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

[Lil Red]

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

 

okay, my answer is no. :P

[Winchester]

I wonder if it's permissible to save a life on the Sabbath.

[PhuturePriest]

I wonder if it's permissible to save a life on the Sabbath.

 

Under no circumstance. Do you want to cause disorder and chaos?

[Slappo]

I wonder if it's permissible to save a life on the Sabbath.

Only if you use a lifesaver.

 

After all, they are made of candy and we're supposed to feast.

[Pliny]

What I'm saying is that there are more important things to worry about in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Of course there are.  But it's not either/or.  I have PLENTY of big things to worry about.

 

But worrying about small things keeps my mind off them.  

 

But seriously, most of the posts here lead to the conclusion that it doesn't much matter what the bishop says.  You can do whatever you want.  And that doesn't ring true to me.  

[Pliny]

So here's the question again that I posed and nobody answered.  (It might be my fault for substituting my own answer so I'll omit that this time).

 

Presume you are in a diocese where the Bishop says to stand at the Lamb of God.

 

A new Catholic sees some Catholics kneeling at that time and he's intrigued by that and that they are doing something different than everyone else.  He has also heard that the idea that they do that is because it is a more reverent posture than standing.

 

But he's also heard that the pastor says the bishop wants people to stand.  (In my case they told me that the pastor wanted to "undermine" our faith by making us stand).

 

So he comes to you confused and asks what is the correct thing to do.

 

What do you tell him?

[Pliny]

Just for fun, but this is the truth.

 

I DO stand during the Consecration at the Sunday Mass (but not at daily mass).

 

We gives three guesses why...

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Pliny,

 

just for the record I DID answer your question and you thanked me for it... :)

 

further at that time I also missed the part, of the response we've been discussing about posture after receiving, which said during various parts of the mass. Meaning although the QUESTION was specific to a certain time, the ANSWER was more general to "various parts of the Mass" meaning the time after the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

 

In the case which you asked hypothetically...I would inform the person that the Bishop has asked everybody to stand out of unity, tradition ect...It is preferable as a norm to give general preference to the desires of the Local Ordinary, The Successor to the Apostles entrusted with our spiritual care, the local Bishop. However, for various reasons some people find it difficult to stand at certain parts because of how they understand the meaning of various postures and if for that individual it is distracting to the individual or other reason, Rome has made it clear that the individual may still kneel. I would further caution that if kneeling is the way the individual can best grow close to God in prayer at that moment they can kneel, but they should probably do so from a place where their choice of posture does not distract others from the locally requested norm.

 

It's not a matter of clear obedience or disobedience.

 

I hope my explanation of reasoning makes sense.

 

PAX CHRISTI

[Pliny]

Thanks for your explanation.  I wish they would sit in the back too.  But one sits right in the front where over half the church can see her (because of the odd layout of our church).

 

But I still don't concede that Rome allows for kneeling at this point.  That's an extrapolation.  I'm sure nobody is going to be excommunicated for it, but there must be some seriousness and some weight to the bishop's mandate, otherwise what good is it?

 

And I still say Jimmy Aiken is a greater authority than anyone here and I'm with him unless someone can give me a more compelling reason to dispute the conclusion of one of the top Catholic apologists in the country.

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

Thanks for your explanation.  I wish they would sit in the back too.  But one sits right in the front where over half the church can see her (because of the odd layout of our church).

 

But I still don't concede that Rome allows for kneeling at this point.  That's an extrapolation.  I'm sure nobody is going to be excommunicated for it, but there must be some seriousness and some weight to the bishop's mandate, otherwise what good is it?

 

And I still say Jimmy Aiken is a greater authority than anyone here and I'm with him unless someone can give me a more compelling reason to dispute the conclusion of one of the top Catholic apologists in the country.

 

Did you know that at the Vatican, they stand? Or they at least did when Pope Benedict XVI was in charge, anyway. I don't know if they still do now.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Pliny,

 

I think where you are going astray is seeing the Bishop's request, norm ect. as a "mandate". There are times where the Local Ordinary has full and binding authority on some issues, but the liturgy is not exactly one of them especially when the CDW has published on the subject at hand. Where you are looking to Jimmy Aiken for authority, most of us are looking to the Cardinals and Bishops in Rome on this issue as that is even where the U.S. Bishops turn when they have a question of this nature.

[Pliny]

Did you know that at the Vatican, they stand? Or they at least did when Pope Benedict XVI was in charge, anyway. I don't know if they still do now.

 

No, I didn't know that.  Thanks.

[Pliny]

42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.[52] Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

 

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

 

 

See my emphasis above.

 

It seems to me that any way that we can encourage unity would be a very good thing.  Unity is better than yielding to "private inclination or arbitrary choice."

 

But why would people who know this stuff want to defy it?  I will grant that some do not and are doing so in ignorance, and some are probably willfully ignorant, but those who know what they'rd doing remind me of "cafeteria catholics."

Edited January 24, 2014 by Pliny

[Pliny]

If the GIRM is just a set of "suggestions" that don't have to be rigidly followed, does that apply, for example, to the music ministers?  Do they get to play fast and loose with the rules too, or just the laity in the pews?

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Yes, you are correct to an extent. GIRM 52 points out that the GIRM rather than personal inclination should be followed, the clarification of the GIRM supplied by the CDW states that the unity of posture should not be so rigidly interpreted as to prevent people from standing or kneeling during various parts of the liturgy. To me it seems evident that the decision to sit or kneel is not just personal inclination. as described in #52 or it would not have been allowed in the clarification.

 

It is good to follow the Bishop in this matter, in fact it's great and can provide wonderful graces, but it is not binding and we can not judge a person for exercising their protected decision in this matter. We can inform, teach, and show the information.