Drowning is rules?

[tallbeard]

The Pharisees kept so many minute rules as a way of immersing their lives in the will of God and also as a way to show their love for Him. This isn’t a bad thing. Neither is being zealous about the proper celebration of the liturgy or other Church teachings. What got the Pharisees condemned and will also condemn us is the failure to care for the poor, suffering people around them while they took great care of themselves. Do we love our neighbor as we love ourselves? In other words, if we wouldn’t go a day or two without eating, how can we allow others (whom we love as ourselves) to starve? I have so much more than I need, yet I fail to mobilize my resources to rescue those who do not have enough. Compared to that “camel”, all the rubrics I busy myself about are truly less than a “gnat”. Pray for my conversion.

 

[otjm]

A couple of thoughts about rules.

There are two general European approaches or philosphies of rules. The Germanic approach is that whatever is not allowed is forbidden. The Mediterrainian model is that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.

It takes a bit of time to dwell on those, to really get their substance. And it seems at times that there are a significant number of people in these fora who take the Germanic approach.

It might also be wise to spend a bit of time thinking about what Cardinal Arinze had to say about a dubium submitted by Cardinal George. The GIRM was written in such a way that all were to stand to receive Communion, and reading it resulted in a direction being given that one had to continue to stand after receiving, in one’s pew, until the last person had received. This was as opposed to the previous where people would return to their pew and kneel while the rest were receiving.

Cardinal Arinze’s answer included the statement to the effect that Rome did not intend to be that rigid about the posture of those who had received.

A literal rule reading was “you stand”. Period. Plain, pure and simple; Rome has spoken, all must (rigidly) obey. Arinze’s response: Rome does not intend that rigid a rule.

Someone can argue that Rome wrote a rule and then modified it; it could also be argued that it was not Rome that wrote a rigid rule, but rather that we took a very rigid interpretation - literal - as to what the rule meant.

It is also interesting that the US is considered to be very rule conscious: they will cry and moan, and kick the traces if they don’t like the rule. Europe, however, will not disagree with the rule; they will smile and promise compliance, and then do as they please.

It is very difficult for Americans to grasp this; that Europe (and last I recall, we have had European popes for a bit of time, and not a few Cardinals and bishops in the Curia) is the home base for the rule makers, who generally follow cultural trends (and how they respond to law is in large part a cultural viewpoint), and when they make rules, they do so primarily from a viewpoint of how Europeans look at laws. They often have a hard time dealing with Americans apparent obsessivness with rules and their application.

In short, we tend to look at rules as absolutes, and they tend to look at rules as guidlines. As I said, “tend” as any given circustance can make a lie out of the general observation.

Just as there is a hierarchy of doctrine, there generally is a hierarchy of rules; some are more important than others and are absolutes; others are less important and are guidlines.

Even guidelines are not to be completely ignored. The point comes where the line is drawn; and most often, Americans tend to draw the lines as absolutes; and that is not always the case. A bit like moderation in all things, including moderation.

There are those in these fora who come across as liturgical police, and I have to echo what I feel I have heard herein; we are at Mass to meet Christ, to be nourished by His Word and His Body, to give praise, petition, thanksgiving and reparation. When we focus on the rules - play liturgical police - we are walking towards the position of putting form over substance. Not all do, but I can pretty well guarantee, being an observer of human behavior, that some do. The Mass just isn’t right unless every jot and tittle have been properly and correctly addressed; one has to wonder if the issue is Phariseeism or magic.

On the other hand, some are more sensitive to liturgical rubrics and are disturbed by abberations, and it does impede their worship. Whether that is due to an increased awareness of what is or is not supposed to happen - meaning the amount of expirimentation that has occured these last 38 years has caused this sensitivity - or is just an inordinate need for order I don’t know. But I think the OP is correct; if our primary focus is on meeting Christ in the Mass, and we keep it there, a lot of the angst over any specific rule can be diminshed.

