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

[Pliny]

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.

 

 

I'm not yet convinced it is not "binding."  I'm having a talk with my pastor this week, and maybe he can shed some light on this.

 

Of course "judgement" is for God, regardless of what anyone does within Mass or elsewhere.

 

But the key words in your post that most here seem to disagree with (not me) are that we can "inform, teach, and show..."

 

I realize that it must be done delicately and tactfully, but there is nothing wrong with doing it, and in fact there might be something wrong with NOT doing it.

 

On the other hand, suppose someone was too aggressive about teaching someone else, too confrontational, or just plain wrong. Isn't charity a two way street?  Does that person on the receiving end have the right to be angered, or could he not respond in humility, agreeing to hear the case of the other person, and then in charity, if it turns out that he needs to do the teaching?

Edited January 24, 2014 by Pliny

[PhuturePriest]

Of course "judgement" is for God, regardless of what anyone does within Mass or elsewhere.

 

God, and of course, myself. I'm kind of like the Joseph Smith of Catholicism, where I get a special seat next to God and judge peoples' souls along with him at the end of the world to see if they were repentant enough in life for heaven.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

God, and of course, myself. I'm kind of like the Joseph Smith of Catholicism, where I get a special seat next to God and judge peoples' souls along with him at the end of the world to see if they were repentant enough in life for heaven.

 

Never before have I felt the need for a "negative props" button :(

[PhuturePriest]

Never before have I felt the need for a "negative props" button :(

 

That's 5% off your salvation points. I'd recommend you start telling me how smart you think I am or something.

 

;)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

:) G'day Pliny may the peace of our lord and saviour christ Jesus be with you.

 

Firstly i understand your concerns about church unity.

 

I say If it will ease your conscience you can inform them as to what the bishop has instructed, just don't hold it against them whatever they say back to you and don't be offended if they do nothing. It is there choice. And perhaps it isn't a mortal sin. I had to inform a friend who confessed to me to not going to mass every sunday and i did tell him that he should and that the church advises this. We are meant to help each other but not to judge or condemn each other for Jesus said in holy scripture something like " he that hates his brother..." sorry i can't remember the rest but it was something like ' hates me' or 'i will also condemn' it was a rebuke though. I'm not saying you hate these people but be careful that it doesn't turn into hate Jesus also says "love the sinner but hate the sin" you can not wave a magic wand and make them obey the arch bishop although as i said you can inform them but after informing them " let go and let god" and don't proselytise them and don't hold a resentment if they don't head your advice. But again i am unsure if it is a mortal sin to disobey the commands of a bishop because the lay aren't bound to a vow of obedience to the vatican or superior of a monastery etc except for infallible matters of faith and morals decreed by the holy father, although obedience to the pastor, bishop or cardinal is advised and worthwhile it is not compulsory. I had a similar thing years ago when our arch bishop wrote a letter asking everyone to stand maybe 6 words after a usual point to stand in the liturgy and he wrote a letter and gave plenty enough copies to every parish and hardly anyone followed or even read the letter or forgot what he had read, i had to let it go but continued to follow the arch bishops advice. Of course with the whole suggested things from the Pope, cardinals, bishops and parish priests some people are very reckless perhaps and don't even respect(think about/take into consideration) what our shepards say for whatever reason and ignore it completely, but i can't judge anyone for such behaviour or perhaps everyone does respect the whole whack and caboodle and just simply forget to practice it or choose to do otherwise according to what they understand to be right and true which may or may not be there own mind, the advice of others,previous things said by church authorities or a bits and pieces from all 3. :)  hope that all helps Pliny. :) 

 

And this is all just my opinion and i'm only a laymen and not so educated in church stuff, take what you will.

 

Onward christian souls.

 

Jesus is LORD.

