Greetings, We are a family of Protestants, plus my Muslim husband, looking forward to the wedding of my niece, who has converted to Catholicism. There will be a High Mass. What is the appropriate “etiquette” for non-Catholics, please? For example, when others kneel, should we, or stay seated? Should we approach the front of the church during communion but cross our arms to ask for only a blessing? We want to be respectful and do the right thing, but we’re not sure what it is. Would you help us, please? Thanks, Marty

-- Marty (mmotia@aol.com), February 24, 2005

Answers

It is customary to bump a post so it will appear on the new answers page which many have bookmarked.

-- bump (bumppmub@bumpmail.com), February 24, 2005.

It would be polite to kneel when others kneel. As far as I know no protestant or Muslim has any objection to kneeling when they pray, to show humility before, and respect to, God.

Sometimes during a wedding, non-Catholic close relatives (parents or siblings) of the bride or groom, come forward at Communion time to receive a blessing. This is not a practical problem when the priest is aware that the person is not a Catholic and is coming for a blessing. However if a large numbver of people did this it may confuse the person administering Communion (who may be someone other than the priest, and who may not know the family very well). Some Catholics cross their arms when approaching the Communion minister to indicate that they want the minister to put the Communion Host onto their tongue instead of into their hand. Catholics will not be offended by your not coming forward at Communion time. Not even all Catholics attending a Mass receive Communion, some stay in their seats for various legitimate reasons.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

Kneel?

That is up to you; keep in mind that we Catholics kneel not only for prayer during the celebration of Mass, but for adoration as we believe Jesus (God) becomes present in a real and physical way.

Approach for a Blessing?

Again it is up to you, and YES, if you do, keep your arms crossed over your chest to indicate you request only a Blessing. If there are any lay Ministers of Communion, then do not approach them for the Blessing, approach only the Priest or a Deacon.

Refrain from disrupting the liturgy by taking photos, most priests will ask that there be only one photographer and that he/she be discreet and stay out of the way. :)

Other than that, just show the usual respect for being in a house of worship.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

If there are any lay Ministers of Communion, then do not approach them for the Blessing, approach only the Priest or a Deacon.

Fr. Paul, why do you say this? I see the Ministers giving a blessing all the time at Mass.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 25, 2005.

Not all lay ministers know about this practice, that's why. One would think it would be covered in training, but I don't know if it is standard from parish to parish.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 25, 2005.

Non-ordained persons are not permitted to confer blessings within the context of a liturgical celebration, as such an act blurs the essential distinction between clergy and laity. This rule is commonly abused however. Not only are many lay Eucharistic ministers unclear about their responsibiliy in this regard, but the congregation is often not properly informed either, which places the lay ministers in an awkward position. What is a lay minister to do when a person is suddenly standing before them, arms crossed? Refuse to offer them a blessing? Direct them to go to the priest? Most lay ministers, when faced with such a situation, will simply giving the blessing, even if they know it is liturgically inappropriate, rather than cause embarrassment to the person seeking the blessing, and to themselves. Pastors would do well to properly instruct both their lay ministers and their congregations on this aspect and other aspects of proper reception of the Eucharist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2005.

Approach for a Blessing? Again it is up to you, and YES, if you do, keep your arms crossed over your chest to indicate you request only a Blessing.

I would appreciate it if one of the clergy here (Reverend Father or Reverend Deacon) would quote from one of the Holy See's liturgical documents, pre- or post-Vatican II, on this point. I would like to see the language that tells how non-Catholics are permitted to approach in the Communion line for a blessing, what gesture they are to make, etc.. I would like to see the language that tells clergy that they should give a blessing to non-Catholics (or even Catholics) who approach with their hands held in a certain position.

In case you didn't "read between the lines" in the previous paragraph, my reason for asking these questions is my doubt that the Church has ever called for this practice, and what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted. In other words, what Paul called an abuse when done by a layman may even be an impropriety when done by a priest or deacon. As I said, though, this is only a "doubt" of mine, and I will be pleased to have it resolved by being able to read a quotation from a Vatican document that allows for such blessings.