The attitude that Rome said it and obedience is paramount has a very good result in that the important rules are obeyed, as they should be. It also results in making rules that are meant as guidlines - to be most generally observed, to be ends in themselves, and to take on a level of importance that overshadows the purpose behind the rule.

Would it be best if rules that are intended to be guidlines to be observed most of the time were obeyed all the time? That would seem to lend itself to making the form more important than the substance. It would also tend to lend itself to an attitude towards living with one another, that we have to follow strict guidlines. But is is not strict guidlines which make us loving creatures, but rather a willingness to sacrifice self for other.

 

[tomaquin88]

There are two general European approaches or philosphies of rules. The Germanic approach is that whatever is not allowed is forbidden. The Mediterrainian model is that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.

It is also interesting that the US is considered to be very rule conscious: they will cry and moan, and kick the traces if they don’t like the rule. Europe, however, will not disagree with the rule; they will smile and promise compliance, and then do as they please.

I could add : the Swedish approach to rules is that whatever people are doing in my parish I go along with it, with slight personal additions.

Yes, the US seems amusingly rule conscious. It is hilarious to listen to Jimmie Akins slow serious voice on Catholic Answers, as he goes through at length the levels of understanding of a rule in mass or liturgy in general. In Sweden most people follow rules to please others in the room, with personal variations. Last adoration I attended had a display of as many personal styles as there were individuals present, including two priests.

What is a rule? Communication to others?

Tom

 

[djrakowski]

never once have i named names.

saying i’m wrong is like disagreeing with me that some days are warmer than others. some nights are colder than others.

I’m simply saying that when compared, some posters are not as intelligent as others.

does that concept scare you?

Nope, it doesn’t scare me. It doesn’t even offend me. It’s just a cheap debate tactic you’re tried to use to silence the types of people with whom you disagree.

Presumably, your intelligence is the standard by which the rest of us should be measured? Thus, those who agree with your perspective on the liturgy are intelligent, and those who disagree are genetically inferior, stupid and lacking in bra(name removed by moderator)ower?

I see… I thought debate dealt with the facts of the issue, rather than the personal characteristics of the debaters. Ad hominem isn’t a very effective means of defending your position.

 

[thechrismyster]

Nope, it doesn’t scare me. It doesn’t even offend me. It’s just a cheap debate tactic you’re tried to use to silence the types of people with whom you disagree…

with whom do i disagree? if i’m that transparent, my prejudices should be showing on my sleeve.

 

[Al_Masetti]

What if we go back and look at both the complexity and the simplicy of only two rules:

Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your whole strength.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Simple, but still very complex (in all the little details … holding the door open for the next person; covering the mouth when yawning; let other cars cut into the flow of traffic; don’t honk the horn unnecessarily; no hitting; keep the music low.). Gizillions of them.

So there are scads of little rules and niceties.

There are civil rules and niceties and there are religious rules and niceties.

We do the best we can.

 

[Brendan]

It might also be wise to spend a bit of time thinking about what Cardinal Arinze had to say about a dubium submitted by Cardinal George. The GIRM was written in such a way that all were to stand to receive Communion, and reading it resulted in a direction being given that one had to continue to stand after receiving, in one’s pew, until the last person had received. This was as opposed to the previous where people would return to their pew and kneel while the rest were receiving.r.

That right there was a mistaken interpretation. GIRM 43 mentions nothing about everyone remaining standing until all have recieved Holy Communion.

That precise meaning was even debated by the Bishops during their discussions on GIRM 43 (which was modified by the US bishops from the universal GIRM)

Here is the relevant section from the debate transcript.

Archbishop Chaput: It’s not my amendment, it’s Bishop Clark’s. The Committee says it has been accepted, or subsumed into amendment 2, but I don’t think it has been. Because number 2 says, “The faithful may kneel or sit during the period of religious silence after Communion”.

