Who do we follow?

[LighthouseRon]

I’ve been reading many posts critical of liturgy and music, and some posters cite various documents from various sources, many times coming from Rome. I remember during my catholic education being told we are to follow the priest, and it is not for the laity to interpret. While it is certainly okay to question the priest regarding these issues, it is the priest’s decision and we, as the laity, are to accept it. To put it simply, we follow the priest, the priest follows his bishop, and so on and so forth. The point of this hierarchy is to avoid everyone reading all these documents and interpreting them on their own, and quite possibly slanting their interpretation to what they feel is right.

So, whom do we follow? If I read something in the GIRM that I feel is different from what my parish is doing, what do I do? I can question my pastor but if he decides what is already being done is correct, what then? My education tells me to follow him but there are so many here that seem to feel justified in ignoring the priest’s wishes and judging for themselves what is really correct. I can’t help but feel literally shaken and confused. It seems when everyone interprets these things it creates a chaos of sorts.

Thought?

Ron

 

[FightingFat]

I think you’re right, but what if your Parish Priest clearly isn’t? A Church is a group of people after all. As you stated, we rely on our PP’s to follow the lead from the Bishop, but what if he’s doing his own thing? Sometimes this can just be because they don’t know!

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve been reading many posts critical of liturgy and music, and some posters cite various documents from various sources, many times coming from Rome. I remember during my catholic education being told we are to follow the priest, and it is not for the laity to interpret. While it is certainly okay to question the priest regarding these issues, it is the priest’s decision and we, as the laity, are to accept it. To put it simply, we follow the priest, the priest follows his bishop, and so on and so forth. The point of this hierarchy is to avoid everyone reading all these documents and interpreting them on their own, and quite possibly slanting their interpretation to what they feel is right.

So, whom do we follow? If I read something in the GIRM that I feel is different from what my parish is doing, what do I do? I can question my pastor but if he decides what is already being done is correct, what then? My education tells me to follow him but there are so many here that seem to feel justified in ignoring the priest’s wishes and judging for themselves what is really correct. I can’t help but feel literally shaken and confused. It seems when everyone interprets these things it creates a chaos of sorts.

Thought?

Ron

Hey, Ron!

Since I am one of the posters who cites the documents, let me answer your question.

Over the course of the last 40 years, unfortunate circumstances have arisen (and continue to arise) where innovations creep into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Some of them, sadly, will come from the celebrant, others form liturgical committees and who knows where.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, the document issued in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was meant to purify the liturgy from these abuses. Yes, the GIRM is still in effect. However, RS, while also seeking to clean up the abuses, reminds both the priest and the faithful that fidelity to the norms must be maintained. The Mass is too great for anyone to treat it as their own personal property.

Furthermore, there is a provision in this document that gives the faithful recourse in the event that they witness bona fide liturgical abuses. It spells out the process the laity must follow when adderssing these abuses.

This is not to say that all of the priests are doing their own things at Mass. But, unfortunately, because of the innovations and creativity of a few, things have happened that distort the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Remember that it pertains to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments to regulate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The local Ordinary (boshop) and Metropolitan (Archbishop) are the chief stewards in their particular territories. But, they, too, must be in conformity with what the Holy See mandates.

I hope this helps.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve been reading many posts critical of liturgy and music, and some posters cite various documents from various sources, many times coming from Rome. I remember during my catholic education being told we are to follow the priest, and it is not for the laity to interpret. While it is certainly okay to question the priest regarding these issues, it is the priest’s decision and we, as the laity, are to accept it. To put it simply, we follow the priest, the priest follows his bishop, and so on and so forth. The point of this hierarchy is to avoid everyone reading all these documents and interpreting them on their own, and quite possibly slanting their interpretation to what they feel is right.

So, whom do we follow? If I read something in the GIRM that I feel is different from what my parish is doing, what do I do? I can question my pastor but if he decides what is already being done is correct, what then? My education tells me to follow him but there are so many here that seem to feel justified in ignoring the priest’s wishes and judging for themselves what is really correct. I can’t help but feel literally shaken and confused. It seems when everyone interprets these things it creates a chaos of sorts.

Thought?

Ron

The faithful have a right to the sacraments, and a right that those sacraments be celebrated both validly and licitly.

