Arbitrary rigorism, a recurring theme on this board

[VociMike]

If “arbitrary rigorism” is a bad thing, does that mean that rigorism which is not arbitrary is not a bad thing?

Just wondering.

 

[aimee]

Good one, Jen.

And as an EEM (or EMHC, as they are quick to remind me), I am offended at the arbitrary rigorism directed at that lay ministry, approved by the Church.

John

Are you an EMHC…?

 

[aimee]

If “arbitrary rigorism” is a bad thing, does that mean that rigorism which is not arbitrary is not a bad thing?

Just wondering.

very good VociMike

 

[Pug]

If “arbitrary rigorism” is a bad thing, does that mean that rigorism which is not arbitrary is not a bad thing?

Just wondering.

I suppose this depends on what a person means by “rigorism”. For discussion’s sake, here is a cut from the New Catholic Dictionary:

rigorism

(Latin: rigere, to be stiff)

The moral teaching which holds that when there is a conflict of two opinions, one in favor of the law, the other in favor of liberty, the law must always be observed, even if the opinion in favor of liberty is the more probable or very probable one as compared with its opposite. Rigoristic writers and teachers have appeared in all ages. It was especially in the 17th century, however, that a regular system of rigorism was proposed and defended by certain leaders, particularly the Jansenists. The doctrine has done great mischief. A large number of persons remained away from the Sacraments, especially in France, during the 17th and 18th centuries, or received them but seldom, under pretext of being too unworthy. Absolute rigorism (or tutiorism, the safer course) was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII on 7 December 1690.

 

[aimee]

Sometimes this is all too much, Arbitrary rigorism…

…I just want to do the right thing according to the teachings of my Roman Catholic faith…going by the Magistirum and by the Holy Father…does that make me in arbitrary rigorism…???

 

[MichiganTrumbul]

If “arbitrary rigorism” is a bad thing, does that mean that rigorism which is not arbitrary is not a bad thing?

The short answer is, no, it is not a bad thing.

For starters I interpret “rigorism which is not arbitrary” to mean “meticulous attention to the law set down by legitimate authority.” Within the context of Holy Mass, that would include meticulous attention to the liturgical laws. Since Pope John Paul II wrote:

“The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful.”
Inaestimabile Donum, foreword

and since the Holy Vatican Council II gave us

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
   Sacrosanctum Concilium, Article 22

I would say that if the faithful are discouraged from complaining when they are not given the true Liturgy to which they have a right, then that right is an empty right.

Arbitrary rigorism, on the other hand seems to include the attempt to enforce personal preferences and personal interpretations on the faithful. This is something that I would not support.

People who are rigorous not-arbitrarily would complain when they are factually correct and when they have the correct disposition (intention). People who are arbitrarily rigorous may not have the correct disposition, but there is no way of getting around the fact that, when their complaints hold water under Church law, they are factually correct, whether we like them or not.

MT

 

[MichiganTrumbul]

Sometimes this is all too much, …I just want to do the right thing according to the teachings of my Roman Catholic faith…going by the Magistirum and by the Holy Father…does that make me in arbitrary rigorism…???

Greetings!

I would say you’re not arbitrarily rigorous. Wanting to “do the right thing according to the teachings of [the] Roman Catholic faith” is always a good thing.

If it is done for perfect reasons, it is a better thing!

MT

 

[Pug]

…I just want to do the right thing according to the teachings of my Roman Catholic faith…going by the Magistirum and by the Holy Father…does that make me in arbitrary rigorism…???

No. It does not.

The wish to do the right thing is admirable, and wishing to do the right thing is not something that is called rigorism. Rigorism and probabilism and probabiliorism (sp?) arise when one is asking what to do when a doubt of law exists, like a person is wondering if there is a law about topic X, or if they are wondering does Law Y apply to topic X. You are saying that you will follow the rules, which is just what you ought to do.

 

[SeekerJen]

Sometimes this is all too much, Arbitrary rigorism…

…I just want to do the right thing according to the teachings of my Roman Catholic faith…going by the Magistirum and by the Holy Father…does that make me in arbitrary rigorism…???

No, that makes you a good Catholic. Arbitrary rigorism, as I see it, is when others make up rules for themselves (that are not required by the Church) and try to enforce them on others as Canon Law.

 

[Conciliar]

Hey MT

I would say that if the faithful are discouraged from complaining when they are not given the true Liturgy to which they have a right, then that right is an empty right.

