J
Joysong
Guest
You imply that I made a decision here, Thurifer, but maybe you did not read my post thoroughly.
I really question your motive in posting the slur?
- Status
J
Joysong
Guest
**Bump to Br. Rich SFO **… Is there really an answer? Or did you state this off the top of your head? Perhaps because of the clergy shortage this is not something we see very often, but is it really a prohibited act that is verifiable in writing?
Again, since two of us have asked you for this, it would be most appreciated, and I send my thanks.
A
annejohno
Guest
my priest leaves the sanctuatary and goes the whole length of the church shaking hands with people in every single pew at the kiss of peace-- right after Consecration! I said you know you are supposed to do that- and he agreed- but that is the way he does it, he said-- others in the parish wonder why I’m such a stick in the mud-- but I shake his hand when he comes to my pew and I walk to the center end to facilitate it otherwise he would wade into the pew-- so I cooperate but I don’t like it
J
japhy
Guest
Sigh.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a priest at the parish I grew up at (this is, oh, 15 years ago tops), who was certainly not a pre-conciliar priest, always kept his thumb and forefinger together after the Consecration. I noticed when the Sign of Peace came, when he would shake the altar boys (of which I was one) hands, they were always kept together; and then, during the purification of the vessels (during Mass), he would wash them meticulously.I long for that again. What respect!
N
NetNuncio
Guest
It is true, you have no duty to obey a priest or bishop who tries to force you to commit a liturgical act not in line with the rubrics of the Church. In all practicality, however, that can be difficult. We don’t want to cause a scene or cause conflict. So, here’s some ideas on a practical level.
Adam
- When asked to do the unlawful act, make sure you know what you are talking about and approach the celebrating priest with your concerns. If the celebrating priest isn’t the pastor, approach the pastor as well.
- If the issue cannot be rectified at the parish level, write the bishop and copy the director of the office of worship. Be sure that you receive an answer.
- If you cannot resolve the issue at the diocesan level, or the problem is with the diocese, contact the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, copying a letter to the Apostolic Nuncio.
Adam
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**
What does canon law (or some other authoritative source) have to say on the matter of authority in these cases?**
The general rule of liturgical praxis is “Don’t draw attention to yourself.”
What does canon law (or some other authoritative source) have to say on the matter of authority in these cases?**
The general rule of liturgical praxis is “Don’t draw attention to yourself.”
S
Sarabande
Guest
I know this doesn’t have to do with obeying or disobeying, but does that rule also extend to people who sing out really loud in the congregation when no one else is really singing that loud? We have a couple of ladies and a man once in a while who really belts out and they bring attention to themselves, sometimes in a bad way. (I personally don’t care and like it when the congregation really sings out, but since I’m a cantor there, I sometimes get complaints about those other congregants for some reason.) One woman has such a powerful voice, that she drowns out even the organ and the cantor (me) although I don’t sing into the microphone. She has a good voice, though, but I do know that some of the congregants have complained to me about her not knowing that I actually am acquainted with her. They think she’s showing off, but she is a very tall woman (over 6 ft) and big and has a naturally large voice with some training. She could have been a Wagnerian soprano. I don’t think she can help it.
J
japhy
Guest
So should we not wear crosses or crucifixes in public? “Don’t draw attention to yourself” is more of general rule when it comes to your personal liturgical praxis in the context of the public worship of the Church: adopt the posture of the Church, use the words of the Church, etc., rather than your own personal pious preferences.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
Simply having mass in a home is not a liturgical abuse. When in my area of New York State was first settled, the Franciscans who came then had masses in homes because no churches were built. And I recall that when saying mass in Mexico was illegal, Saint Miguel Pro had masses in peoples’ houses (and even then the police almost caught him.) But in the United States a problem is that home masses have been places of liturgical irregularities sometimes. I went to several masses in private houses myself thirty years ago in my small city and was dismayed that things that happened there. It seems that when such priests deliberately operate outside the parish structure, they can feel comparatively little reason for following liturigal law.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Thanks!