You have a right, within the limits of honesty and Christian charity, to seek recourse to a higher authority, even the Holy See itself.

 

[LighthouseRon]

Thank you for your replies. I guess the tough thing for me to understand and accept is priests have a tremendous amount of training and I would assume (maybe that’s my problem) they have been well instructed. For me it raises the thought of someone cracking open a book and reading an isolated passage and misinterpreting it because they don’t have the full teaching. I would say they are giving just a snapshot. Or they simply don’t understand what they are reading. Before I go any farther I want to apologize to Benedictgal because it is obvious you don’t fall into this category but there are others I’ve experienced who clearly do.

I guess the types of issues I’m referring to are what I would call less serious things. There are the obvious problems, which most if not all Catholics would know, but what I’m thinking about are the less obvious, minor (minor isn’t the right word but please bear with me) things. In other words, if a priest were to omit the gospel reading I think that would be obviously wrong to most Catholics. What about the priest who kisses the Precious Body of Christ as he lowers it during the Eucharistic prayer after reciting “Do this in memory of me”? If I question the priest and he says it’s acceptable, do I simply accept it? Maybe I’m too simple to understand. I know the faithful have a right to proper sacraments but at what point do we do we go above the priest to the bishop or higher? Am I making any sense?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for your replies. I guess the tough thing for me to understand and accept is priests have a tremendous amount of training and I would assume (maybe that’s my problem) they have been well instructed. For me it raises the thought of someone cracking open a book and reading an isolated passage and misinterpreting it because they don’t have the full teaching. I would say they are giving just a snapshot. Or they simply don’t understand what they are reading. Before I go any farther I want to apologize to Benedictgal because it is obvious you don’t fall into this category but there are others I’ve experienced who clearly do.

I guess the types of issues I’m referring to are what I would call less serious things. There are the obvious problems, which most if not all Catholics would know, but what I’m thinking about are the less obvious, minor (minor isn’t the right word but please bear with me) things. In other words, if a priest were to omit the gospel reading I think that would be obviously wrong to most Catholics. What about the priest who kisses the Precious Body of Christ as he lowers it during the Eucharistic prayer after reciting “Do this in memory of me”? If I question the priest and he says it’s acceptable, do I simply accept it? Maybe I’m too simple to understand. I know the faithful have a right to proper sacraments but at what point do we do we go above the priest to the bishop or higher? Am I making any sense?

First talk to the priest.

You might consider asking him to show you in the Sacramentary where it says that he should do what he’s doing. If he can’t do that, or refuses to attempt it, then that would be cause for suspicion. Of course, if he points to the Sacramentary and says “here it is” then in my personal opinion, that should settle it.

If you don’t get satisfaction that way, you might consider writing to the bishop. If you do this, simply state what you see and ask him to clarify if this is within liturgical norms. Avoid telling the bishop what those norms are (they tend not to like that since they are the experts). Avoid personal opinions like “I don’t like this.” There’s nothing wrong with asking the bishop if something is in the norms (at least not once you’ve asked the priest to show it to you in the Sacramentary and you can see for yourself that it is or is not there). Be direct, be honest, and most of all be charitable.

 

[LighthouseRon]

First talk to the priest.

You might consider asking him to show you in the Sacramentary where it says that he should do what he’s doing. If he can’t do that, or refuses to attempt it, then that would be cause for suspicion. Of course, if he points to the Sacramentary and says “here it is” then in my personal opinion, that should settle it.

If you don’t get satisfaction that way, you might consider writing to the bishop. If you do this, simply state what you see and ask him to clarify if this is within liturgical norms. Avoid telling the bishop what those norms are (they tend not to like that since they are the experts). Avoid personal opinions like “I don’t like this.” There’s nothing wrong with asking the bishop if something is in the norms (at least not once you’ve asked the priest to show it to you in the Sacramentary and you can see for yourself that it is or is not there). Be direct, be honest, and most of all be charitable.

I suppose for the example I gave I could approach the priest from a curiosity standpoint as oppossed to an accusitory one. That makes sense and most likely will accomplish the goal. Thank you for your answer.

