeframe in mind for the process.

Just like any other training, not everyone is going to learn instantly or remember perfectly from the beginning. So a pastor would be wise to pick his battles and start with the most important things. So he may start with working with the sacristian or EMHCs and leave music, altar server garb, and banners alone at first.

Also the priest only has so much control over the actions of the laity. So holding hands during the Our Father, taking before Mass, and wearing shorts and flip flops wouldn’t change right away either.

If we read the lifes of the great reformer priests, we see that they spent quite a bit of time visiting their parishioners in their homes getting to know them, before they were able to reform hearts and minds. Of course John Vianney had no trouble with the Mass, since almost no one in his parish even attended Mass when he first got there.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Say a priest is assigned as pastor in a parish, and he comes into an environment that is clearly obscenely rampant with liturgical abuse and comes close to even being sloppy with the sacred species, among other things, which was tolerated by the last pastor. Is he morally bound to forcefully correct all such abuses, even if it will cause upset to the parish?

Please note that I am not confronted with such a situation. I’ve just been thinking about it.

Depends on what the “abuses” are. However changes made in a new assignment should be done slowly.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Do you think of God as being an elected official?

There is quite a difference between a dictator and an elected official. God, as the creator of the world, is neither. He is above our definitions.

That said, Christ referred to God (and Himself) as a King. A king is something else entirely than a dictator, who usually grabs power for himself, and and elected official, who serves a limited term and must always look to be reelcted.

 

[PazzoGrande]

To the OP, I’m curious, what instances can you envision wherein correcting an abuse would result in a parishioner leaving?

The only case I can imagine is the one I cited previously, where something that can’t be used in the liturgy might have been donated by a parishioner. Otherwise, seems to me that liturgical abuses tend to be too minor to change anyone’s participation in church if corrected. Things that get people to stop coming are more like dull liturgies or aloof priests (I think people’s disagreeing with doctrine could even be remedied by truly good liturgies and clergy); those two things of which are not abuses per se but do pose big problems.

Maybe you know of other examples that can help us form our responses?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Depends on what the “abuses” are. However changes made in a new assignment should be done slowly.

I use the the term “abuse” in the sense of consciously doing something contrary to the norms (as in rules of the GIRM and ritual rubrics) of the celebration of Mass, or changing the words of a part of the Mass, or omitting something that must be done.

My thinking is that:

1. Consciously doing something contrary to what should be done in the celebration of the Mass is, effectively, actively disobeying the authority of the Pope, since he or his delegate–the CDWDS–approves liturgical action.
2. Obeying the Pope is binding on all Catholics.
3. Therefore, if a priest consciously does something and, further, is culpable for it, then he is sinning.

Is that correct?

To the OP, I’m curious, what instances can you envision wherein correcting an abuse would result in a parishioner leaving?

The only case I can imagine is the one I cited previously, where something that can’t be used in the liturgy might have been donated by a parishioner. Otherwise, seems to me that liturgical abuses tend to be too minor to change anyone’s participation in church if corrected. Things that get people to stop coming are more like dull liturgies or aloof priests (I think people’s disagreeing with doctrine could even be remedied by truly good liturgies and clergy); those two things of which are not abuses per se but do pose big problems.

Maybe you know of other examples that can help us form our responses?

Well, I never mentioned anyone leaving. Although I can see that as a distinct possibility in some cases.

I don’t think a specific example really matters. Please see above for my line of thought. A priest conscious of liturgical abuse and who is culpable for it is sinning, no matter how small or insignificant it seems. I think…

As regards the laity’s parts, those can be a work in progress, sure. But I mean the priest’s own actions/omissions.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I use the the term “abuse” in the sense of consciously doing something contrary to the norms (as in rules of the GIRM and ritual rubrics) of the celebration of Mass, or changing the words of a part of the Mass, or omitting something that must be done.

Once again, it would depend on what the abuse was. Some are very serious and some are just silly. My advice would be let the silly things go for a while.