If there is no Holy See permission for the giving of a blessing at the time of Holy Communion, I wish to ask our clergy here to stop giving blessings and to explain to their fellow diocesan clergy that they should do the same. If there is no Holy See permission for Communion-time blessings, I think that the best thing would be for the celebrant (or a commentator) to announce that only "receiving communicants" should come forward.

If there is no Holy See permission for blessings and yet a non- communicant improperly comes forward, there would be an easy solution (for both clerical and lay ministers) that would follow the liturgical law and avoid the giving of an illicit blessing. The law calls for a minister to say, "The Body of Christ," while raising the Host. This would therefore be done when a non-communicant comes forward, if there is no Holy See permission to give a blessing. It would then be up to the non-communicant to conclude the process, perhaps by bowing or by simply returning to his pew.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 25, 2005.

"lay Eucharistic ministers"

There is no such things, the proper term is Extraordinary Minister of Communion, but Lay Minister of Communion is acceptable. "[L]ay Eucharistic ministers" is never acceptable as only the Ordained are Eucharistic Ministers; even formally installed Acolytes are not Eucharistic Ministers, but Auxilary Ministers of Communion which, in effect, is the same as Extraordinary.

K,

There is no law forbidding the practice of non-Catholics, Catechumens, Candidates or small children (where the practice originated) from coming forward in the Communion Procession for a Blessing and, one could argue, Spiritual Communion. In fact, it is a custom in many places, and as such, after a period of time enjoys the benifit of Law. Only those customs that are clearly against the Law can never become Law from the passage of time.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Another thing K,

The Sacred Host should not be raised and "The Body of Christ" said unless it is clear that the person seeks Communion. We DO NOT give Eucharistic Benedictions in the Communion Procession. Such Benedictions are only given after a period of Solemn Exposition and Adoration; in fact, it is not permitted to Expose the Blessed Sacrament solely for the purpose of giving Benediction.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Marty, With all that kneeling and communion postings set aside, I just want to honor you and your husband for caring enough about your neice to ask the questions. May God continue to bless you both and your neices marriage.

-- Davis (Hello@There.com), March 01, 2005.

A priest gives what's known as his pastoral blessing; which brings the faithful God's own blessing with it. that's why a lay minister's sign of the cross over you is simply THAT; no different from the one my Mom gives me over the telephone. It's her maternal blessing; and that's how I should view it.

The priest gives us GOD'S blessing; not only his personal one. This is something we should realise and be VERY grateful for. We have truly passed through the door into GOD'S house. We should be constantly aware of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

Marty,

You should probably remain at your seats during Communion--since the truth is that as a Protestant, you do not believe in their communion as they practice it [believing in Transubstantiation], and the Muslim faith rejects Jesus as God altogether. The other people should understand and mutually respect you. It would be hypocritical to participate.

As an x-Catholic myself, I could never receive Catholic Communion, since I don't believe what they do. I often times find myself in a Catholic Mass for one reason or another. I simply remain in my seat. I have no reason not to kneel in prayer to God, though--even in a Catholic Church.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2005.

''As an x-Catholic myself, I could never receive Catholic Communion, since I don't believe,'' (anon)

We wouldn't have it any other way, annie. You MUST abstain from Holy Communion if you're in a state of mortal sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

I participate in the Lord's Supper as He established it, Eugene. He is to be celebrated and remembered until He comes again. He said, "Do this in rememberance of Me"

-- (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2005.

No problem with it, anon. It isn't the real Body and Blood of Our Lord. You can take part in that pretend celebration in mortal sin. All the others do it. Jesus isn't even there.

All your blessed ancestors were Catholics and received Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. YOUR ancestors who are in heaven today! They worshipped in the Catholic Church. Just as I do, and the many good Christian Catholics here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

Thank you, Father Paul, for replying to my message. However, it was not really a "successful" reply, because you did not do what I requested.

Here is what I said last time. I would appreciate it if one of the clergy here (Reverend Father or Reverend Deacon) would quote from one of the Holy See's liturgical documents, pre- or post-Vatican II, on this point. I would like to see the language that tells how non- Catholics are permitted to approach in the Communion line for a blessing, what gesture they are to make, etc.. I would like to see the language that tells clergy that they should give a blessing to non-Catholics (or even Catholics) who approach with their hands held in a certain position.

