"Kneel, sit ot stand?" A parishioner seeing different practices, asks a priest which should be done

[Don_Ruggero]

But we have recently had some very bad problems in US with clergy (often deacons and not priests) who decided to make some freeform changes on their own to the words of Baptism when they were baptizing babies many years ago. And in view of the Vatican’s recent pronouncement about the wording used for baptisms, this has not only caused a lot of ordinary Catholics to have to be re-baptized, but also even caused some young priests whose baptisms weren’t valid to have to receive all the sacraments up to and including Holy Orders again, and caused a “ripple effect” to those parishioners who received certain sacraments from that particular priest before he was properly ordained.

In this, we would be in complete agreement.

The matter and form of the sacraments are sacrosanct. One does not tamper with them…because of the very theology of the sacrament itself.

Clearly there was a complete utter failure in sound theological education in this instance that went far, far beyond something so trite as “say the black and do the red.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

continued

We also have a thread somewhere else on the forum regarding some priest who is insisting on naming Servants of God inappropriately in the Eucharistic Prayers and refusing to stop even when multiple parishioners express concerns and some of them even left to attend another parish.

I saw this thread. I did not contribute because, frankly, I could not tell what the priest was actualy doing and therefore could not meaningfully comment.

Only Eucharistic Prayer III and the Swiss Anaphora have the opportunity to add the name of a Saint or Blessed of the Presider’s choosing. Eucharistic Prayers II and III, however, have an embolism printed in the missal for praying for the dead who are not canonized or beatified. That should really be limited to Masses for the Dead but I have known priests who use that embolism when the parish Mass is being offered for the happy repose of the soul of a person. I do not do that.

Without understanding precisely what the priest is doing, I cannot offer an intelligent or meaningful critique on its propriety. The post lacked needed specificity.

IF he were using the embolism for the dead, I would say it was not the use envisioned but it would cause me little concerned…depending on how he formulated what he said.

If, on the other hand, he is placing non-beatified and non-canonized people in the element that is honoring the saints, this is in violation of the prohibition of a cult of devotion preceding the judgment of the Church.

Again, this shows for me less an issue about observance of rubrics and more a foundational failure in understanding the theology of anaphora.

Observance of rubrics stems from a right ordered comprehension and internalising of the sacramental theology…it does not work the other way around. It was that realisation, and its disastrous consequences, that led Trent to abandon an apprentice model of priestly formation that in many ways precipitated the crises that in turn caused the Reformation – a way of education which led to an aspirant to the priesthood to be tutored by a priest mentor in how to “say the black and do the red” and mechanics as his fundamental way of being formed to be a priest and left an aspirant with no prospect of knowing more than his mentor…if he achieved even that – and to instead mandate years of education and formation in an established seminary under a body of theologians.

 

[goout]

Such a delicate balance to be had between obedience, respect, curiosity, inventiveness, self expression.
I do think of Jesus’s words:

Do this…

Not “do whatever inspires you”. Rebellion happens when individuals chafe at what the community has establish as the authentic “this”, or the authentic actions of the community in continuity over time. We don’t have Christ to hand out his body personally. We have the Church. And the Church ought to be obeyed. The presider definitely bears a responsibility to foster well aordered and obedient worship that does not call attention to the physicality of it. Worship is, of course, physical, but it shouldn’t be self consciously so, and being creative adds to the self consciousness of it for those attending. The liturgy ought to take us out of the trappings of the world to a certain degree, and dependable gestures and postures can aid in that. None of us creates the sacrifice of the Mass on the spot. It is timeless.

At the same time, we shouldn’t be indulging in the sin of “curiositas”, whereby we are poking our noses into what others are doing and getting anxious about it. No one knows from where an individual communicant is coming that day. Might be from another culture, might be depressed, might be forgetful. It’s really not our business to police.

It’s a delicate balance. Humility always…knowing our station and competence in these matters.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As the years went by, I noticed a group of posters that could be known as the liturgy police. This is entirely different from a hobby, and I thought these people were probably unbalanced.

Too often, I would agree. I have arrived to the same conclusion.

Either hobby, unbalanced people, or concerned people, I still don’t understand the concern for something that is so far beyond what I would think is the average lay person’s competence. It’s one of the things that I have picked from this forum which I wish I could forget entirely.