1. Consciously doing something contrary to what should be done in the celebration of the Mass is, effectively, actively disobeying the authority of the Pope, since he or his delegate–the CDWDS–approves liturgical action.

1. Obeying the Pope is binding on all Catholics.

1. Therefore, if a priest consciously does something and, further, is culpable for it, then he is sinning.

Is that correct?

I think that’s an overstatement. The norms should be followed but its not necessarily an act of ecclesiastical treason to do things differently. The idea is that the pastor should eventually be able to bring people around to support the changes that need to be made but moving too quickly can cause more problems than its worth. After all, what’s our goal here: to have a community that understands and supports the Church’s liturgical norms over a period of time or a community that is confused, hurt, and broken but doing things correctly right away?

Well, I never mentioned anyone leaving. Although I can see that as a distinct possibility in some cases.

While the pastor should never be held hostage to popular whims, there’s something definitely wrong if a substantial number of people get up and leave.

I don’t think a specific example really matters. Please see above for my line of thought. A priest conscious of liturgical abuse and who is culpable for it is sinning, no matter how small or insignificant it seems. I think…

If the big things are treated the same as the small then chaos will reign, from what I have seen. Prudence is a virtue for a reason.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is always morally binding for the pastor of the Parish to make sure that Mass is conducted in his parish according to the norms and rules of the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t matter who likes that or doesn’t like it.

If people leave they’ll be just like the people who left Jesus in John 6:66.

 

[adopted_heir]

Abuses having to with the the legitimacy of the Mass, especially the Consecration, must be corrected immediately. Specifics can be addressed during the homily so the priest doesn’t have to just hope congregants show up for extracurricular catechesis. After the top-priority issues are changed immediately, he can afford to be a little more delicate with issues of taste and propriety as far as music and decoration go.

 

[SMHW]

The majority of “liturgical abuses” are not things that are inherently evil; they are things that are unlawful for reasons that may or may not apply to a particular parish… And I would suggest that the majority of these unlawful actions are perceived by the congregation (and perhaps the pastor) to be lawful …or at least open to interpretation. The parish is probably not trying to be disobedient. The parish is likely trying to do what it believes to be good. (And perhaps it would be good for this parish were it not unlawful.)

I think a priest has to be sensitive to the consciences of his congregation. Most people need to be feed the truth in pieces lest they choke on it.

 

[curlycool89]

Say a priest is assigned as pastor in a parish, and he comes into an environment that is clearly obscenely rampant with liturgical abuse and comes close to even being sloppy with the sacred species, among other things, which was tolerated by the last pastor. Is he morally bound to forcefully correct all such abuses, even if it will cause upset to the parish?

Please note that I am not confronted with such a situation. I’ve just been thinking about it.

I know I’m going to get cringes out of this, but it depends on how bad a certain abuse is.

Anything that is outright heretical or could affect the validity should be stopped ASAP. That could include wrong type or irregular types of bread or wine being used (such as using leavened bread in any Western Rite), or changing the words of institution or the laity have extremely flawed understandings as to misinterpret certain parts of the Mass.

Anything that is directly in the priests power or is the priests responsibility in the Mass (speaking specifically what the priest does, not generally) should be easy to stop right away. That would include things like laypeople reading the gospel, giving the homily, elevating the chalice at the end of the EP, reading prayers (basically anything the priest should be doing), and the priest not saying the words exactly from the missal.

With respect to the sacred species, I’m guessing you mean EMHC because what else could you be talking about. Obviously, EMHC are not an abuse in and of themselves. The pastor has to look at what exactly is happening and decide on a course of action based on the direness of the situation. Wine being poured between chalices should be stopped (I’ve seen it happen and I couldn’t believe my eyes that I was actually seeing it). People not bowing or genuflecting before receiving however should be met with catechesis, not a gavel.

Something like EMHC approaching the altar too soon would not be something you’d do then and there, not in the middle of Mass (that would be uncharitable, especially since they may not even know it’s not suppose to be done). Readers, say, doing inclusive language on the fly would be the same. Re-training should happen appropriately to ensure volunteers understand their ministry and their obligations, and if necessary the priest can talk privately with individuals who refuse to comply. Volunteering for a ministry is a privilege, not a right.