Reverend Father, neither you nor the Reverend Deacon has presented the Holy See's language that authorizes this practice. I believe that there is no such language in the G.I.R.M. (even with local adaptations), in "Redemptionis Sacramentum," etc.. In my previous message, I specifically stated why such language is needed. I said that my reason for asking these questions is my doubt that the Church has ever called for this practice, and what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted.

Father, you gave me no language from the Church's liturgical documents, but instead tried to brush aside my concerns with these words: There is no law forbidding the practice of non-Catholics, Catechumens, Candidates or small children (where the practice originated) from coming forward in the Communion Procession for a Blessing and, one could argue, Spiritual Communion.

But as I had already mentioned, with regard to the liturgy, "what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted." Father, although you did not tell me that I was wrong to say those words, you seem to have tried to sidestep them with these words about the blessing under discussion: it is a custom in many places, and as such, after a period of time enjoys the benifit of Law. Only those customs that are clearly against the Law can never become Law from the passage of time.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Such a blessing is not, and can never be, a "custom," because it is a liturgical abuse! Why? Because it is an illicit "accretion" (addition) to the Rite of the Mass. Any addition, change, or deletion in the Mass that is unauthorized by the Holy See is forbidden. An "abuse" (such as an accretion) cannot become a lawful "custom," because it IS "clearly against the Law" (to use your own words against you).

Unlawful additions, changes, and deletions are specifically forbidden in Vatican II's "Sacrosanctum Concilium," and this banning has been quoted in some post-conciliar liturgical documents (e.g., "Inaestimabile Donum"). The pope and Cardinal Arinze are quite adamantly against the violation of the command offered in SC 22 ("Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority").

Sadly, it is now very difficult, though not impossible, for the laity to find a priest who wholly obeys SC 22. The situation is worse in some dioceses than in others. (I have traveled to 49 states and to 3 provinces in U.S/Canada.) I feel sure that some of the improprieties are due to forgetfulness, some due to poor seminary training, some due to bad advice from fellow priests or error-filled publications, and some due to intentional disobedience. I hope that I will some day attend a Mass that you celebrate, Father, and find that you are wholly obedient to SC 22 and all of the Church's liturgical norms.

No priest can modify the Communion Rite by instituting a "custom" of blessing for non-Catholics. A conference of bishops would have to pass such a proposed change by a 2/3 majority and submit it to the Holy See for final approval.

When you were thinking about posting that comment about "custom" for me, Father, I wish that you had stopped to realize the implication of your words. If you say that it is OK to establish a "custom" of blessing non-communicants who come up toward the sanctuary, then you are opening the door to the establishment of a MYRIAD of "customs" with which you would, I hope, find fault! The fertile imagination of people is enough to cause all kinds of chaos to enter into the liturgy under the guise of establishing new "customs." (For fear of tempting someone, I don't even want to list some examples of things that clergy or laity might begin to institute as "customs.")

That is why my previous comment is so true: "what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted." The Church's liturgical Law is not "permissive," but "directive." That is, it tells what TO DO, not what NOT TO DO. The implication of this is that whatever the Law does not tell one "to do" must be avoided! Otherwise, the liturgical law documents would have to be incredibly voluminous, because they would have to list thousands of things that are forbidden to say and do at each and every moment in the Mass. I hope that my going into this in so much detail will have finally turned on a "light bulb" of realization for you. Don't feel bad. Many good priests and bishops have fallen into the same fallacy about accretions and "customs."

One more thing to cover, Father. Last time I made a suggestion about something that should be done that would avoid both the illicit distribution of Holy Communion and an illicit blessing to non- communicants. You at least partially misunderstood what I was suggesting, for you stated, The Sacred Host should not be raised and "The Body of Christ" said unless it is clear that the person seeks Communion. We DO NOT give Eucharistic Benedictions in the Communion Procession.

If you will read my previous message more carefully, you will see that I never suggested giving "Eucharistic Benedictions." Simply holding up the Host and waiting for a reply does not constitute a "benediction." The Church's Law DOES say that the minister is to raise the Host and say, "The Body of Christ." This is to elicit the act of faith ("Amen"), so that the distribution of the Host can follow. Contrary to what you told me, the Law does NOT say that the minister must ascertain what the person is seeking, because the presumption is that a person coming forward is seeking to receive Holy Communion! If the "Amen" is not said, the person should not be given the Host (or chalice). I realize that some slightly awkward situations may result, but that is the way it should be. Everyone will eventually learn to do what they are supposed to do and to avoid doing what they are not supposed to do. We cannot break the Law in order to avoid awkward situations or to be politically correct or "ecumenically sensitive." The end does not justify the means.

