Would You Correct A Friend Who Is Doing Something Wrong At Mass?

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh, I wasn't arguing with what you said. I've agreed with everything you've said so far. I was challenging Reminiscere's post that seemed to imply (To me) that laypeople have no right or duty to do anything, because they're not ordained.

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were saying I said that.
I have not read any of Reminiscere's posts. :P

[PhuturePriest]

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were saying I said that.
I have not read any of Reminiscere's posts. :P

 

Self-involved anarchist. :P

[PhuturePriest]

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were saying I said that.
I have not read any of Reminiscere's posts. :P

 

For reference, this post below is the post I was originally responding to. It makes no distinction on whether or not we can't correct liturgical postures, or anything at all. With the type of language in the post, it seems to imply laypeople aren't supposed to correct anything. This might not be what was intended, but that is certainly how it is written. If one of the sheep is shacking it up with a person and using birth control and has no issues with having an abortion if the contraception doesn't work, you'd better believe it's your duty as a Catholic to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner, especially if you are in a better position to do this than Fr. Jones by being friends with the person in question.

 

Fr. Jones was trained and ordained to teach and preach (including correcting). Joe Blow wasn't. Fr. Jones is the pastor of souls, and he guides the flock entrusted to him by the Bishop. Joe Blow is one of those sheep. If the shepherd wants to correct, he will. It's not the sheep's place to go correcting other sheep.

 

[KnightofChrist]

He said he himself would be sinning if he disobeyed the bishop in this area where he has authority. So I suppose it follows that so would you and I if we rebel against legitimate authority. He is wrong because you say so? Can you give me a better reason to trust an anonymous internet poster over a published apologist and radio personality for Catholic Answers? He's solid.

But your quotes were irrelevant and pertained to postures after receiving communion. That is not the topic.

 

False, your position is false. It is very much relevant because it shows precedent. Or as Al has stated it shows "a broad principle for interpreting all norms of GIRM no. 43".

 

Allow me to sum up in simple terms what you don't seem to understand. Rome, the Holy See, has always supported and defended the rights of those laypersons that still wish to kneel during certain parts of the Mass where it has been traditional to do so.

In the disputes between, let us say the liturgical police, and the kneeling faithful Rome has always defended the laypersons who wish to kneel where it has always been traditional to do so.

 

But the liturgical police never seem willing to give up their pursuit to label kneeling faithful as "rebellious" or "disobedient", even after being corrected multiple times by Rome. For example the liturgical police use to call the kneeling faithful "rebellious" or "disobedient" for not standing during/receiving Communion, Rome shot that down because it has been traditional to do so and the Universal Norm, then (or perhaps before) they accused the kneeling faithful of being "rebellious" or "disobedient" for not standing after Communion, and Rome also shot that down, because it has been traditional to do so. Now you sit in judgement of the kneeling faithful for not standing before Communion, even though it has been traditional to do so. This is an example of how the liturgical police never seem to give up, they just keep moving the goal post up, modifying their position, even though Rome continues to shoot down their judgmental arguments.

 

When the kneeling faithful were accused of being "rebellious" or "disobedient" for not standing during Communion this is how Rome responded. The same idea applies to you, you cannot and should not judge others who choose to kneel where it has been traditional to do so or is actually the Universal Norm (rather a local norm suggested by a bishop).

 

 

Kneeling To Receive Holy Communion

Q: Can the faithful legitimately receive Holy Communion kneeling?

A: Yes. Here is a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship responding to this question on 2/26/03:

Prot. N. 47/03/L

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congegation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "...while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

Edited January 23, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[reminiscere]

There is a difference between grave, public scandal which calls for immediate correction and this non-issue which has already been settled by Rome. This non-issue isn't scandal and doesn't hurt anyone - spiritually or physically. As such, it's not within a layperson's competence to correct in this matter.

 

For reference, this post below is the post I was originally responding to. It makes no distinction on whether or not we can't correct liturgical postures, or anything at all. With the type of language in the post, it seems to imply laypeople aren't supposed to correct anything. This might not be what was intended, but that is certainly how it is written. If one of the sheep is shacking it up with a person and using birth control and has no issues with having an abortion if the contraception doesn't work, you'd better believe it's your duty as a Catholic to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner, especially if you are in a better position to do this than Fr. Jones by being friends with the person in question.

 

[reminiscere]

P.S. I'd like to add that obviously parents do have the right and the duty to correct their children. I never tried to argue otherwise, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. 

[Pliny]

There is a difference between grave, public scandal which calls for immediate correction and this non-issue which has already been settled by Rome. This non-issue isn't scandal and doesn't hurt anyone - spiritually or physically. As such, it's not within a layperson's competence to correct in this matter.

 

Well turn me into my bishop when I ask a friend why she's going against what the bishop tells her to do.

 

I am fully aware that I have no power to actually "correct" liturgical abuse, rebellion, or ignorance on a large scale, but among people I know, I don't see any harm in bringing up the subject, just as some of them don't seem to mind dogmatically preaching that every woman should wear a veil and that it's a sacrilege to take Communion in the hand.  I listened to their BS charitably, and if mine turns out to be BS as well, then they can have their turn being patient with me.

[Pliny]

Full Question

The bishop of my diocese said that everyone should remain standing after the Agnus Dei and should continue to stand until everyone has received Communion. Can he do this?

