Drowning is rules?

[dbacks5439]

The Roman Missal is given to us by the authority of the Catholic Church.

To have a layperson give the homily is rejecting that authority.
To have the priest change the wording of the prayers is rejecting that authority.
To have laypersons in the sanctuary is rejecting that authority.

No matter how small or large the infraction is, you are going against the authority of the Church. “Whoever does not have the Church for his mother cannot have God for his father.” (St. Cyprian of Carthage)

The Church is our mother. We must obey her in order to be right with God. When you were little, you obeyed your parents. Eat your vegetables, go to bed at a certain time, look both ways before crossing the street, etc. They gave you these rules because they know what’s best for you, even if you don’t yet fully understand. In the same manner, we must obey the Church, because She knows what’s best for us, even when we don’t yet fully understand.

Satan does all he can do to get us to disobey God. No matter how small the matter is, he wants us to do it against God. I do not want to go to a Mass where the priest rejects the authority of the Church and follows Satan. Sin still exists, no matter how much the progressives try to make Vat. II say otherwise. God is love, but He is also Just, and you will be judged for every idle word.

 

[Genesis315]

Those who do not obey the commands of their lawful authorities can only be doing so for two reasons: they are ignorant of those commands or they prefer their own judgment to those of their lawful superiors:

As St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:

“This renunciation of self, which was so conspicuous in our Lord’s character, is the true root and, as it were, mother of obedience, and those who are not prepared for this self-sacrifice will never acquire the perfection of obedience. How can a man promptly obey the will of another if he prefers his own will and judgment to that of another?”

Again he adds, "The obedient man is at rest because he has found peace for his soul. He who has renounced his own will, and has devoted himself entirely to accomplish the Divine will which is manifested to him by the voice of his superior, desires nothing, seeks for nothing, thinks of nothing, longs for nothing, but is free from all anxious cares, and “with Mary sits at the Lord’s feet hearing His word.”

 

[b_justb]

Genesis315:

Those who do not obey the commands of their lawful authorities can only be doing so for two reasons: they are ignorant of those commands or they prefer their own judgment to those of their lawful superiors:

Can we change this to:

Those who do not obey the LAWFUL commands of their lawful authorities can only be doing so for two reasons: they are ignorant of those commands or they prefer their own judgment to those of their lawful superiors.

 

[Lepanto]

Good rules properly followed prevent drowning.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Catherine of Siena wrote a lot about obedience too (her time was one that was also plagued by liturgical abuses). According to her, a lack of obedience was a sign of a lack of humility, love, and patience.

“Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience…I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility. The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death.”

 

[Genesis315]

Can we change this to:

Those who do not obey the LAWFUL commands of their lawful authorities can only be doing so for two reasons: they are ignorant of those commands or they prefer their own judgment to those of their lawful superiors.

Yes, of course. A command given outside one’s authority has no weight at all

 

[Brendan]

. Can you please explain that to me? Or how about what I view as excessive liturgical rules. Can you explain WHY it’s a big deal if the priest leaves the sanctuary during the homily,

First of all there is a symbolism involved, the Sanctuary at Mass is ‘piece of Heaven’, the homily is ‘teachings from Heaven’. Granted, we are in a culture that places little value on symbolism, but if the Church, wished to us to learn from that symbolism, it is She that is the teacher, not us.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly to the priest or deacon giving the homily, is the parable of the faithful servants. Those that are trustworthy in small matters will be rewarded.

" ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in small matters; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

Mt 25 (we are really hitting Matthew today )

Christ challenges us in both small and great ways. If we are faithful in these small matters, we will be rewarded. God’s rewards are good, why would we not want our priests and deacons to recieve them?

 

[Genesis315]

Concerning obedience to the Pope of Rome, God the Father speaking to St. Catherine in her Dialogue, states:

“No one at all can reach eternal life if he be not obedient, for the door was unlocked by the key of obedience, which had been fastened by the disobedience of Adam. I, then, being constrained by My infinite goodness, since I saw that man whom I so much loved, did not return to Me, his End, took the keys of obedience and placed them in the hands of My sweet and amorous Word – the Truth – and He becoming the porter of that door, opened it, and no one can enter except by means of that door and that Porter. Wherefore He said in the Holy Gospel that 'no one could come to Me, the Father, if not by Him. When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place.”