Adieu.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 02, 2005.

So sorry. I will try that again, hoping to fix the italics problem.

Thank you, Father Paul, for replying to my message. However, it was not really a "successful" reply, because you did not do what I requested.

Here is what I said last time. I would appreciate it if one of the clergy here (Reverend Father or Reverend Deacon) would quote from one of the Holy See's liturgical documents, pre- or post-Vatican II, on this point. I would like to see the language that tells how non- Catholics are permitted to approach in the Communion line for a blessing, what gesture they are to make, etc.. I would like to see the language that tells clergy that they should give a blessing to non-Catholics (or even Catholics) who approach with their hands held in a certain position.

Reverend Father, neither you nor the Reverend Deacon has presented the Holy See's language that authorizes this practice. I believe that there is no such language in the G.I.R.M. (even with local adaptations), in "Redemptionis Sacramentum," etc.. In my previous message, I specifically stated why such language is needed. I said that my reason for asking these questions is my doubt that the Church has ever called for this practice, and what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted.

Father, you gave me no language from the Church's liturgical documents, but instead tried to brush aside my concerns with these words: There is no law forbidding the practice of non-Catholics, Catechumens, Candidates or small children (where the practice originated) from coming forward in the Communion Procession for a Blessing and, one could argue, Spiritual Communion.

But as I had already mentioned, with regard to the liturgy, "what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted." Father, although you did not tell me that I was wrong to say those words, you seem to have tried to sidestep them with these words about the blessing under discussion: it is a custom in many places, and as such, after a period of time enjoys the benifit of Law. Only those customs that are clearly against the Law can never become Law from the passage of time.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Such a blessing is not, and can never be, a "custom," because it is a liturgical abuse! Why? Because it is an illicit "accretion" (addition) to the Rite of the Mass. Any addition, change, or deletion in the Mass that is unauthorized by the Holy See is forbidden. An "abuse" (such as an accretion) cannot become a lawful "custom," because it IS "clearly against the Law" (to use your own words against you).

Unlawful additions, changes, and deletions are specifically forbidden in Vatican II's "Sacrosanctum Concilium," and this banning has been quoted in some post-conciliar liturgical documents (e.g., "Inaestimabile Donum"). The pope and Cardinal Arinze are quite adamantly against the violation of the command offered in SC 22 ("Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority").

Sadly, it is now very difficult, though not impossible, for the laity to find a priest who wholly obeys SC 22. The situation is worse in some dioceses than in others. (I have traveled to 49 states and to 3 provinces in U.S/Canada.) I feel sure that some of the improprieties are due to forgetfulness, some due to poor seminary training, some due to bad advice from fellow priests or error-filled publications, and some due to intentional disobedience. I hope that I will some day attend a Mass that you celebrate, Father, and find that you are wholly obedient to SC 22 and all of the Church's liturgical norms.

No priest can modify the Communion Rite by instituting a "custom" of blessing for non-Catholics. A conference of bishops would have to pass such a proposed change by a 2/3 majority and submit it to the Holy See for final approval.

When you were thinking about posting that comment about "custom" for me, Father, I wish that you had stopped to realize the implication of your words. If you say that it is OK to establish a "custom" of blessing non-communicants who come up toward the sanctuary, then you are opening the door to the establishment of a MYRIAD of "customs" with which you would, I hope, find fault! The fertile imagination of people is enough to cause all kinds of chaos to enter into the liturgy under the guise of establishing new "customs." (For fear of tempting someone, I don't even want to list some examples of things that clergy or laity might begin to institute as "customs.")

That is why my previous comment is so true: "what has not been officially sanctioned is not permitted." The Church's liturgical Law is not "permissive," but "directive." That is, it tells what TO DO, not what NOT TO DO. The implication of this is that whatever the Law does not tell one "to do" must be avoided! Otherwise, the liturgical law documents would have to be incredibly voluminous, because they would have to list thousands of things that are forbidden to say and do at each and every moment in the Mass. I hope that my going into this in so much detail will have finally turned on a "light bulb" of realization for you. Don't feel bad. Many good priests and bishops have fallen into the same fallacy about accretions and "customs."