I agree. In the context of this thread, I think it’s noteworthy that the liturgy is not something we show up for as witnesses, but rather it is something given that we actively participate in. Therefore, my behavior and the behavior of others is not best viewed as secondary to the liturgy - it is more proper to say it is part of the liturgy.

Arbitrary rigorism, on the other hand seems to include the attempt to enforce personal preferences and personal interpretations on the faithful. This is something that I would not support.

I agree once again. To continue my previous thought, part of enforcing personal preferences or interpretations on the faithful includes the mere introduction of preferred innovations in the Mass - no matter how widespread - even if those who do so think they are keeping to themselves. i.e. An innovator who brings an “I won’t ask you to do it my way, just allow me to do so” mentality to their behavior is necessarily enforcing their personal preferences on others. They change the liturgy from “true” as JPII said, to something different for everyone.

The same cannot be said for those who wish to worship according to the rubrics of a “true liturgy” as dictated by the Church. In fact, even when such a person attempts to sway others to follow suit, it is not their *personal *preference they are promoting, but rather the Church’s. As such, at least according to your definition of “arbitrary rigorism,” the obediently GIRM conscious individual, provided they follow faithfully without adding their own brand of piety, cannot really be guilty of it simply by insisting that all keep their behaviors within the limits set by the Church.

 

[MichiganTrumbul]

Greetings, Conciliar!

In the context of this thread, I think it’s noteworthy that the liturgy is not something we show up for as witnesses, but rather it is something given that we actively participate in. Therefore, my behavior and the behavior of others is not best viewed as secondary to the liturgy - it is more proper to say it is part of the liturgy.

I agree. I think it best to realize that, with respect to attendance (assistance) at Holy Mass, a person, even a priest, can err in either of two extremes. One can err by believing their presence at Holy Mass is purely passive. One can also err in the diametrically opposite direction by believing that the Holy Mass is something fluid, such that they can tweak the Mass with their own innovations, and their innivations “really do not matter.” Smack between these two extremes is the proper policy of everybody doing all of those things, but ONLY those things that are proper to their role.

… part of enforcing personal preferences or interpretations on the faithful includes the mere introduction of preferred innovations in the Mass - no matter how widespread - even if those who do so think they are keeping to themselves. i.e. An innovator who brings an “I won’t ask you to do it my way, just allow me to do so” mentality to their behavior is necessarily enforcing their personal preferences on others. They change the liturgy from “true” as JPII said, to something different for everyone.

Many have been the times that I have had to refuse the hand of someone trying to grab mine during the “Our Father”.

The same cannot be said for those who wish to worship according to the rubrics of a “true liturgy” as dictated by the Church. In fact, even when such a person attempts to sway others to follow suit, it is not their *personal *preference they are promoting, but rather the Church’s. As such, at least according to your definition of “arbitrary rigorism,” the obediently GIRM conscious individual, provided they follow faithfully without adding their own brand of piety, cannot really be guilty of it simply by insisting that all keep their behaviors within the limits set by the Church.

I guess so, for the most part. The best way to encourage adherence to liturgical norms is by practicing them, and that goes -]double/-] quadruple for our priests, since they are the ones who have the God-awesome privilege of leading the faithful in worship.

I’ve come to look at Holy Mass like a bobsled and the priest like the driver. Once everybody is in the sled, the driver cannot make the sled go any faster than gravity will allow - but he can negate some of the pull of gravity and make the sled go slower. Whenever the sled bangs off a wall, goes too high or low into a turn, or skids down the ice, the sled slows down. The driver who finishes with the fastest time is the driver who makes the fewest mistakes. Such is it with priests, and even the laity. Every time a liturgical abuse is committed, the sled slows down. And unfortunately, there are many masses in which the sled completely flips over, such as the ones where there is no valid Eucharist.

We cannot make the Mass any better, but we sure can make it worse when we ignore the rubrics.

MT

 

[John_Higgins]

aimee:

Are you an EMHC…?

Yes, thanks for asking.

John

 

[aimee]

Yes, thanks for asking.

John

you’re welcome

 

[Conciliar]

I’ve come to look at Holy Mass like a bobsled and the priest like the driver. Once everybody is in the sled, the driver cannot make the sled go any faster than gravity will allow - but he can negate some of the pull of gravity and make the sled go slower. Whenever the sled bangs off a wall, goes too high or low into a turn, or skids down the ice, the sled slows down. The driver who finishes with the fastest time is the driver who makes the fewest mistakes.

Wow, MT. That’s a pretty impressive analogy considering it’s not even an Olympic year.