 

[Aloysius]

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

the responsum ad dubium, and the numerous answers from Cardinal Arinze, demonstrate that these local postural norms cannot be made binding, that there is no competence to make them binding.  all of GIRM no. 43 should be interpreted in this way.  a local norm instituted by a bishop is instituted as a norm under the same level as GIRM no. 43 and as such, a bishop would not have competence to make it binding considering GIRM no. 43 is not treated as binding, but as a broad set of guidelines not a rigid regulation of the postures of the people.  that is the guiding principle for how to deal with the norms for the posture of lay people, the moments when one is to allow for the norms of no. 43 to be bent is most strongly in play during times when it was once traditional to kneel, in which case the right to choose to kneel is presumed.

 

while this is still referencing after Holy Communion, the sentiments expressed here reflect his sentiments in numerous questioning, which is basically "If someone wants to kneel before Our Lord, let them do so."

http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/files/cardarinze_3.pdf

 

I still think it remains to you to show where Rome has actually interpreted any such postural norms for the laity as binding and prohibitive of kneeling.  Cardinal Medina Estevez responded from the CDW to numerous questions about whether the GIRM prohibited the faithful from kneeling at any time and simply said "negative"--if the GIRM doesn't prohibit kneeling at any time, neither can the Bishop, the Bishop's norms are done within the context of the GIRM

http://www.ewtn.org/expert/answers/cdw2000.htm

 

to answer a previous question you asked, if someone was confused, I would tell them to stand unless they wanted to kneel, the same way the revised US norm states about what you should do for receiving communion: stand unless you want to kneel.

[Aloysius]

... I got a bit curious as to what the actual "norms" each diocesan bishop has instituted said, and whether such norms can easily be interpreted under this principle of the CDW of broad limits without binding rigid regulation the same way the norms of no. 43 are easily interpreted in this manner.  The only places I can think of that really shout out "this is the norm" were LA and Orange and such out in CA, and I can easily read their norms as holding the same non-binding level as GIRM no.43 holds...
 
LA (one of the least binding "norms" imaginable lol):
 
 
 

11. Posture is another significant aspect of the Liturgy. From the Church's ancient tradition, standing has been the appropriate posture to reflect the assembly's prayer of praise and thanksgiving. Thus, a) standing is the customary posture for the community's reception of Holy Communion in the Archdiocese; b) standing after the Breaking of the Bread ("Lamb of God") can avoid unnecessary noise and distraction. 
http://www.la-archdiocese.org/cardinal/Documents/1988-0331_Guidelines_SundayEucharist.pdf

Orange County: [which once had to issue this unfortunately necessary retraction that kneeling or standing are never "mortal sins" for goodness sake! http://www.rcbo.org/highlights/images/pdfs/Kneeling_Standing.pdf ]

 

 

Bishop Tod Brown, our diocesan bishop has determined that the people should stand after the Agnus Dei (at the Behold the Lamb of God…). 
http://www.rcbo.org/images/stories/worship/Revised_POSTURE_OF_THE_PEOPLE_AT_MASS.pdf

 
easily the same standard as no. 43... people 'should' stand, following the same mens the CDW applies to the standards of no.43, I can't see it as binding.
 
if anyone can think of another diocese and see what their actual guidelines say, it'd be interesting to see if any of them are actually worded as strict mandates beyond the scope of GIRM no. 43...
 
anyway, I just really think, given the sense of every official dealing with this issue can be seen through the mens the CDW mentions about how it interprets GIRM no. 43 for the postures "at various parts of the mass", the burden of proof would now shift to you to show that the hierarchy in any way treats these postures as binding mandates from which deviation in the form of kneeling at times it was once traditional to do so is actually some form of disobedience.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Al, I wish I could double prop your last post...well stated case as to the "option" of postures.

[Nihil Obstat]

... I got a bit curious as to what the actual "norms" each diocesan bishop has instituted said, and whether such norms can easily be interpreted under this principle of the CDW of broad limits without binding rigid regulation the same way the norms of no. 43 are easily interpreted in this manner.  The only places I can think of that really shout out "this is the norm" were LA and Orange and such out in CA, and I can easily read their norms as holding the same non-binding level as GIRM no.43 holds...
 