One more thing to cover, Father. Last time I made a suggestion about something that should be done that would avoid both the illicit distribution of Holy Communion and an illicit blessing to non- communicants. You at least partially misunderstood what I was suggesting, for you stated, The Sacred Host should not be raised and "The Body of Christ" said unless it is clear that the person seeks Communion. We DO NOT give Eucharistic Benedictions in the Communion Procession.

If you will read my previous message more carefully, you will see that I never suggested giving "Eucharistic Benedictions." Simply holding up the Host and waiting for a reply does not constitute a "benediction." The Church's Law DOES say that the minister is to raise the Host and say, "The Body of Christ." This is to elicit the act of faith ("Amen"), so that the distribution of the Host can follow. Contrary to what you told me, the Law does NOT say that the minister must ascertain what the person is seeking, because the presumption is that a person coming forward is seeking to receive Holy Communion! If the "Amen" is not said, the person should not be given the Host (or chalice). I realize that some slightly awkward situations may result, but that is the way it should be. Everyone will eventually learn to do what they are supposed to do and to avoid doing what they are not supposed to do. We cannot break the Law in order to avoid awkward situations or to be politically correct or "ecumenically sensitive." The end does not justify the means.

Adieu.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 02, 2005.

Dear KG,
I'm dying to see what father Paul will say next. Meanwhile:

Can priests get in real trouble? Certainly.
Can they get in trouble over practically anything? Something harmless?

Unfortunately, yes. Just about any correct or incorrect word or procedure or mistake can get a priest in some kind of trouble nowadays.

WHY? Because there's never a Mass or other liturgical service (in America especially) in which SOME Catholic isn't going to find a crisis in the making. You can always count on a few sticklers to get over- heated about something, no matter what.

Some of them keep quiet, and some rebuke the priest or the bishop, or spread gossip. It varies.

In some past occasion, I've felt upset; and usually I pray. I ask God for His mercy on us all. More often than not it's the laity which bothers me. Not as often something a priest forces me to notice by his audacity.

By and large, though, I feel many of the things a priest gets in trouble over could easily be overlooked. Why must they scandalize a faithful Catholic? I think many of the things you call ''liturgical abuses'' are simply irregularities. They can't devalue the love we offer God in our Eucharistic celebration, or be seen as unlawful. Not by good Catholics. Too many otherwise faithful Catholics are just fond of the old Blame Game, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Chavez. I could never share your entire opinion, because the silence that you practice and urge is exactly what is counted on by those priests who do improper things intentionally. They count on the laity being too afraid or too lazy or too tolerant or too distracted to speak up.

You practice and urge prayer in these cases. Amen! However, following the motto of St. Benedict ("Ora et Labora," "Pray and Work") and obeying the command of Jesus recorded in Matthew 18:15- 17, those of us with enough courage and enough knowledge of the liturgical regulations have the duty to take action. We will count on your prayer, sir, not only for the erring priest but for the success of our efforts to make the celebration of the Mass ever more perfect, for the glory of God.

I ask you to keep in mind that the word "abuse" (in "liturgical abuse") is sort of a technical term meaning "impropriety." Please do not let the other meanings of the word "abuse" (as in "child abuse") mislead you into thinking that something more sinister is intended by the use of the word above.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 03, 2005.

Many things considered by intolerant Catholics are NOT liturgical abuses at all. We see something annoying to our sensibility or personal scruples and cry, liturgically lacking, or irreligious or creeping heresy. This is just allowing fastidiousness to replace charity.

I don't deny there are legitimate causes for complaint and silence is tacit assent. But your ''knowledge of the liturgical regulations'' has a nasty judgmental tone to it. You could be saying: Gene has ZERO knowledge of liturgical regulations! Why is he objecting to our superior position?

Let me say with no intention of flattering myslf-- you've underestimated my long familiarity with everything holy in the Church. When real trouble occurs in the Catholic liturgy I have no problems pointing it out. YOU likely see altogether harmless things and become alarmed. But it won't happen to me.

