Do we get too tied up in the details?

[Newbie2]

oh my when I say that…I am called…a relativist.

When these discussions happen…I often think of the old saying “the devil is in the details”…

yes, that about sums it up…sometimes we are so focused on seeing “who” is acting “horizontal”…that those who are pointing these things are are a bit “horizontal” themselves…otherwise their focus would be veritcal…where it should be…yes?

There are certainly matters which are up for opinion when there are no clear ecclesial guidelines…and that’s where we can agree to disagree.

Of course there is disagreement on ***which ***matters are clearly defined and which are not.

 

[Luger]

I’m not talking about the serious theological issues or items such as abortion. I’m talking about the holding hands during the our father. Whether we should take communion on the tongue or in the hand. If only recieve communion from a priest or we allow a lay person to give communion. How come women are serving the parish in a lay copacity. Are we allowed to miss Mass with a dispensation.

I sit here watching these discussions going on. Even though the Church may allow certain things…people argue that is not right…it should be stricter. It seems like we think we are better then the Church? Then people who have studied things things for years.

As someone who is coming back to the Church…it gives me pause. It seems to get away from the real intent of our faith. It comes back into the reason I left the church in the first place. Is this why other people have left? Many of our family?

Thank goodness I go to a parish with a wonderful priest who has shown me the beauty of our faith. It still makes me sad…

Yes a great many do get too tied-up in the details. After though it’s a response to others ignoring the details or worse, introducing abuse.

The things to watch for are how people get too tied-up – do they begin to publicly denigrate anything they dislike even if it’s approved by the Church? That’s a huge red flag. Is their preoccupation negatively impacting their spiritual lives or those of others?

The externals are important. But obsessing over them can be just as destructive as ignoring them altogether.

 

[ProVobis]

The externals are important. But obsessing over them can be just as destructive as ignoring them altogether.

Unless you’re a lawyer, accountant, computer programmer, rocket scientist, pharmacist, surgeon, chemist, et al whose careers depend on details.

 

[drforjc]

Our Lord and Savior: “He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater.”
We must try our best even in the littlest of things. That includes details.
“And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”
Having the fullness of the Faith of Christ, we are obligated to do the very best that we can. If we “know our master’s will”, that is, we know what the details are and what we should really be doing, then we will receive worse punishment. Of course some people don’t know the little details and are not as guilty, as Christ says. But the people to whom much is given, that is, those who do know the details and are given the opportunity to do something, much is required.
“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Perfection includes doing the little things as well, or at least trying our very best to. Look at the first quote of Our Lord.

Now, I read your post, and yes some people can get Pharisaic because of these things. But if we are only trying to make everything of the Mass perfect for Our Lord because of charity towards God, that is not to be condemned but commended. In the words of Saint Paul, “Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

Hope that helps a little!

I think you and I are on the same page, friend. It is in the little things that our devotion and caring are shown.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think you and I are on the same page, friend. It is in the little things that our devotion and caring are shown.

Unless it’s showing love and caring to your neighbor…

Some people can pay attention to the details AND still be loving to their neighbor…some people can’t…unless that person AGREES with them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Unless it’s showing love and caring to your neighbor…

Some people can pay attention to the details AND still be loving to their neighbor…some people can’t…unless that person AGREES with them.

Some claim that they only desire to please God and disregard what other people have to say. But God has commanded us to love our neighbors, how can we then truly love God and disregard His commandment?

 

[diggerdomer]

BTW keep in mind that Catholicism is 1500 years older than Lutheranism. (Sorry - couldn’t resist that one…)

No it’s not. Most if not all Christians trace their origins to Christ. I don’t know of any Christian denomination that claims to have originated 500-600 years ago. Do you?

 

[diggerdomer]

There is a common misunderstanding in these threads about the Pharisees. Before we start comparing folks to this group or accusing them of acting in a pharisaical manner, it’s best to know a little bit about who these individuals were.