And Bishop Clark is suggesting that no one sit or kneel till everyone receives, so it really isn’t – I mean it’s kind of ignoring the question, and for clarity I would just ask, why does the Committee think it really is answering his question with the wording of number 2?

Archbishop Lipscomb: Well, I [reads] “They may kneel or sit following the reception of Holy Communion”, and instead say: “They should sit during the readings before the Gospel”, and so forth, “and if this seems helpful, they may sit or kneel during the period of religious silence after Communion”.

Archbishop Chaput: And what Bishop Clark is suggesting is that nobody sit or kneel until everybody receives; and then they can. So they’re not really the same issue it seems.

Archbishop Lipscomb: Well, again, if that was the bishop’s intention I don’t think we would accept that as practice for the United States – until everybody goes to Communion then you either sit or kneel, that everybody remains standing until then. I just don’t think that follows the practice of most of our churches in the United States.

Archbishop Chaput: See, I agree with you, but I thought this was confusing so I was just asking for a clarification. So the period of silence can begin as soon as you receive, if you want to go back and sit down, or kneel.

Archbishop Lipscomb: You can sit down, or you can kneel – or you can stand. That’s included previously.

Even during debate, the bishops recognized that the law meant what Cardinal Arinze later said it meant.
It was a few later bishops who misconstrued what “after Communion is observed” meant. They erronously assumed that it mean after ALL persons recieved, instead of recognizing that this was an individual directive.

Thus the dubium.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Sometimes it seems to me that we focus so much on the rules of the Chruch that we fail to just live our faith. Does Jesus really care if we hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer? Am I allowed to go to this wedding, that party, this funeral? Cover my head, not cover my head. Am I allowed to watch an R rated movie? Is smoking a sin? The priest must not leave to sanctuary during the homily. There must only be music at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. Tattoos? Vacuuming on Sundays? It’s like we have to ask ourselves, “does the Church allow this?” before we can do anything.

Several years ago I was so frustrated with the “abuses” going on at my church that I could barely pay attention to the Mass. That is not what God wants. I understand many of the rules - no birth control, Mass attendance on Sundays, anything to do with the 10 commandments, following the exact litergy at Mass. I guess it’s the numerous, seemingly minor, rules I question.

The Church has it’s rules for a purpose-to protect the integrity of the Gospel and Tradition, to keep unity in the faith, to lead us into holiness, to combat error and heresy, etc. I can accept all of that and fully agree with it. But these “rules” are not burdensome, they are practical, and many of them (which most of us are unaware of) relate also to the administration of our very large Church. What becomes burdensome is the “rules” people impose upon themselves. And some people try to impose them on others. Or they get into scrupulosity and torment themselves needlessly. A lot of what people claim to be “rules” aren’t rules at all. They are just traditions with a small “t”, that people see as as big “T”'s.

But if you think Catholics are bad about rules, take a look at some of the fundmentalist Protestant denominations. My father’s family belongs to one of these, and during my searching years I ran into a lot of these “rules”. They actually become oppressive. My BIL and SIL attended such a church. My SIL was a member, but he was not allowed to be–because he smoked. But they gladly took his tithe (which was substantial because he is a wealthy man). And I noticed, while attending one of their services, that the parking lot was littered with cigarette butts! The hypocrisy did not go unnoticed by the rest of the family. The Catholic Church is not like this–it will take you in cigarettes and all, and lead you to repentence and conversion and allow God to deal with you as you are, and the Holy Spirit to clean up your act. It also provides you with the means to grow in holiness with the Sacraments. Everybody there knows they are a sinner, too, from the Pope on down, and in need of God’s forgiveness.

Just my view on the subject of rules.

 

[Brendan]

Thank you very much MooCowSteph

Of course most of us can see the difference between giving advice to someone who really needs it, like an alcoholic friend who needs help, and lecturing the priest for putting flowers on the altar! One of them is about doing a work of mercy, while the other might very well be pride…

Actually, both are works of Mercy. And one could be prideful about ANY work of Mercy, it depends on the attitude.