And if I DO see something I'm the guy who will write letters to the bishop, and if necessary carry it to many other bishops for their input. Just like I do here in the forum. You may have noticed I don't avoid friction. I live my faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Thank you.

Many things considered by intolerant Catholics are NOT liturgical abuses at all.

Since we are not privy to so many events, I must say that you or I are not in a position to judge whether "many" or "few" people unjustly accuse priests of doing things improperly. And I know that you would not be able to judge whether an individual is "intolerant" or whether some priestly actions are "NOT liturgical abuses at all" unless you have read the entire General Instruction of the Roman Missal and other liturgical documents.

Even so, the number of erroneous accusations made by laymen is not relevant to whether or not I myself am equipped to identify clerical improprieties. I am against all false accusations, and I don't want to be guilty of any. That's why I have embraced the Mass with great love and care for twenty years. I have assisted at the holy sacrifice of the Mass several times a week during these years. I have also meditated deeply on the Mass by reading about it, by studying the Church's liturgical documents, by listening to holy people speak about the Mass, etc.. I am not holy or brilliant, but I have been trying to do my best.

We see something annoying to our sensibility or personal scruples and cry, liturgically lacking, or irreligious or creeping heresy. This is just allowing fastidiousness to replace charity.

I thought that you would have realized by now that these things you mention have nothing to do with me. There is nothing in my words or thoughts that involves "sensibility" or "scruples" or "fastidiousness." Rather, I am talking about the same thing the pope has talked about -- namely, the need for each priest carefully to read and fully to obey the Church's liturgical documents (and also the rubrics, the red-ink directives on the pages of the priest's Mass texts). This is their duty before almighty God. Intentional abuses by priests are "double-sins," since they are cases of defiant disobedience and of bad example to the laity, to deacons, and to concelebrating priests. That is the main reason that those of us who know the Church's liturgical laws must try to help priests to stop making accidental mistakes or to stop committing deliberate sins.

When real trouble occurs in the Catholic liturgy I have no problems pointing it out. YOU likely see altogether harmless things and become alarmed. But it won't happen to me.

If you have studied enough, then I would believe you when you say that you are "have no problems pointing it out." If you have not studied enough, then I wouldn't be able to believe you. (I have no way of knowing if you have studied enough.) But it was quite foolish of you to write of what is "likely" about what I see and do. Before writing those intemperate words, you had no idea what my qualifications were, whether I know what is "harmless" or not, what kinds of abuses I witness, etc.. In future, I trust that you will withhold your judgment until you are better informed.

And if I DO see something I'm the guy who will write letters to the bishop, and if necessary carry it to many other bishops for their input.

That is very good, as long as you precede those letters to bishops with letters (or visits) to the priests involved. Unless it is physically impossible to do so, we are required to contact the offender first and then move up the "chain" only if the offender ignores us (and, in a second contact, ignores both us and other complaining witnesses to the offense).

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), March 03, 2005.

KGreen,

Eugene is a fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants kind of guy.

Don't expect too much or you will become exasperated.

You will likely be greatly disappointed in the end--and left with the feeling of a need to bang your head on the wall : (

-- (anon@anon.com), March 03, 2005.

Thanks anon; I appreciate your great insights. I don't wish to contradict KG further, as if he were my inferior. He apparently knows everything he's talking about.

I do too; but as I stated earlier, I trust in God. If the need arises, I also am appalled. But I won't play Grand Inquisitor to a parish priest. I believe in authority. He has a certain authority in his offices; and my place is to carry on in faith praying for him. He is under the direct authority of his bishop. When a bishop gives the priest leave to conduct his liturgical business the way he does; I'm loathe to ask why. He ought to obey his bishop, not me or the Parish Council.

Some days back a resident Pharisee here instigated others to withhold contributions to their clergy's collections; as the best form of protest. I adamantly opposed such uncharitable attacks on a bishop and his diocese for any cause. Today I dispute with another person who takes it upon himself to discipline priests. I can't offend God that way. He appointed a rightful authority and I must be silent and trust in God. Otherwise I'll be just like Luther and those others, loyal only to MEN.

LUTHER ''knew the liturgical laws'', you can be sure. Others may follow their own conscience, but as for me, I trust in God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.