Drowning is rules?

[djrakowski]

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.

None, so far as I can tell, are members of the Congregation. However, we all have access to the same set of documents.

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.

Of course, you seem to think the judgment of the widsom of CAF posters should go one way. You’re permitted to judge the intelligence and charity levels of those with whom you disagree as being beyond the pale. However, when you were called out for having done the same, you retreat into the self-righteous position of “yes, but that’s OK, because I’m right!” I’m not sure how to call this anything but a rather convenient double-standard you’ve created for yourself

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

Ah, something upon which we can agree - a good start, methinks

 

[Dauphin]

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.

What benefit is there to disobeying the rules and disrespecting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? It it really so difficult to both have a good spiritual life and respect the practices of the Church?

If people know the rules, and disobey them, that is sure evidence of a corrupt internal spirituality - one which places the individual above the community. Approach the Church with humility, and bend your life to it - whether you understand everything or not.

 

[MooCowSteph]

A couple of thoughts about rules…

Thank you for your thoughtful and well worded post.

 

[MooCowSteph]

What benefit is there to disobeying the rules and disrespecting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? It it really so difficult to both have a good spiritual life and respect the practices of the Church?

If people know the rules, and disobey them, that is sure evidence of a corrupt internal spirituality - one which places the individual above the community. Approach the Church with humility, and bend your life to it - whether you understand everything or not.

If you’d read the entire thread and my many posts, you would know that neither am I advocating breaking the rules, nor do I break the rules. This thread was intended to start a thoughtful dialouge about the numerous rules enacted by the Church, and that it has. No where have I advocated disrespecting the Mass, and I must say I am a little annoyed that you insinuate I did.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Folks:

I think there has been sufficient commentary made between members participating here.

Can we please get on the topic and keep it at that level?

Thanks for your help.

 

[chicago]

I really think that it is a mere matter of pendula swinging to extremes.

We went one direction for a time when all rules were seemingly thrown out the window and anything was a sort of free game. The “spirit” of things was played up to the detriment of understanding the reason behind them which was to be properly expressed and guarded by any regulations which existed. To combat this, all kinds of directives and guidelines were issued. We, further, now have greater easy access to extensive documentation with the internet and all. And we live in an era of “facts” and “details” and “original sources” that we like to scour for finding meaning rather than traditions passed down as something living and real, yet with human intangibles which can’t be easily categorized in technical legalistics. It is all too common, therefore, especially if one is trying to be exacting and faithful, to get lost in laws and miss the forest for the trees. We might even go so far as to insist that everything must always be entirely the same in all situations, without leaving appropriate room for variety or difference of opinion, idea, perspective.

At some point perhaps we will find the healthy balance and such argumentation won’t be seen as so important. Then again, I think we humans enjoy arguing. So, perhaps it is to be ever perpetual. But maybe it could become more enlightening and concened with matters on another level beyond the typical bickering of our era eventually.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

For those who have asked or wondered or complained about those who seem to be concerned about liturgical abuses - the reason we need be concerned is answered for us by the Vatican in the document Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[169.] Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, “the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed”.(St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., II, 2, q. 93, a. 1.)

[170.] In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”,(Cf. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Vicesimus quintus annus, n. 15: AAS 81 (1989) p. 911; cf. also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 15-19.) so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means.

 

[anamchara]

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 obsessiveness with rules and their application.

In short, we tend to look at rules as absolutes, and they tend to look at rules as guidelines. As I said, “tend” as any given circumstance 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.

What fascinating comments ojtm and an excellent post. I think bringing cultural differences into the whole thing brings some fresh perspective to this difficult issue. I have heard this before but you explain it well. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Brendan]

What fascinating comments ojtm and an excellent post. I think bringing cultural differences into the whole thing brings some fresh perspective to this difficult issue. I have heard this before but you explain it well. It makes perfect sense.

The comments are fascinating, and so off base it’s incredible.

I work for a global company and deal with EU regulators on a daily basis. They are far more ‘sticklers’ for rules and won’t hesitate to slap a nice, hefty fine for any rule violation. Far more so than their American counter-parts, and even more so that even their Canadian counterparts.

Any Europeans on this board are welcome to chime in, I’m sure anyone involved in business in Europe has had plenty of experience with how stringent Brussels considers their rules to be.

In addition, the pre-Vatican II curia was substantially even more European than it is today ( almost exclusively Italian). If otjm observations were actually true, there would have been substantially MORE liturgical variation, because all those pre-Vatican ‘rules’ would have been considered even more to be ‘guidelines’.