 

[TMC]

OK, no offense to anybody here, but this how I have seen this thread thus far:

A. We have too many rules.
B. You have to follow the rules.
A. Yeah, I know that’s why I’m saying there are too many of them.
B. Breaking the rules is wrong.
A. I know, but we can change the rules.
B. You have follow the rules.
A. I know, but can we talk about whether there are too many rules?

And so on.

So. I think there are too many rules. I learn new ones everytime I visit this forum. Why do we have to have a rule for every jot and tittle of the Mass? Do we really think God cares about all these little things?

 

[buffalo]

OK, no offense to anybody here, but this how I have seen this thread thus far:

A. We have too many rules.
B. You have to follow the rules.
A. Yeah, I know that’s why I’m saying there are too many of them.
B. Breaking the rules is wrong.
A. I know, but we can change the rules.
B. You have follow the rules.
A. I know, but can we talk about whether there are too many rules?

And so on.

So. I think there are too many rules. I learn new ones everytime I visit this forum. Why do we have to have a rule for every jot and tittle of the Mass? Do we really think God cares about all these little things?

Yes for this reason. We are the mystical body of Christ and unity of the body is of extreme importance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Like noting that we have ‘big T’ and 'little t" tradition (of which the former is essential, and the latter not ‘contradictory’ to the former, praiseworthy yet not absolutely essential), perhaps we should note : Big R and little r ‘rules’.

Big R rules are the Creed, the Catechism, the GIRM, many if not all Papal Encyclicals, among others. These are directly ‘from’ the Church in its teaching authority and as we owe obedience to that teaching authority in matters of faith and morals (which these deal with directly), they are indeed essential.

Little r rules would include your cultural norms, your parish traditions, your own family traditions, etc. Little r rules would include, perhaps, your family’s tradition of saying a nightly family rosary. Your Church’s (approved) cultural heritage Masses or traditions (like a Polish Church offering the blessed wafers in advent). Parades of your parish saint. Your own devotional readings, use of icons or holy pictures, specific prayers, etc. which are again approved by the Church, etc.

So, Steph, what may be happening is that there are people who are mistaking ‘little r’ for Big R rules and holding them to the same standard.

Or people who mistakenly think that their ‘little r’ rules are approved when they are not. This is a HUGE problem due to the long history of ‘experimentation’ which permeates Catholic liturgies, Catholic catechesis, and Catholic ‘teachings’ on a variety of subjects.

The problem starts when any person who brings up an authority to support his or her position that a rule, big or little r, is either required, or approved, by the Church is shot down in flames by other posters, solely on the ‘authority’ question.

You will seldom see a person who supports what they have considered (and found what they thought authoritative support) for, say, the use of orans or hand holding in Mass, and who quotes from the GIRM, R.S., their diocesean bishop, or even Pope Benedict, get this response,

"Well, you have certainly given documentation to support your position. I can see that as an obedient Catholic you would feel you have to accept this. But I feel that, unless this issue is specifically addressed, a la ‘Orans posture by the laity is not permitted at Mass’, by the Pope, then I am free to continue doing it as it helps me feel closer to God, is an ‘old’ holy posture, has been done in my parish by lots of good people, and none of your documentation actually comes right out and specifically says, “orans at Mass is not permitted’.” (The person is disagreeing with the first poster, yet is doing so with reason, respectfully, and not being insulting or rude).

And also, you will seldom see, after somebody has ‘flamed’ person A for ‘being a bigot and holier-than-the-Pope’, this response,

“I see that you also have given deep thought to this position and that, from your point of view, this issue touches a deep chord in you and others, and that your feelings should be suitably considered. Surely we, as loving Christians, can reach a fair compromise which respects all beliefs, is the closest we fallible humans can get to following Christ in the way that He would want us to, and brings us to full unity so that we can then go forth and further unite all Christians, being united ourselves. I deeply appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and hope that as we continue to discuss the issue from the perspective of doing “God’s will” we will indeed find a common ground.” (This person, rather than responding to fire with ‘fire’, is likewise respectful while continuing to hold to their original premise, yet offering an ‘olive branch’ and expressing a desire for unity which he believes the other party, also a Christian, will share).