 

[japhy]

I remember during my catholic education being told we are to follow the priest, and it is not for the laity to interpret. While it is certainly okay to question the priest regarding these issues, it is the priest’s decision and we, as the laity, are to accept it. To put it simply, we follow the priest, the priest follows his bishop, and so on and so forth.

The problem comes in when the priest is NOT following his bishop, or the bishop is NOT following the mind (or law!) of the Church in some matter.

For example: a priest introduces “inclusive language” into the prayers of the Mass. This is not permitted by the Church, which says that priests are not permitted to alter the liturgy. He is probably doing this against the will of his bishop. But even if the bishop permits this (or does so himself), the bishop is still in the wrong, because the bishop, although the moderator and the guardian of the liturgy in his diocese, is not the “master” of the liturgy; that is, it is not his right to change or tweak whatever he wishes.

If I read something in the GIRM that I feel is different from what my parish is doing, what do I do? I can question my pastor but if he decides what is already being done is correct, what then?

I would certainly suggest you bring such things to the attention of your pastor. If he thinks the different way is the right way, I would ask him to clarify and support his position.

You may not be able to change liturgical practices that don’t directly concern you (like where he gives the homily from, whether he distributes Communion or not, etc.), but you can always participate in the Mass in your capacity properly (saying the right responses, bowing your head before receiving Communion, bowing your body during the Creed, etc.), and you cannot be prohibited from carrying out that licit participation.

I guess the tough thing for me to understand and accept is priests have a tremendous amount of training and I would assume (maybe that’s my problem) they have been well instructed.

That assumption might be the problem. What type of liturgical formation did priests receive in the 70s and 80s (and maybe even the 90s)? From what I’ve seen, I’m not sure they received “formation” so much as “deformation”.

What about the priest who kisses the Precious Body of Christ as he lowers it during the Eucharistic prayer after reciting “Do this in memory of me”? If I question the priest and he says it’s acceptable, do I simply accept it?

I can’t help you there, other than tell you its objective state. It’s not a carry-over from the older liturgy, it’s not called for in the newer liturgy.

It sounds to me like a personal (and laudable in some way) devotion to the Blessed Sacrament which just shouldn’t be done during the Mass.

 

[LighthouseRon]

You may not be able to change liturgical practices that don’t directly concern you (like where he gives the homily from, whether he distributes Communion or not, etc.),

.

This illustrates the source of some of my confusion. While I didn’t go and seek them out, I have saw threads discussing where the priest should be when delivering the homily. Some posters even listed sources for their position but the interpretation of the same source was somewhat different between posters with differing views. My understanding is as long as he stays within the sanctuary it is acceptable. Many don’t like the wandering priest but nonetheless it is acceptable if I understand correctly but the point remains two people can look at the same text and interpret very different things. At what point is it better to accept a practice, without full understanding, but nonetheless accept it because the priest/bishop says it’s okay?

 

[FrDavid96]

This illustrates the source of some of my confusion. While I didn’t go and seek them out, I have saw threads discussing where the priest should be when delivering the homily. Some posters even listed sources for their position but the interpretation of the same source was somewhat different between posters with differing views. My understanding is as long as he stays within the sanctuary it is acceptable. Many don’t like the wandering priest but nonetheless it is acceptable if I understand correctly but the point remains two people can look at the same text and interpret very different things. At what point is it better to accept a practice, without full understanding, but nonetheless accept it because the priest/bishop says it’s okay?

Yes, we have an obligation to trust our pastors, whether they are the parish priest or the bishop. But at the same time, the clergy have a solemn obligation to celebrate the sacraments validly and licitly; and the faithful have a right to it as well.

Here’s what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter:

*[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.*

I’m not suggesting that anyone write letters to Rome, I’m merely quoting the document so that people understand the fact that when they have questions or concerns about the liturgy, their consciences should be clear when they ask for an explanation–in truth and charity. The first place to address those questions is to the priest who’s doing it.

The homily can be given from the lectern or the chair (because the chair is a symbol of the teaching office of the priest), or another “suitable place.” But as a general rule (not law, but common sense), the celebrant should never leave the Sanctuary without a very good reason.

Ron, never hesitate to inquire about something that concerns you. If you’re concerned enough to bring it to the web, perhaps you should bring it up with the priest.