The Pharisees had their start during the Babylonian Exile. They understood that Ancient Israel was in such bad straits was because she kept violating the Mosaic law time and time again and ignoring the prophetic warnings. All we have to do is listen to the readings at daily Mass for this week.

Their solution was to impose a hedge around the law to help keep Ancient Israel from violating it. They also decided to adopt the priestly practices and impose them on the people. While they had the best of intentions, they did not have the best idea.

What Jesus opposed was their adaptation. Jesus never had any issues whatsoever with the cultic worship of Ancient Israel because these norms were dictated directly by God, Himself and they foreshadowed Jesus’ own sacrifice, which was its fulfillment.

So, when we accuse people of acting like the Pharisees we need to know a little bit about the group before we start engaging in name-calling.

Pharisees during the Babylonian exile? First I’ve heard of that. Can you share a reference for that? Thanks.

 

[kamaan]

No it’s not. Most if not all Christians trace their origins to Christ. I don’t know of any Christian denomination that claims to have originated 500-600 years ago. Do you?

The earliest Protestant churches were founded- correct me if I’m wrong- in the 1500’s, thus making them only about 500 years old. I am curious why you consider Lutheranism to be as old as Catholicism… ???

 

[ProVobis]

No it’s not. Most if not all Christians trace their origins to Christ. I don’t know of any Christian denomination that claims to have originated 500-600 years ago. Do you?

Another matter of semantics here? Lutherans may claim to have their roots in Christs but the Lutheran religion/organization/denomination is a different matter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The earliest Protestant churches were founded- correct me if I’m wrong- in the 1500’s, thus making them only about 500 years old. I am curious why you consider Lutheranism to be as old as Catholicism… ???

This is true, but I think every sect in Christianity will find a way to claim their religion as true and connect it to Christ himself. Common excuses are:

a. We are the correct continuation of the faith from the 1st century, we broke off from the Catholic Church which has become corrupt.
b. We carry the genuine faith from the 1st century. The Catholic Church has taught wrong doctrine, Apostolic Succession is not necessary nor is having a structured religion. As long as we live by the bible, we carry on the faith.
c. The Church disappeared after the last Apostle died and was underground for 1800 years. We are the true Church resurfaced.

Reformers like the Lutherans and schismatic groups would fall into A. They won’t deny their Catholic roots, but will claim they have continued to move in the right direction while the Catholic Church has made a wrong turn.

 

[kamaan]

This is true, but I think every sect in Christianity will find a way to claim their religion as true and connect it to Christ himself. .

Thanks, that’s interesting. I remember my non-denominational Christian friend trying to tell me that his “church” was older than mine… at first I thought he meant the building

Does this have anything to do with why certain Christian churches reject the term “Protestant”? Hope I’m not derailing the thread…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks, that’s interesting. I remember my non-denominational Christian friend trying to tell me that his “church” was older than mine… at first I thought he meant the building

Does this have anything to do with why certain Christian churches reject the term “Protestant”? Hope I’m not derailing the thread…

Well, for one thing if one realizes that their faith is founded only by a man in the last 500 years, then one would be foolish to remain in the faith. Each one tries to justify why and how they are the Church that Christ has founded in the 1st century. Reformists acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but at some point in time lost its way and erred in doctrine. So now they become the spiritual successors of the True Church, the continuation of the true Catholic Faith.

Non-denoms would argue that Jesus didn’t found a structured religion, but just a faith and the details are already in the Bible. They proclaim they are the true faith from the 1st century.

Modern protestants have forgotten how the term came about, so they detest the term claiming that they are not protesting anything. I too think that Protestants apply more to the Reformation sects, rather than modern day non-denoms, Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

 

[Cat]

In his wonderful book, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie divides the information of the Church into five categories: deposit, dogma, doctrine, discipline, and devotion.

For the sake of clarity, I’ll give his definitions.

Deposit is that body of truth originally given to the apostles.

Dogma is that body of truth that has been affirmed by the councils of the Church and the Holy See of Rome.

Doctrine is the development of truth on the basis of the deposit and dogma.