Well…in my case it was part of what I had to do as part of my mandate with regard to the junior clergy…following up as they took their first steps after ordination. Those were moments when I had to bring a critical and analytical eye to what they were doing, as a trained observer.

I will say that did not afford me a very prayerful experience because of the analytical focus.

I was always aware that the young priest was less at ease when I showed up, which I always felt sympathy for.

I was blessed that, by and large, they had assimilated their classwork and practicums reasonably well and that the end result was normally more mechanical than theological…you are over estimating the ability of the amplification system to make your voice heard.

My goodness. In every country I have worked in, no matter in what language, microphones and speakers in churches and chapels seem to always have issues. Whether the church is rich or poor. Some priests are conscientious that this requires a real sound expert working to procure and set up and periodically do maintenance on a sound system. Others…not so much. They’re not well-designed…or they are used by people who lack the training to use them effectively…or they were not properly synchronised to the space they are meant to provide amplification to…etc., etc.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Such a delicate balance to be had between obedience, respect, curiosity, inventiveness, self expression.
I do think of Jesus’s words:

Do this…

And yet. what we actually “do” at Eucharist does not precisely match the words of any of the four institution narratives handed on by Matthew, Mark, Luke as well as Paul in First Corinthians…and this latter being older in terms of a written account than Matthew who was an eyewitness…nor do the gestures and actions of Jesus occur in the liturgy in the manner that He Himself did them at the Eucharist’s institution. The Church defined how what it received from the Lord would be executed liturgically by its ministers.

“Well ordered and obedient worship” are not expressions of how I would articulate the action of the liturgically assembly or my role as Presider. That sounds much too mechanistic or automaton-like.

 

[MikeInVA]

That sounds much too mechanistic or automaton-like.

Father, if the rubrics say to use specific, words, why is it “automaton-like” to follow them?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, if the rubrics say to use specific, words, why is it “automaton-like” to follow them?

Automaton-like is the phrase I used relative to the description “Well ordered and obedient worship”.

 

[MikeInVA]

Father, if the rubrics say to use specific, words, why is it “automaton-like” to follow them?

Father, you said above that you do not understand why lay Catholics are so hung up on the rubrics. Why do you think it is that priests elect to change specific phrases or prayers from the rubrics?

 

[otjm]

Ah, here we go again…

In the early 1970’s I was in law school, and a comment was made by one of my professors concerning what may be generally called a philosophy of law - or for those who do not wax philosophical, an “approach” to law.

His comment (and illustrations) divided the matter into two Euro - American “factions” if you will - the Germanic and the Italian/Mediterranean.

The Germanic approach was characterized by precision, absolutist, rigid. In other words, to take something out of context in the thread, “do the red and say the black”. An example might be from one of the posters above, that if “brethren” or “brothers and sisters” was specifically allowed but “sisters and brothers” was not specifically noted, that it would be verboten.

:The Italian/Mediterranean approach to law is less concerned (not “unconcerned”, but “less”) about form as long as substance is maintained.

And in general, from the professor, law in the US is approached from a Germanic mindset. That is one I can understand, given I am about three quarters Holland Dutch.

We are creatures of habit, as anyone who has an awareness of how various families celebrate holidays might observe - or those of us who can remember who Emily Post. I am constantly amazed, having had her etiquette drilled into me thoroughly, of the table manners of some people… but I digress.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, many if not most of US Catholics tend toward the Germanic approach to liturgy; in the current topic, not only were the changes within the GIRM introduced with little or no explanation, but additionally, there seems to have been no reflection in particular that the procedure(s) for reception of Communion had any logical reason.

Taken literally (a Germanic approach) they were to provide some uniformity of procession, and that procession did not end with individual reception of Communion, but was to reflect a response different from the prior way, removing it from an individual’s reception to a communal recognition that “everyone else” behind us was still in this procession - so we all remained standing.

And that was a move from what had been done since the mind of man remembereth not. It went not well, as can be seen by the dubium of Cardinal George.

We are creatures of habit. There are reasons why a specific rubric is in the Mass, as it has a meaning, even though often, if not most often we may not be able to articulate why we do something specifically that way. Add to that the gloss of a general but largely held underlay of a Germanic approach to law, and we can understand perhaps the furor over changes plus the inability to see, by some, that not every rubric (such as whether brothers absolutely must come before sisters) is rigid.