If a person helped the alcoholic friend just to get acolades from others, that certainly is pride. If they did it to get the person back on the road to Christ, that’s Mercy.

The exact same is true for any work of Mercy, temporal or spiritual.

I’ve never encountered a person who helped an alcoholic for prideful reasons, and I, likewise, never encountered a person who seeked to correct liturgical abuses for prideful reasons.

I have yet to meet anyone who sought to get the priest to say the Creed on Sundays, or yes, to take the flowers off the altar, to somehow get ‘credit’, or public acolades for doing so.

Most just want a Liturgy like the Vatican says we are entitled to have, one done according the the instructions of the Church. Most, like myself, would be happiest if it just happened, that the priest just “read the black, did the red” and we didn’t have to act at all.

So no, pride is rarely, if ever, involved.

Rather we accept what Redemtionis Sacramentum said as being true

Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy

. RS 169

And therefore we must also accept what RS calls a “sacred duty”
and look to have “all abuses be thoroughly corrected”

In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism.

So for all of you who said that you would personally follow the rules set down for you, there is one right there, one of the rules for us non-clergy is to seek to all all abuses corrected.

Are you going to be true to your word all follow that rule too?

 

[djrakowski]

see, you’re one of the people that ‘gets it’.
the folks who you describe, they don’t get it.

the reason they don’t understand the bigger picture.
quite simplty…genetics, they don’t understand because they don’t have the bra(name removed by moderator)ower to understand. they’ll never understand, not just religion, but they won’t understand many things about living in society… why its wrong to go 20 miles an hour in the left lane, why it’s wrong to go in the express lane at the supermarket with 30 items.
They think the important things are the small things that are done by fashion, but fail to see their complete lack of Christian charity in addressing the very issues they pretend to seek resolve for.
you can’t teach intelligence, you can only reign in stupidity.

CA gets more than its fair share of these people simply by virtue its an open club on the world wide web. you’re going to find CA represents society as a whole… a few intelligent ones, and a WHOLE lot of dumb ones.

CA isn’t a microcosm of the macrocosm, as they say. it’s a self contained world that often attracts those who wouldn’t have a voice anywhere else in the world, so they vent here.

it boils down to this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“In matters of morals, stand like a rock. In matters of fashion,flow like the stream.”

with whom do i disagree? if i’m that transparent, my prejudices should be showing on my sleeve.

I think you made your prejudices quite clear in the second post of this thread. The people who “don’t have the bra(name removed by moderator)ower to understand” are those who “think the important things are the small things that are done by fashion.” But I suspect they’re not worthy of engaging in real dialog, since “they’ll never understand, not just religion, but they won’t understand many things about living in society.”

I guess that’s different than wearing your prejudices on your sleeve.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Quote:
In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism

Like I said before, it’s common sense. If a priest is being irreverent to the eucharist, common sense dictates that you do something. Flowers on the altar, or the priest walking around during his sermon don’t strike me as irreverent. And I have more important things to do with my religious study time than to read the GIRM to nitpick what the priest is doing.

 

[Brendan]

Like I said before, it’s common sense. If a priest is being irreverent to the eucharist, common sense dictates that you do something. Flowers on the altar, or the priest walking around during his sermon don’t strike me as irreverent. And I have more important things to do with my religious study time than to read the GIRM to nitpick what the priest is doing.

But where exactly does the Vatican give an ‘exception’ for the flowers or the walking. It specifically say “ALL ABUSES be thoroughly corrected”; that would mean both the major AND minor ones.

Are you now claiming that you too get to pick and choose what rules you are to obey?

Now hopefully the priest would recognize the error and correct it. If not, then the issue really isn’t flowers or walking anymore, but out right disobedience. That’s a violation of his vow of obedience, and THAT is a serious matter.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But where exactly does the Vatican give an ‘exception’ for the flowers or the walking. It specifically say “ALL ABUSES be thoroughly corrected”; that would mean both the major AND minor ones.