 

[First_of_9]

Having been batted about a bit too much this week by those who would insist on deifying certain Catholic personages who are not within the “chain of command” (pope, bishops), and taking those words or alleged words literally; not to mention, those who think not only should women wear veils, but that some should be nominated to go stapling them on all women’s heads- yes, it’s time. Thank you, Betsy, for saying what you said. It has been on my heart all weekend.

I even sang along at a Mass this morning that was all H-H in hymns, even Song of the Body of Christ, which reminds me too much of “One Ton Tomato (Guantanamera).” I would request “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” once in awhile, too, but that’s OK. And as I am not inclined to get up there and play the organ or any other instrument- more power to those who can perform! I appreciate your effort and hope I don’t throw you off-key when I sing along.

I don’t like to hold hands during the Our Father, but those who wish, go ahead with those who do. I find what I call the “This Old Man- With a Knick-Knack Paddy Whack” symbolism of throwing the peace back at Father distracting, but not so distracting as you can’t do it. I will be bowing at that certain point in the Creed even if you don’t. Please don’t think less of me for doing so.

I don’t care if people of either gender wear flip-flops, decently-fitting jeans that don’t expose too much of their bodies, bermuda shorts, capri pants, burquas, chadors, yarmulkes, kepahs, big fancy hats out of a millinery, small hats out of the 50s and 60s, beanies, hat clips, chapel caps, veils, mantillas, shawls or hats made of fruit ala Carmen Miranda. Just don’t make comment on my four outfits that I rotate for Sunday wear, by the fact that you can tell which Sunday it is by my clothes. And until there is a definite discipline back in force that says we women must- don’t expect to see anything on my head but hair and maybe a few dried fleck of hairspray. ( Can hairspray count as a head covering the way Kleenex used to count? )

I prefer to receive the Sacrament of Reconcilation face-to-face, but have known times where I have wanted “the box”. Let’s keep both!

Receive the Eucharist on the tongue. And it will not be my hand that holds the chalice bearing the Sacred Blood to your lips to force you to drink it. Give me a heads up if I am behind you in the Eucharistic procession if you intend to kneel, so I don’t fly over the top of you and into Father or the EMHC. But don’t deny me what is now my opportunity to receive my Lord in my hands, or to drink from the chalice. I know I am not worthy of Him, and I also know not one part of my physical body is, even my mouth. I don’t have to say it in Latin to bring that fact to my heart. But if it helps you- by all means, do so.

And if my now granddaughters want to serve Mass, they may.

I remember in the 1960s and 1970s people who would make pronouncements, even priests who would make pronouncements, that simply were not true. They kept people out of church and way from the sacraments. Instead of improving things, we are still at it. From this point out, I will do my best not to cause that to happen any more.

Bless you and thanks for a thoughtful, well-reasoned post.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Thank you. Nice to see you again.

 

[orionsbelt]

Back on the first page, someone complained about people who might stop at McD’s for breakfast on the way to Mass and carefully time the Eucharistic fast so they can still receive. While this might not be the most generous personal sacrifice, it is still within the law, and no one should be berated for doing it. This person may at some later time grow in piety and omit the breakfast stop, but he should not be “guilted” into doing it, or worse, told that it is somehow sinful. That’s the kind of thing that frightens people away from the Church unnecessarily.

We should not ask more of others than Jesus Himself asks of them through the Church and her laws.

Betsy

I think I agree with your main point but even here, with the phrase “grow in piety,” you imply that someone who fasts for 3 hours is more pious than someone who fasts for the prescribed 1 hour.

I’m reminded of a scene in the movie “Office Space” where the Jennifer Aniston character, a waitress at a Bennigan’s like restaurant, is berated for not wearing more than the minimum items of “flair” (buttons, ribbons, etc) on her uniform.

 

[SeekerJen]

Here’s a good example. This is an actual sign decal-ed onto some guy’s big red pickup truck, which I spotted yesterday on Telegraph Rd. near I-94: “Communion in the hand is a sacrilege!”

If someone chooses to believe this for his or her own personal use and acts accordingly, no problem whatsoever. If someone uses this belief to accuse millions of fellow Catholics of committing sacrilege each Sunday because they’re not receiving on the tongue, well, then there’s (IMO) a problem.

 

[katy]

Division among Christ’s flock, I am sure, is one of the prime methods of the devil to devour souls. We need to love and care for each other even when we see things differently. Very difficult.

 

[THurifer2]

Or the idea that not wanting to hold hands at the Our Father shows that one hates his/her neighbor.

Which is exactly why the practice of hand holding needs to be banned and forbidden by the Pope himself…then we wouldn’t know whom hates who.