 

[otjm]

Why do you think it is that priests elect to change specific phrases or prayers from the rubrics?

Perhaps you might give examples; the only example you have given is “sisters and brothers”.

 

[MikeInVA]

the inability to see, by some, that not every rubric (such as whether brothers absolutely must come before sisters) is rigid.

Ok, so the Church publishes rubrics, essentially how to celebrate Mass. It specifies where to say specific words and where to say something in general, e.g. the homily. I don’t understand why when a priest decides to ad lib something specific, it is wrong for the laity (rigid) to question it. There are plenty of threads on CAF about how rigid the laity is, yet I have never been given an answer to why we shouldn’t bother with the rubrics.

It’s seem backwards to me that a man would study to become a priest, be instructed on how to celebrate the Mass, then choose to ignore the instructions.

 

[otjm]

Again, I am going to suggest that you use specific examples.

I sincerely doubt (as I am not going to drag up the GIRM) that the comment you noted - sisters and brothers - is not a prime example of where flexibility is allowed within reason, and putting sisters first is not in any sense at all outside that flexibility.

Meaning, if two examples are given - “brethren” and “brothers and sisters”, they are not a limit; putting sisters first does not change the substance of the greeting.

I might think it a bit more than casual if the priest were to say “Y’all” for that greeting - even in Texas.

Priests are (supposedly) taught the reason behind a rubric and what rubrics have flexibility and which don’t. Without specific examples beyond what you gave, I doubt the Don is going to be able to provide any cogent response.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I meant to ask…where you, as a child, got the notion to question what priests were doing at Mass? Did you just come to do that all on your own by observing changes? It’s difficult for me to imagine a child being concerned about changes in the Mass, or even really noticing.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

How do you describe priests who deliberately (I have no issue with mistakes) change the words?

I don’t describe them. I don’t think that I would even know if a priest said the wrong words at Mass.

If it is so inconsequential, why do they do it?

I hope you don’t expect me to have an answer for this question. I would not know the consequences of changing any particular thing that the priest says during the Mass. I do know that the words during consecration are important to say a certain way. But I wouldn’t be able to explain why. And I don’t have those words memorized either.

 

[MikeInVA]

Again, I am going to suggest that you use specific examples.

I gave a specific example.

Meaning, if two examples are given - “brethren” and “brothers and sisters”, they are not a limit; putting sisters first does not change the substance of the greeting.

I said that I recognize that it doesn’t change the substance of the words. However, the GIRM does not say “use one of these two, or just make up something that you like here.”

I still find it interesting that people argue against following the rubrics.

 

[MikeInVA]

I hope you don’t expect me to have an answer for this question.

You were able to describe those who believe the rubrics should be followed are “the Liturgy Police” and “unbalanced.” I thought that since you seem to understand one side of the discussion so well, you would be able to at least provide something about the other.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My parents were in their late 30s when they had me and my mother was the youngest daughter of a very large Irish Catholic family. They, and everybody else in their age group and above at church, which was a lot of people including a goodly number of my classmates’ parents, were not all on board with whatever the latest new 25-year-old priest assigned to the parish felt like doing. Our pastor was in his 50s so it sure wasn’t coming from him.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You were able to describe those who believe the rubrics should be followed are “the Liturgy Police” and “unbalanced.”

That’s not quite right.

There is a point at which when people go so far out of their competence in order to question what is going on. And not only that, but do it in a disrespectful, pretentious manner.

If a visitor were to walk into a nuclear power plant and randomly start questioning what is going on because what they are seeing doesn’t match with what they read in a book, that’s one thing. But to then go on arguing with the employees and asking to see a supervisor, I would think the visitor is unbalanced.

 

[MikeInVA]

That’s not quite right.

No, those are your words.

There is a point at which when people go so far out of their competence in order to question what is going on.

It really isn’t rocket science to look up a phrase in the GIRM and recognize that what the priest just said is not the same. And it would be a great opportunity to teach that person if what he has a question on is incorrect. I have yet to hear anyone explain how it’s correct to change the words as written in the GIRM. The only answer I get is that I am too rigid.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I grew up in the eighties mostly. I would have been too young to remember much from the seventies. I don’t remember anyone in my family saying anything negative about any changes. My parents did benefit from some changes though. Like the increased involvement of the laity, the Charismatic movement, and other things.