The last house blessing/home mass I attended was a few years ago when one of my aunts and her husband bought a new home. From what I remember, the priest didn’t do anything unusual or out of the ordinary. It was like a regular mass you’d go to at a church except you were packed with about 90 other people in the living room and the adjoining kitchen, foyer and dining room and staircase. They even sang hymns for each part of the mass in the dialect of my mother’s family The priest brought the proper table coverings (sorry my mind is a blank as to what you would call them) and candles and crucifix so that the table borrowed from my aunt looked like a real altar rather than a makeshift one.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
While you seem to have fronted this question as if there were an obvious answer (and I happen to agree that there is), you don’t seem to have bothered to seriously ask what that answer is.
The same Christ who told us “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” is the Christ who instituted the Apostles with authority and told us them that “He who hears you hears me.” The Church, Christ’s spotless bride, commands us in His place. We are bound to obey Her because Christ Himself told us He wants us to listen to Her as if we were listening to Him. So if someone is intentionally disobeying Christ in His Bride, you can bet your boots He will be offended by that individual’s refusal to love Him.
“We obey God, and not men.” So if a priest acts outside of His capacity to teach us with God’s authority, we are bound by love of God to disobey the man and follow God (in the voice of His Church) instead.
Lastly, a good intention can never rectify a fundamentally bad act. If it is never right to disobey just ecclesiastical laws (outside of cases of necessity, which knows no law), then being really nice or “caring” while we exhibit a lack of love is not going to make that act any more justifiable.
This, of course, must be held in tension with the fact that we are bound by liturgical law under pain of sin. That means there is a limit to our quest to be inconspicuous. The idea of not drawing attention to oneself is so that one does not take attention from where it really belongs - on the sacred action of the Mass. If you have a range of licit options, it is often good to suppress personal preference and blend in with the rest of the assembly.
But, on the flip side, if being obedient as inconspicuously as possible still draws attention to you, then I would argue not only that you have no other option but that, in fact, it is good for everyone to see your ‘deviant’ practice because it will get them wondering why you did what you did. Hopefully they’ll find out it was because they, as well, are bound to do at least that.
J
Joysong
Guest
Andreas,
You take for granted that all people who are standing about the altar have a copy of the GIRM and RS in their pocket and know all that is required of them.
Unless they all come to CAF and read the L&S threads that are always bringing some delict to light, I guarantee they are not informed of the possible irregularities of the priest. So how could God be offended? Think about it!
If they were there in innocence and purity of intention to worship God, believing they were following the natural directives of the priest, God does NOT hold them accountable … except maybe for the OP, since he seems to have some misgivings.
J
japhy
Guest
I think the Church teaches, through the wisdom of God, that ignorance is a mitigating factor when it comes to the culpability of sin.
What misgivings, specifically? I feel uncomfortable adding things to the liturgy, especially things I know are not permitted by the Church.
J
Joysong
Guest
Japhy,
Had you been 100% assured regarding your situation, would you have created this thread? It suggested to me that perhaps you were uneasy about whether or not to obey. Maybe you still are. This is the difference, since you have copies of all the known documents at your fingertips, whereas the majority of people do not have any idea, but simply trust their clergy to know what is proper.
Had you been 100% assured regarding your situation, would you have created this thread? It suggested to me that perhaps you were uneasy about whether or not to obey. Maybe you still are. This is the difference, since you have copies of all the known documents at your fingertips, whereas the majority of people do not have any idea, but simply trust their clergy to know what is proper.
J
japhy
Guest
My question was about obedience, not about the acts themselves. I know the act of gathering around the altar is not permitted. I was curious to what degree we are expected to be obedient to priests in the liturgy when they ask us to do things that are improper, because I did not remember reading explicitly about the matter. That is the reason I posted this thread; that was the answer I sought. In the future, I will probably speak with the priest beforehand and simply ask him not to ask us to gather around the altar.
J
Joysong
Guest
I understand your misgivings, Japhy. Waaaaaay back before the new guidelines, I attended a small weekly liturgy when the priest occasionally “invited” people [not demanded] to gather around the altar. Some of the older people preferred to stay in their pews, and nobody thought a thing of it one way or another, for that was simply their preference.