Are you now claiming that you too get to pick and choose what rules you are to obey?

Now hopefully the priest would recognize the error and correct it. If not, then the issue really isn’t flowers or walking anymore, but out right disobedience. That’s a violation of his vow of obedience, and THAT is a serious matter.

I’m not a priest, so I don’t have to worry about knowing most of the details of liturgy. I just have to know what is expected of laity. If I see something that I recognize as irreverent to the eucharist, I’ll do something. But it isn’t my station in life to learn every detail of the liturgy so that I can nitpick the priest.

It’s not my responsibility to read every papal document on liturgy and to know everything about it. It is my responsibility to grow in being a better and holier person, and I focus my efforts on that. To spend so much time learning so that I can pick on priests who make little mistakes would be simply wrong… I have so much other spiritual reading to be doing. In fact, I shouldn’t have let myself even get drawn into this thread, I should have stopped after I shared what I thought was a bit of wisdom, but here I am wasting more time when I could be reading something useful to me in my spiritual life.

Maybe God really has called you to the vocation of liturgical police… I know He hasn’t called me to that. So perhaps we just have different vocations.

 

[TMC]

But where exactly does the Vatican give an ‘exception’ for the flowers or the walking. It specifically say “ALL ABUSES be thoroughly corrected”; that would mean both the major AND minor ones.

Are you now claiming that you too get to pick and choose what rules you are to obey?

Now hopefully the priest would recognize the error and correct it. If not, then the issue really isn’t flowers or walking anymore, but out right disobedience. That’s a violation of his vow of obedience, and THAT is a serious matter.

Brendan,

Its not clear to me that a minor rule violation would be an “abuse” or “irreverance” or a “distortion.” I have been in a number of parishes in different dioceses through the years, probably under six or so bishops. All of them had a practice of putting flowers in the sanctuary and, if I remember properly, on the altar. The last two bishops I have seen give homilies each left the sanctuary to do so.

I am sure these priests and bishops did not view these actions as “abuses.” The had no intention of giving irreverance to the Eucharist or of distorting our Faith. I doubt anyone at those Masses thought they had.

So, no, I am not saying I get to pick and choose the rules, but I also don’t agree that flowers on the altar, or walking during the homily are “abuses.”

 

[thechrismyster]

The people who “don’t have the bra(name removed by moderator)ower to understand”

“Understanding is a wellspring of life to him that has it: but the instruction of fools is folly”

ok, i’ll take this right from Proverbs16:22 about the people who post here who are wrong in their thinking… they’re not stupid. they’re fools.

there…better?

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

Its not clear to me that a minor rule violation would be an “abuse” or “irreverance” or a “distortion.” I have been in a number of parishes in different dioceses through the years, probably under six or so bishops. All of them had a practice of putting flowers in the sanctuary and, if I remember properly, on the altar. The last two bishops I have seen give homilies each left the sanctuary to do so.

I am sure these priests and bishops did not view these actions as “abuses.” The had no intention of giving irreverance to the Eucharist or of distorting our Faith. I doubt anyone at those Masses thought they had.

So, no, I am not saying I get to pick and choose the rules, but I also don’t agree that flowers on the altar, or walking during the homily are “abuses.”

A violation of the Liturgical regulation is, be defintion, an abuse. Every single one introduced distorts the Faith, in that it shows that willful disobedience is somehow to be tolerated. Worse, it can get into the hypocrisy that Christ condemned when the priest expects obedience, but does not render it himself.

And, as I had pointed out, it violates the Sanctity of the Priesthood, as a violation of the priests vows.

I agree that that is a lesser offence that Violating the Sanctity of the Eucharist itself, as a Eucharistic abuse would, but a violation is a violation.

Earlier in this thread, I talked about how much thought and effort went into deveopling these regulations, how they were developed and debated for years. Now comes along a priest and decideds to place HIS personal judgement over the theologians in Rome and the US bishops who approved the rules. That’s some pretty big pride there.