Disciplines are those rules that govern the everyday life of Catholics.

Devotions are those activities by which an individual Christian may enhance his walk with God.

The first two are unchangeable–deposit and dogma. Doctrine “develops,” so it can be changed as it is fine-tuned over time. Disciplines and devotions change constantly as the Church decrees.

But it seems to me that most Catholics spend the most time getting caught in the details of discipline and devotions instead of studying and learning every detail of the deposit of faith and Catholic dogma and doctrine. ’

It is the deposit, dogma, and doctrine that is the bedrock of Catholism and the very essence of Christianity–doesn’t it make sense that we should know as much as possible about it?

Instead we argue over how, tongue or hand, to receive Jesus in the Holy Communion! Wouldn’t the more important topic be, “what exactly happens to a human being when they receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion?” or “How does receiving Holy Communion make a Christian more holy?”

Aren’t these the kinds of “details” that will make us more effective witnesses to our Lord and our Church among the non-believers? The non-believers do not need to know the “dailies” (our disciplines and devotions). They need to know about our deposit, dogma, and doctrines!

Is this possibly why so many Catholics are so ill-informed about their faith? Perhaps someone catechized them by teaching them all about liturgy and various prayers–disciplines and devotions which change over time–instead of teaching them the core beliefs of Catholicism–the deposit of our faith, the dogma, and the doctrines that the Church teaches.

No wonder people know all about tongue vs. hand, but they don’t really believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! It’s not the method of reception that makes a person believe in the True Presence–it’s the knowledge and understanding of the reasons for the DOGMA of True Presence. Jesus isn’t Real in the Blessed Sacrament because He is received a certain way–He’s real because of the Deposit of Faith and the Dogma of the True Presence. Do Catholics really know all these details? I’ll admit that I don’t. Classes or books in Catholic theology are woefully lacking for the layman.

And knowing the details of deposit, dogma, and doctrines will also make us more effective in defending Catholicism to the non-Catholic Christians. It’s difficult to make a defense for Catholicism based on changeables like the Rosary or the songs done in the liturgy. But knowing the unchanging dogma of the Church will enable a Catholic to hold his/her own in a debate with non-Catholic Christians.

I would love to see more books written for the layman, in simple vocabulary, about the basics of Catholic deposit, dogma, and doctrines. I think many of us are starving for this information, and we don’t have the time or money to attend seminary and learn it. So no wonder we get caught up in foolish arguments about whether the Luminous Mysteries are legitimate, or whether Latin or the vernacular is the best way to celebrate Holy Mass. We need more information about the first Three Ds of Catholicism!

 

[Petergee]

Well, for one thing if one realizes that their faith is founded only by a man in the last 500 years, then one would be foolish to remain in the faith. Each one tries to justify why and how they are the Church that Christ has founded in the 1st century. Reformists acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but at some point in time lost its way and erred in doctrine. So now they become the spiritual successors of the True Church, the continuation of the true Catholic Faith.

Non-denoms would argue that Jesus didn’t found a structured religion, but just a faith and the details are already in the Bible. They proclaim they are the true faith from the 1st century.

Modern protestants have forgotten how the term came about, so they detest the term claiming that they are not protesting anything. I too think that Protestants apply more to the Reformation sects, rather than modern day non-denoms, Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

I have never met a protestant who objected being called protestants, and met only one protestant online who objected to it. Btw the word comes from the older meaning of the word “protest” which means to publicly declare or profess something. “Protestant” doesn’t mean that you are “protesting against” something. .

 

[kamaan]

I have never met a protestant who objected being called protestants, and met only one protestant online who objected to it. Btw the word comes from the older meaning of the word “protest” which means to publicly declare or profess something. “Protestant” doesn’t mean that you are “protesting against” something. .

I asked the question because I have caused a few Christians of different denominations offense by calling them “Protestant” (in real life). They grew quite indignant I asked because I wasn’t sure if it was because of their personal feelings about the world or if it was their sect’s official position.