 

 

Answer

There are two separate issues here. First, a bishop in the United States can require that congregations in his diocese remain standing after the Agnus Dei until the reception of Communion. If your bishop has mandated that the congregations should remain standing after theAgnus Dei, then you should stand as has been directed:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of theSanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise. (GIRM 43, emphasis added)

Second, the bishop does not determine a congregant’s posture after the congregant has received Communion. After each congregant has received Communion, the congregant may choose to stand, sit, or kneel. The congregant does not have to wait for the rest of the congregation to receive before assuming the posture of his choice. If you wish to sit or kneel at this point, the choice is yours. In 2003, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) released a response upholding this. The question-and-answer can be read on the Web site of Adoremus (www.adoremus.org).

This response by the CDW has been thought by some to indicate that the bishop cannot mandate that the congregation remain standing after the Agnus Dei. This is not the case. The response was aclarification of number 43 of the GIRM, not a negation of it. This means that while the bishop can mandate standing until the individual reception of Communion, he does not mandate that individuals may not kneel after receiving Communion.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-bishop-require-the-congregation-to-stand-after-the-lamb-of-god

Answered by: Michelle Arnold

[Nihil Obstat]

Well turn me into my bishop when I ask a friend why she's going against what the bishop tells her to do.

 

I am fully aware that I have no power to actually "correct" liturgical abuse, rebellion, or ignorance on a large scale, but among people I know, I don't see any harm in bringing up the subject, just as some of them don't seem to mind dogmatically preaching that every woman should wear a veil and that it's a sacrilege to take Communion in the hand.  I listened to their BS charitably, and if mine turns out to be BS as well, then they can have their turn being patient with me.

Interesting way of putting it...

[PhuturePriest]

P.S. I'd like to add that obviously parents do have the right and the duty to correct their children. I never tried to argue otherwise, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. 

 

Well, it's not just parents that have the right to correct other Catholics in error. Unless you are once again speaking about postures, in which yes, parents can tell their kids which posture they want them to be in.

[Pliny]

When the kneeling faithful were accused of being "rebellious" or "disobedient" for not standing during Communion this is how Rome responded. The same idea applies to you, you cannot and should not judge others who choose to kneel where it has been traditional to do so or is actually the Universal Norm (rather a local norm suggested by a bishop).

 

 

So you've made posts about postures after receiving Communion and this one regarding the time of receiving Communion.

 

Where is your proof regarding the actual topic regarding the posture during the Lamb of God?  Surely that would be addressed SPECIFICALLY if "Rome" wanted to undermine the authority of the Bishop to mandate this posture.

 

And I am not one of the "liturgical police," btw.  The purpose of this thread is to discuss the possibly of having a discussion with ONE PERSON.

[Pliny]

When I converted to Catholicism 20 years ago, there was at that time a controversy about this in our parish.

 

And I decided that I would kneel because others told me it was "more reverent."  So that's what I did until one day the pastor ranted and raved about some of us being "defiant" at daily Mass, and I looked into it further, and found that he was right.

 

I still prefer to kneel at that time, and I of course do when I am in other dioceses where that is the norm, but in my diocese, I subordinate my personal preference to the bishop who has this authority.  That is what is "more reverent."  NOT doing my own thing.

 

So what would you say to a new Catholic who is confused and who doesn't know what to do?  (In a dioceses where standing is the norm).

 

This is the answer that I'm hearing:

 

The Bishop says that you're supposed to stand, but really, you don't have to pay any attention to him.  Just do what feels right for you...  (I have seen this reasoning used to justify BC).

Edited January 23, 2014 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Pliny, if this person is actually your friend, then you might open a conversation with them by asking them why they kneel and if they know that the bishop decided the norm in your diocese is standing. A conversation, not a confrontation. Ultimately, other than a conversation where you explain why the bishop decided to making standing the norm (maybe talk about the liturgical meaning of the posture) and the merits of unity/obedience, I don't think there's anything you can do.  While I'm not sure it's necessarily a sin to be confrontational or accusatory about it, I think it might be an imperfection, if that makes any sense. 

 

A conversation and not a confrontation--I agree 100%.

 

What I would like to understand, though, is WHY anyone would want to put themselves in a special position, and do so knowing the bishop prefers a particular posture and the unity it provides.  To me, it's disrespectful and sews seeds of division.  

[KnightofChrist]

So you've made posts about postures after receiving Communion and this one regarding the time of receiving Communion.

Where is your proof regarding the actual topic regarding the posture during the Lamb of God? Surely that would be addressed SPECIFICALLY if "Rome" wanted to undermine the authority of the Bishop to mandate this posture.

Before, during, and after = "various parts of... the Holy Mass"

Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem. The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

[Pliny]

There is a difference between grave, public scandal which calls for immediate correction and this non-issue which has already been settled by Rome. This non-issue isn't scandal and doesn't hurt anyone - spiritually or physically. As such, it's not within a layperson's competence to correct in this matter.

 

Please cite the document that proves your assertion about "competence" in this matter.

[Pliny]

Again KOC, that answer is out of context and the last sentence about "kneel or sit" is directed at the specific question regarding the posture after receiving Communion.

[KnightofChrist]

Again KOC, that answer is out of context and the last sentence about "kneel or sit" is directed at the specific question regarding the posture after receiving Communion.

Nope. You simply cannot admit mistake.

[Winchester]

It's a yes or no question, you morons.

 

 

[Winchester]

I should have had the sense to just go with my title. The OP, thankfully redacted by Winchester, was pointless. I am ashamed.

 

fxd

[Pliny]

Not true.  I'm looking at the evidence presented here as if I'm looking for justification to kneel instead of stand.  And as a thorough and thoughtful person who needs more than careless google research to prove or disprove a point, what you present is not convincing.

 

What I would like to see is something that specifically addresses the Lamb of God posture and that a Bishop has no authority to enforce it.