But I agree with you on one point, most priests don’t consider them to be abuses. That is why “Instructing the unlearned” is also a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Perhaps this is about spending too much time thinking about rules that don’t apply to us.

…Worry about the rules that apply to you. If the pope hasn’t asked you to police the liturgy, then focus on your own personal holiness.

As Brendan has already pointed out, we have a duty to, according to the level of our formation, offer fraternal correction. In addition to this, though, we have a right to liturgy celebrated according to the books. That is one of the fundamental rights of the Christian faithful enshrined in canon law. I’ve always found it odd that free-spirited Americans who are typically so protective of individual rights so often encourage priests to violate this right of the faithful.

Part of the reason the Church is so interested in having the liturgy celebrated properly is that, while she does not want form to be elevated above substance, she, far more than many individuals, is keenly aware of form’s ability to both convey and obscure substance. Much of what the liturgical movement sought in the reduction of rubrical detail was to remove formal overgrowth that they felt was obscuring the substance. The rules they left, however, were all intended to let it shine forth more clearly. The distinction of sanctuary from nave, the distinctions among roles, the ways in which hands and objects are held, all of these are meant to convey the substance underneath. When someone tinkers with them because he/she thinks he can reach people better, we get was RS called a “falsification” of the liturgy. The communication of the substance has been altered and the most likely result is that this garbled the message. The faithful have a right to a proper substance, and therefore they have a right to the proper form.

So, no, I am not saying I get to pick and choose the rules, but I also don’t agree that flowers on the altar, or walking during the homily are “abuses.”

Disobeying the rules of the liturgy is liturgical abuse. That’s just the plain meaning of the words. Beyond that, though, the second part of your comment shouldn’t matter in light of the first. If you have to obey all the rules (i.e. don’t get to pick and choose which ones to follow) then it makes no difference whether you think something is an “abuse” or not (a distinction you seem to have invented for this very convenient purpose) - even a rule that supposedly isn’t serious enough to create “abuse” must still be followed.

 

[djrakowski]

“Understanding is a wellspring of life to him that has it: but the instruction of fools is folly”

ok, i’ll take this right from Proverbs16:22 about the people who post here who are wrong in their thinking… they’re not stupid. they’re fools.

there…better?

Sure… of course, you’re the one who sets the standards, right? Does it matter much what the documents governing the celebration of the Mass have to say?

But I suppose I oughtn’t call the you and the people who share your opinions stupid, lacking in bra(name removed by moderator)ower, unable to understand many things about living in society, and fools in need of instruction. That would be uncharitable, wouldn’t it? edit: furthermore, it wouldn’t reflect my belief, either.

So what I’m seeing is that you’re the one who gets to determine when someone is a fool who needs instruction, and the Vatican, particularly the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, doesn’t. I think I know who I’ll allow to instruct me.

 

[thechrismyster]

the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments

hmm, i wonder which Catholic Answers members sit on the congregation?

can i see a show of hands? I think we know the ones who think they hold chair there. they might be the ones aforementioned in my previous posts.

Until CA becomes the soundbox for the CfDWaD, we shall continue to judge the wisdom of our fellow posters on a case by case basis.

I, too, follow Rome. We are the same, you and I.

 

[Susan1006]

I sometimes wonder if we wouldn’t all be better off if we would be willing to ask “Is this what the Church teaches and allows?” before we acted. That said, it isn’t easy to walk the narrow path and obey the rules, and freedom to be a holy child of God doesn’t always feel like freedom.
I liked the point in one of the posts that the devil works to destroy great human strengths by encouraging people to belittle them. It is obvious that people like to belittle Christians for any thing we do.
It was hard, hard, hard for me to become a follower of rules. I was determined to find my own way and the heck with you if you wanted to tell me what to do. It’s embarassing how badly I messed up my life. I was pulled kicking and screaming back from the abyss, literally. Thank God and the Holy Cathoilic Churdh.