One poster above felt it would call attention to yourself, but I disagree. We gather in charity to worship Christ, and nobody in their charitable mind is going to think you were pointing fingers at the priest or at them if they did in fact decide to go on the altar.
Is it possible the priest does not really know the new guidelines? Or that perhaps he forgot for a moment and it was too late to send everyone back? How often has this happened? Lots of ifs, huh?
One poster above felt it would call attention to yourself, but I disagree. We gather in charity to worship Christ, and nobody in their charitable mind is going to think you were pointing fingers at the priest or at them if they did in fact decide to go on the altar.
Is it possible the priest does not really know the new guidelines? Or that perhaps he forgot for a moment and it was too late to send everyone back? How often has this happened? Lots of ifs, huh?
B
benedictgal
Guest
I pulled up both sets of the GIRM and looked at them side-by-side. Nowhere in the original Pauline GIRM did it indicate that standing around the altar was an allowable act for the faithful. The Church didn’t put a provision in there because no one imagined that such things would go the extreme they have gone.
Again, this is a prime example of people reading into the documents of the Second Vatican Councli and allowing themselves to be swept up by this alleged “spirit” rather than reading what the documents actually say and putting them rigthly into practice.
It’s not an issue of being uncharitable. The fact of the matter is that we cannot and should not participate in anything illicit at the Mass, especially when the priest is encouraging such activity. The long section I quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum adds reinforcement to that argument.
Furthermore, a priest’s personal tastes and idiosyncracies are not the standards we follow during the Mass. It is set forth by the GIRM.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
That is a very interesting question. Is there any strong reason why we shouldn’g go along with what the priest says when it is a violation of liturigical law? Or simply when we are told to do something we are not required to do, like holding hands during the Our Father? Unless someone comes up with something from the Church about this, I would suspect that this is left to our own judgement.
Of course, if we judge that what we are told to do is wrongdoing, then we should not do it. I know of one parish where a layman acted as an enforcer and went up the aisle and ordered people kneeling during the eucharistic prayer to stand instead. If this layman realized that people are supposed to kneel then, then I think he should have refused this job since he was requiring such people to violate their conscience.
Of course, if we judge that what we are told to do is wrongdoing, then we should not do it. I know of one parish where a layman acted as an enforcer and went up the aisle and ordered people kneeling during the eucharistic prayer to stand instead. If this layman realized that people are supposed to kneel then, then I think he should have refused this job since he was requiring such people to violate their conscience.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Yes there is. First of all, would you go along with your dad if you were at WalMart and he asked you to pull a five-finger discount on a package of socks or some little tool kit? No. Furthermore, if you read Redemptionis Sacramentum, you will note that no one, not even the priest, has the right to add or subtract anything from the rubrics, norms and texts of the Mass. The rites are not to be changed based on some idiosyncracy or personal taste of the celebrant.
As I wrote early on in this thread, as huge a sinner as I am, I cannot in good conscience do something that I know to be wrong when it comes to the Mass. There are certain things you don’t tinker with or change at will. The Holy Sacrifice is one of them.
J
Joysong
Guest
There are more than two sets, with the first dating only back to 1969. In which case, the liturgies I spoke of as waaaaay back, were prior to 1969. But even if they were more recent, the very telling statement is the red bolded one, that there is NO provision.
I am presently reviewing another issue that was thought to be a prohibition, when in reality the bishop has authorized it. Each parish priest is under the authority of the Bishop, and if he has been given specific permission for certain celebrations that are small in number and not the regular Sunday liturgy, most people would have no way of knowing this by simply reading the GIRM. Understandably, some might take offense and calumniate the priest.
It is essential prior to taking any action based on what one thinks they know, that they do a little research first with the pastor, and then the Office of Worship to determine what, if any, permissions have been privately given by the Bishop for those things that seem to fall under the label “abuse” and for which nothing has been set in writing.
- Status