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

[Nihil Obstat]

OK, one last post for the night...

 

The bishop.

 

And that's what I would like to impress upon my friend...what the bishop dictated...not what someone else dictates who has only part of the truth or quotes (like many of the above) taken out of context to make a case.

 

And thank you padrepioetc for your very thoughtful post.

The bishop has the authority to establish guidelines. He cannot force the faithful to stand when he thinks they should stand. Like it or not, he does not bind the faithful in that way. While some may find it a useful or devotional practice to follow the mind of the bishop in such matters, others may not, and they do not act wrongly by kneeling if the bishop prefers standing.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

 

And thank you padrepioetc for your very thoughtful post.

 

You are most welcome

[Pliny]

The bishop has the authority to establish guidelines. He cannot force the faithful to stand when he thinks they should stand. Like it or not, he does not bind the faithful in that way. While some may find it a useful or devotional practice to follow the mind of the bishop in such matters, others may not, and they do not act wrongly by kneeling if the bishop prefers standing.

 

OK so if I were one who wants to now kneel in opposition to what the bishop says, to what document or documents would I refer to make my case if the pastor rebuked me?

 

I need something more than what appears to be just an opinion.

[Nihil Obstat]

OK so if I were one who wants to now kneel in opposition to what the bishop says, to what document or documents would I refer to make my case if the pastor rebuked me?

 

I need something more than what appears to be just an opinion.

Answered dubia should be authoritative enough, considering that if a pastor were to rebuke someone for such an issue he would already be completely ultra vires.

[Nihil Obstat]

Also, Canon 838 says thus:

Canon 838
1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church, to publish the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances are faithfully observed everywhere.
3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish them with the prior review by the Holy See.
4. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.
 

 

 

Regulating the posture of the faithful beyond issuing what essentially amounts to the bishop's preference, would be outside the limits of his competence, as clarified in the dubia referenced earlier.

[reminiscere]

First of all, did you not notice Cardinal Arinze's words: 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." This isn't limited to after the reception of Holy Communion!

 

But here you go. If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will 

 

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

 

7 November 2000

Prot. 2372/00/L

 

(Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's) Query: Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by no. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, [the new 2000 GIRM]  intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following reception of Communion?

 

Response: Negative.

Edited January 23, 2014 by reminiscere

[reminiscere]

1) It's important to stay on topic.

 

2) I don't believe Communion in the hand is allowed as a debatable issue on PM. 

 

You missed the point.

 

But so what if we get sidetracked into discussion about Communion in the hand (not that that is my intention) and so what if there have been many debates about it?

 

Are you a moderator?

 

[reminiscere]

Rome has dictated. Bishops are to follow. 

 

OK, one last post for the night...

 

The bishop.

 

And that's what I would like to impress upon my friend...what the bishop dictated...not what someone else dictates who has only part of the truth or quotes (like many of the above) taken out of context to make a case.

 

And thank you padrepioetc for your very thoughtful post.

 

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

 

First of all, did you not notice Cardinal Arinze's words: 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." This isn't limited to after the reception of Holy Communion!

 

But here you go. If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will 

 

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

 

7 November 2000

Prot. 2372/00/L

 

(Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's) Query: Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by no. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, [the new 2000 GIRM]  intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following reception of Communion?

 

Response: Negative.

 

 

ok, but you failed to address any of the other points I posted. Even if, as you have shown, kneeling is not prohibited...the Bishop has requested people stand, and an individual chooses not to, and is a friend it is not WRONG for that person to discuss with a friend the choice, and if necessary/proper/warranted help that person grow in their understanding of the liturgy. For example, lets say it's learned the friend is kneeling because they believe everybody else is in error...would it not be the good thing to let that person know of the Bishop's request? And of the desire for unity in posture even if the person still has the personal choice?

 

 

[Aloysius]

I'd like to go back to the previous responsum ad dubium that was cited, because while it is true that the answer was in the context of the question of whether one can kneel after communion, the response said something much more broad and applied it to the norms of GIRM no. 43.

 

 

 The mens is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass [demonstrating that they are herein talking about ALL of no. 43, where most of the postures of the laity are discussed], 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.

 

GIRM no. 43 lists the general guidelines for the postures of the laity throughout the mass.  This response applies to ALL of the norms stated in this section.  Broad limits of a certain uniformity in posture, but not a rigid regulation of the laity's posture.  full stop.  that applies to every posture of the laity being listed here.  moreover, Rome consistently shows indulgence and deference in EVERY instance when people are kneeling against their local norms at a time when it was once traditional to do so... up to the point where in 2010 the document that used to say people shouldn't be denied communion for kneeling but should be educated about the reasons they should stand was revised to no longer state anything of the kind, it now says “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.”