Music could be an issue. I’d say that how fast you need to change depends on (for example) how awful the Gloria they’re using is (especially if it involves clapping :banghead and may again require good catechesis to explain.

I would say that most abuses I’ve seen actually are from the priest’s end (changing words, ad-libbing), so that’s probably pretty easy to care of yourself if you’re a priest.

 

[adopted_heir]

I know I’m going to get cringes out of this, but it depends on how bad a certain abuse is.

Anything that is outright heretical or could affect the validity should be stopped ASAP. That could include wrong type or irregular types of bread or wine being used (such as using leavened bread in any Western Rite), or changing the words of institution or the laity have extremely flawed understandings as to misinterpret certain parts of the Mass.

Anything that is directly in the priests power or is the priests responsibility in the Mass (speaking specifically what the priest does, not generally) should be easy to stop right away. That would include things like laypeople reading the gospel, giving the homily, elevating the chalice at the end of the EP, reading prayers (basically anything the priest should be doing), and the priest not saying the words exactly from the missal.

With respect to the sacred species, I’m guessing you mean EMHC because what else could you be talking about. Obviously, EMHC are not an abuse in and of themselves. The pastor has to look at what exactly is happening and decide on a course of action based on the direness of the situation. Wine being poured between chalices should be stopped (I’ve seen it happen and I couldn’t believe my eyes that I was actually seeing it). People not bowing or genuflecting before receiving however should be met with catechesis, not a gavel.

Something like EMHC approaching the altar too soon would not be something you’d do then and there, not in the middle of Mass (that would be uncharitable, especially since they may not even know it’s not suppose to be done). Readers, say, doing inclusive language on the fly would be the same. Re-training should happen appropriately to ensure volunteers understand their ministry and their obligations, and if necessary the priest can talk privately with individuals who refuse to comply. Volunteering for a ministry is a privilege, not a right.

Music could be an issue. I’d say that how fast you need to change depends on (for example) how awful the Gloria they’re using is (especially if it involves clapping :banghead and may again require good catechesis to explain.

I would say that most abuses I’ve seen actually are from the priest’s end (changing words, ad-libbing), so that’s probably pretty easy to care of yourself if you’re a priest.

That is all.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Most people need to be feed the truth in pieces lest they choke on it.

I like that line!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you think of God as being an elected official?

God has ruled long before our modern concept of leadership. Remember that God is King. Why do you think the only other option besides a dictator is a democratically elected leader?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Why do you think the only other option besides a dictator is a democratically elected leader?

There was the era of Judges in Israel. There’s also the concept of Oligarchy.

 

[DCNBILL]

dic·ta·tor   [dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2.
(in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3.
a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.

I would say more like this;

father

noun

1. a man in relation to his child or children: how like your father you are the art collection was bequeathed to him by his adoptive father

(fathers) literary ancestors.
an important male figure in the origin and early history of something: he’s held to be the father of abstract art

a man who provides care and protection: the prince is widely regarded as the father of the nation

the oldest member or doyen of a society or other body.

(the Father) (in Christian belief) the first person of the Trinity; God.

(Father) used as a title of respect for an old and venerable man or for something personified as such a man:

 

[englishredrose]

Yes he should make the changes to put it right but how he does it. A wise priest wouldn’t loose parishioners in making changes because he would get them on board so to speak as he makes them. He would include them etc and not railrod them into it all. He will listen to the parishioners too because chances are that a lot of them will know it aint right but will not know what to do about it etc and for them its a chance to tell him in a constructive way.

 

[arkwright]

Please note that I am not confronted with such a situation. I’ve just been thinking about it.

Then stop thinking about it .

Don’t meet troubles half-way .

 

[YoungTradCath]

Then stop thinking about it .

Don’t meet troubles half-way .

But I’d like to think about it.