IOW, both ‘sides’ have been guilty of being uncharitable, either in their ‘action’ or their ‘reaction’, and both sides need to consider starting OUT with more charitable ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ along the lines of what I just posted, don’t you think?

 

[Genesis315]

Again, its not our place to judge the rules (unless anyone here is a Pope or bishop). As St. Robert said in the quote I provided above, preferring one’s own judgment to that of another is not the kind of renunciation of self that is part of the way of the Cross, the way of salvation.

 

[b_justb]

I think this is fairly accurate. I think there is also the idea that some people think that is a rule when in all reality is not a rule and therefore is no real big deal at all. Therefore both sides can fall into the same trap when looking at .

OK, no offense to anybody here, but this how I have seen this thread thus far:

A. We have too many rules.
B. You have to follow the rules.
A. Yeah, I know that’s why I’m saying there are too many of them.
B. Breaking the rules is wrong.
A. I know, but we can change the rules.
B. You have follow the rules.
A. I know, but can we talk about whether there are too many rules?

And so on.

So. I think there are too many rules. I learn new ones everytime I visit this forum. Why do we have to have a rule for every jot and tittle of the Mass? Do we really think God cares about all these little things?

 

[TMC]

Yes for this reason. We are the mystical body of Christ and unity of the body is of extreme importance.

Well, I have to disagree with you there. I mean, I agree that unity is important, but I disagree that God really cares about these little rules. We have them. The Church has a right to put them in place. So I follow them. But I can’t imagine that God cares if I stand or sit at a certain point in Mass, or whether we hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, or whatever. I keep looking at Matthew 25 and I can’ t find litugical purity in there anywhere. And its obvious from this forum that having the rules doesn’t always promote unity.

 

[Brendan]

I think this is fairly accurate. I think there is also the idea that some people think that is a rule when in all reality is not a rule and therefore is no real big deal at all. Therefore both sides can fall into the same trap when looking at .

I would disagree, the OP recognized that certain things were rules, the example given was homilies have to be given within the Sactuary.

We can all recognize that is a rule. The OP does, I do.

 

[Brendan]

Well, I have to disagree with you there. I mean, I agree that unity is important, but I disagree that God really cares about these little rules. .

No, Christ Himself ordered the crowds and his Disciples to listen to those who sit in the seat of Moses. If you are unfamilair with that term, it was the source of teaching and judicial authority that God Himself gave to Moses, and was passed down, eventually to the Pharisees. He then gave it to Peter (when he told Peter to “rule my sheep”)

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Christ went on to say that Pharisees imposed onerous rules that burdened men, but who here can really say that having a priest stay within the Sanctuary is ‘overly burdensome’ to the priest, or bowing during the Creed is too great of a weight for us to bear? Are you really trying to say that??

Also note that an Ecumencial Council ( Vatican I) addressed this issue in Pastor Aeturnus.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but **also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world./**QUOTE]

The Council noted that the Authority wielded by the Pope in this matter is Divine in it’s origins. And that we are oblidged, as Catholics, to be obedient in not only matters of faith and morals, but in all things that pertain to the governance of the Church.

So, in other words, you have the right to believe that there are too many rules, and you may petition the Vatican to remove rules that you feel are too cumbersome. But, in the mean time, you can’t ignore the ones that are there, or support others in ignoring them.

 

[TMC]

Brendan, how is anything I said in opposition to this:

So, in other words, you have the right to believe that there are too many rules, and you may petition the Vatican to remove rules that you feel are too cumbersome. But, in the mean time, you can’t ignore the ones that are there, or support others in ignoring them.

I am saying, there are too many rules. I am NOT SAYING to ignore them. I keep hearing “you have to obey.” I know. If I didn’t think I had to obey, why would I care how many rules there are?