LA (one of the least binding "norms" imaginable lol):
 
 
 


Orange County: [which once had to issue this unfortunately necessary retraction that kneeling or standing are never "mortal sins" for goodness sake! http://www.rcbo.org/highlights/images/pdfs/Kneeling_Standing.pdf ]

 

 

 
easily the same standard as no. 43... people 'should' stand, following the same mens the CDW applies to the standards of no.43, I can't see it as binding.
 
if anyone can think of another diocese and see what their actual guidelines say, it'd be interesting to see if any of them are actually worded as strict mandates beyond the scope of GIRM no. 43...
 
anyway, I just really think, given the sense of every official dealing with this issue can be seen through the mens the CDW mentions about how it interprets GIRM no. 43 for the postures "at various parts of the mass", the burden of proof would now shift to you to show that the hierarchy in any way treats these postures as binding mandates from which deviation in the form of kneeling at times it was once traditional to do so is actually some form of disobedience.

If you would like it, here are the current 'directives' in my diocese. I am not the biggest of fans.

(This is a download link to a pdf which will save on your hard drive. Small file, only 8 pages.) http://www.calgarydiocese.ca/stewardship/articles/doc_download/181-girm-2011-implementation-directives.html

[Aloysius]

well that seems to me to include the "laudably retained" quote from the GIRM, and to easily fall within that same mens of interpretation as the CDW's response uses.

 

it is interesting to read through the utter confusion from the USCCB's debates on this issue: http://www.adoremus.org/0303BishopRules.

 

it seems the guiding principle for allowing standing was to be pastoral where this had gotten a foothold while still "laudably maintaining" kneeling where it had been the custom.  from that perspective, I cannot imagine any scenario under which we could see any local norms as binding directives that forbid the faithful from kneeling.

[Pliny]

"Stand unless you want to kneel."

That sounds more like "Do whatever you want to do. BLEEEP what the bishop says, it doesn't matter."

I want to kneel but I stand and so do many others who have respect for the authority of the bishop in this matter.

[IcePrincessKRS]

"Stand unless you want to kneel."

That sounds more like "Do whatever you want to do. BLEEEP what the bishop says, it doesn't matter."

I want to kneel but I stand and so do many others who have respect for the authority of the bishop in this matter.

 

Well that's great for you. But if someone else's conscience tells them to kneel the Church has reserved the right for them to do so.

Edited January 24, 2014 by IcePrincessKRS

[KnightofChrist]

"Stand unless you want to kneel."

That sounds more like "Do whatever you want to do. BLEEEP what the bishop says, it doesn't matter."

I want to kneel but I stand and so do many others who have respect for the authority of the bishop in this matter.

 

You sound a lot like Q from Star Trek TNG's first episode, he also would not accept any answer than the one he wanted to hear...

 

[Lil Red]

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

 

i agree with everything you've said (especially the bolded part) except for the sentiment of "sit where no one can see you". LOL

[Pliny]

Well that's great for you. But if someone else's conscience tells them to kneel the Church has reserved the right for them to do so.

 

That was my response to aloysius who said basically that he would tell someone that the bishop says they should stand, but if you want to do otherwise, that's cool.  

 

I wonder why they can't be plainer.  Something like:  We really hope you will stand at this point but if your conscience tells you to do something else, go for it.  But they don't.  And why would someone's conscience lead them to defy a bishop in an area where he has authority?  Why wouldn't someone's conscience lead them to unity instead of sticking out like a sore thumb?  They would have to be ignorant to be in good conscience on this issue.  Otherwise, it proceeds from pride.  

 

And I'm not at all convinced that the church has "reserved that right."  It seems more to me not a "right" that has been extended, but a tolerance of bad or ignorant behavior.

 

I'm still with Jimmy Aiken on this.  He's not the final word HERE, but for me personally, he trumps anonymous internet message board experts. 

 

Maybe my pastor can shed some more light on this and I will share what I learn.