Rome is not a fan of anyone trying to prohibit kneeling at times it was traditional, it allows for other norms to be established but continually treats the former kneeling options as acceptable.  standing when you should be sitting or kneeling would not get such deference from Rome and would be frowned upon simply for a lack of manners if nothing else, but kneeling at ANY time during the Mass is not in any way prohibited... it's just not the norm, you're requested to follow along with the broad limits so that there is, generally, a certain uniformity of posture.

 

until and unless you can demonstrate that Rome has indicated the opposite of this principle, which it gave as its mens by applying that principle to a particular case but clearly indicating it applies to ALL of no.43, that somehow the principle of broad limits without rigid regulation they described is somehow LIMITED in scope to ONLY the time after communion, then you are certainly not in any position to try to "correct" anyone on the matter as a layman.  If someone was doing something that was demonstrably wrong, you would be in a position to offer correction, but as it stands right now it's demonstrably the mind of the CDW that there is not meant to be an absolute rigidity in the guidelines for the postures of the laity.  which, if you read that statement from the CDW and then go back and re-read no. 43 where it softly says what people "should" do, makes total and complete sense.  the postures of the laity are not legislated with any degree of force, there are merely some broad limits and guidelines for them.

 

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Well reasoned and stated Alyosius.

[Pliny]

 

First of all, did you not notice Cardinal Arinze's words: 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." This isn't limited to after the reception of Holy Communion!

 

But here you go. If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will 

 

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

 

7 November 2000

Prot. 2372/00/L

 

(Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's) Query: Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by no. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, [the new 2000 GIRM]  intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following reception of Communion?

 

Response: Negative.

 

 

Once again this is from the context of the issue regarding confusion about what to do AFTER receiving Communion.

 

The Bishop apparently is already in a diocese that was already kneeling after the Lamb of God, so the directive to kneel was already in place.  But there was some confusion about whether one was supposed to stand at that time too because of the confusion about supposedly having to stand after receiving Communion.

 

I'm still looking for a loophole so that I can do my preferred kneeling in defiance of what my bishop says, but this does not suffice at all.

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2014 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Some common sense from Jimmy Aiken:

 

Q: Our parish formerly knelt after the Lamb of God. Recently our priest told us we should not. I know that it’s not in the rubrics to kneel, but would it be sinful to do so?

A: Although it is a custom in many parishes to kneel following the Lamb of God, the rubrics actuallymandate the reverse. The General Instruction to the Roman Missal mandates standing after the conclusion of the Great Amen through the rest of Mass. A special dispensation has not been made for America in this regard, so actually, we do have an obligation to stand following the Lamb of God.

If it would cause a greater pastoral problem if one were to stand (for example, if one were the only person standing in the entire congregation), then kneeling might be appropriate. However, if your pastor is trying to bring the parish into conformity with the Church’s liturgical laws then you should thank and praise God for it (you’re one of the lucky ones!) and do everything you can to assist him, even if your personal devotional preferences would be otherwise.

My own personal preferences would be to kneel after the Lamb of God. However, this cannot be justified on legal grounds, and if my parish priest wishes to encourage greater conformity to liturgical law, I will ignore my personal preference and do what the Church says. To do otherwise would be disobedience to the priest and the Church in a matter over which they have jurisdiction (how liturgy is to be celebrated — though a priest only has jurisdiction in this area when he does not go against the Church’s liturgical laws). The analog would be for a child to disobey a parent in an area over which the parent has jurisdiction, and that would that be sinful.

What I would do if I were you would be to go to the priest and say, “Father, I’m glad we have begun to celebrate the liturgy according to the Church’s laws in this area; now let’s bring our celebration into line in these other areas as well… 

http://jimmyakin.com/kneeling-at-the-lamb-of-god

 

 

[Pliny]

Jimmy Aiken calls it a "sin" to willfully disobey the bishop in this matter.

 

If he's right about that, then I think I do have the duty to correct a friend, as I would expect and hope she would do with me.

[Pliny]

1) It's important to stay on topic.

 

2) I don't believe Communion in the hand is allowed as a debatable issue on PM. 

 

If you would have thoughtfully read that post you would have seen that it was within the topic and that it was not an attempt to debate Communion in the hand.

 

You tend to take things out of context, cherry pick, and throw as much stuff against the wall as you can. You've provided numerous links to material which on the surface seemed to make a point, but looking at them more carefully, referred to a different issue.  It would be good if you could concede that.