And I **am **saying that staying in the Sanctuary is too burdensome, not because its hard, but because if that priest or bishop thinks he is more effective coming down to the laity, I think he should have that option. And I think that having so many rules, and people in such a tizzy over them, that people are more worried about how they are holding their hands, or whether the guitar is an abomination, or if its a sin to say “good morning” instead of “peace be with you”, that they aren’t focusing on what is going on in the Mass.

I hear sometimes that we need all these rules to focus people on the mysteries before them, but I think they have the opposite effect. But I keep following them, and never suggested that I didn’t have to do so.

 

[Brendan]

And I think that having so many rules, and people in such a tizzy over them, that people are more worried about how they are holding their hands, or whether the guitar is an abomination, or if its a sin to say “good morning” instead of “peace be with you”, that they aren’t focusing on what is going on in the Mass.

How do you know they aren’t focusing on ‘the Mass’, it sounds like are very much focusing on the Mass. The Mass isn’t something that is seperate from the actions of the celebrant and the people. In fact, that is where the word ‘Liturgy’ comes from (“work of the people”)

I hear sometimes that we need all these rules to focus people on the mysteries before them, but I think they have the opposite effect.

You can have that opinion, but remember, it’s just your opinion on the matter and may not actually corrispond with reality.

More learnered men than you or I have put them in place for our Sanctity, and I, for one, will not seek to ‘second guess’ them or to place my judgement in this matter above theirs.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I have to disagree with you there. I mean, I agree that unity is important, but I disagree that God really cares about these little rules. We have them. The Church has a right to put them in place. So I follow them. But I can’t imagine that God cares if I stand or sit at a certain point in Mass, or whether we hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, or whatever. I keep looking at Matthew 25 and I can’ t find litugical purity in there anywhere. And its obvious from this forum that having the rules doesn’t always promote unity.

I cannot pretend to know the mind of God. It amazes me how many times I hear as justification for one thing or another that God wouldn’t care. I think He does care, you don’t, someone else thinks something else - we all can’t be right. That is why we look to the Magisterium for guidance, hence the rules. Any organization needs both a head and rules to live by, otherwise it is a disorganization

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I hear sometimes that we need all these rules to focus people on the mysteries before them, but I think they have the opposite effect.

Now here I think we have something that both gets to the heart of the matter as perceived, yet is actually not germane to the real issue itself.

Because it is perceived by some that ‘rules’ focus people, and that ‘some’ people thrive under this, and ‘others’ do not, therefore it is postulated that because of the ‘non thrivers’, we **must **have ‘too many’ rules.

And** if** our ‘focus’, or our ‘thriving’, or our ‘not thriving’, were the essential points to our Christian living. . .meaning, that we need to ‘have’ that which we find makes us happy, focused, thriving, etc., then having the ‘optimum’ number of rules for each individual --or to have the ‘minumum’ possible number of rules as they ‘may’ interfere with the focus – would make sense.

But

The real point is not the ‘number’ of rules or whether this rule or that rule is ‘burdensome’ to me, to you, or to any or all ‘individuals’. The real sticking point is obedience to authority.

The mere fact that the discussion segues so quickly from a question over whether something really ‘is’ a rule to a cry for 'decreasing the rules lest they ‘hamper’ our Christianity shows that it is not really the number of rules we object to, but the fact that we don’t particularly WANT TO OBEY CERTAIN RULES WE DO NOT LIKE. What we ‘want to do’, we want to be made into a rule. What we ‘don’t want to do’, we want to STOP BEING a rule.

And so, nothing that we try to do will really appease those who have difficulty with obedience. They will only be obedient when THEY choose.

Now, for the ‘other direction’, the ‘super obedient’ may still insist on holding ‘rules are rules’ even if they are told they do not ‘have to’ do them. Provided however that they are not FORBIDDEN to do them, they are still being obedient to authority. And that’s the big difference between the ‘rule sticklers’ and the rule breakers. I suppose that humans, being what they are, more often find the ‘goody two shoes’ more ‘annoying’ than the ‘rugged individualist’ and ‘breaker of ‘stupid’ rules’. We do tend to think lately that ‘obedient’ people are either stupid sheep who don’t ‘think for themselves’ or holier-than-thou hypocrites–a triumph in Satan’s marketing strategy for the 20th century, I might add.