 

[otjm]

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.

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.

I was familiar with the discussion by Chaput and others, as well as the fact that it was written in a way that got interpreted as demanding that ll stand. But I think you missed my point, which was the comment by Arinze, in the context of the discussion. Some rules are absolute (e.g factioning the wine before Consecrtion instead of after); others are not meant to be absolutes. However, there is a streak within Americans that tends to treat all rules as absolutes and does not do well with any variations.

How many comoplaints ahve there been about the OF, when said properly, that there are too many parts where the priest may choose an option? My point…

 

[otjm]

The comments are fascinating, and so off base it’s incredible.

If you think I am off base, please point it out.

In addition, the pre-Vatican II curia was substantially even more European than it is today ( almost exclusively Italian). If otjm observations were actually true, there would have been substantially MORE liturgical variation, because all those pre-Vatican ‘rules’ would have been considered even more to be ‘guidelines’.

The take a look at the history - going back pre-Vatican 2 - to Holland and Germany for starters.

And please, if you are going to comment about what I said, actually read it without putting your own gloss on it. You sometimes seem to have a tendency to answer questions not asked, or to reply as if you did not understand what was said.

 

[Brendan]

If you think I am off base, please point it out.

I did, I deal with EU regulators every day. I have yet to see anything even close to what you are talking about. If my company starts considering EU regs to be ‘guidelines’ we get slapped with pretty hefty fines.

If this attitude of viewing rules as guidelines is so prevelant, how come we don’t see any of that coming out of Brussles. Remember this is an organizational body that won’t let a German made sparkling wine be labeled as “Champangne” because it didn’t orginate in the Champagne region of France.

The take a look at the history - going back pre-Vatican 2 - to Holland and Germany for starters.

Really? There certainly was a liturgical reform movenement in those countries (and others) but none of it involved ignoring the liturgical rules that were in effect, but rather sought approval (indults) for liturgical variations.

I have no issue with that, if a priest wishes to seek Vatican approval to place flowers on the altar, and the Vatican consents, I have zero problem with that. But that is not what is happening.

And please, if you are going to comment about what I said, actually read it without putting your own gloss on it.

I did read it. Correct me if I am wrong, but your point was that Europeans tend to view ‘rules’ as more of ‘guidelines’

here is your quote

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

As I mentioned, I am very familar with EU manufacturing and distribution regulations. I have yet to experience what you describe.

Can you give specific circumstances where a governing body has issued rules with any expecatation what-so-ever that they are to be viewed as guidelines only?

You sometimes seem to have a tendency to answer questions not asked, or to reply as if you did not understand what was said

As far as answering questions, or exploring a point from a different angle, it’s called philosophical inquiry. It purpose is to identify logical errors in a position by examing the logical outcomes of a point.

 

[Brendan]

I was familiar with the discussion by Chaput and others, as well as the fact that it was written in a way that got interpreted as demanding that ll stand. But I think you missed my point, which was the comment by Arinze, in the context of the discussion. Some rules are absolute (e.g factioning the wine before Consecrtion instead of after); others are not meant to be absolutes.

How is one supposed to identify such a rule if it is written as an absolute.

I agree that there are many legitiamte options in a liturgy, but they are prefaced with the term ‘may’, such as that bells may be rung at appropriate times during the Consecration, or that the Deacon may call for the faithful to offer each other a sign of Christ’s peace. Likewise, in the Sacramentary, there are places noted where the priest may use his own words by stating text followed by “or similar words”

But such is not the case for the regulations we are discussing. Where is it noted that the regualtion concerning the priests placement during the homily is NOT meant to be absolute. Where exactly are the guidelines published for determing the relative ‘absoluteness’ of a regulation?

Can each priest just make up his own?

However, there is a streak within Americans that tends to treat all rules as absolutes and does not do well with any variations.

Hmm, that’s kind of interesting, what I read in Notitiae is when American priests and bishops tend to view the rules as guidlines, and it’s the Italian curia and Nigeria Cardinal Arinze who act as if they really ARE rules.

How many comoplaints ahve there been about the OF, when said properly, that there are too many parts where the priest may choose an option? My point…

I myself have complained about none of them. What I complain about is when priests act as if they have options in other areas, when they really do not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Something to think about.

After the Pentitential Right when the Priest gives us absolution for our venial sins, he makes the sign of the cross: Many parishioners do so too. Why, because they are in the habit of making the sign of the cross when others do. There is nothing in the rubrics/norms that suggest that this should be done. It is basically flattery and habit.

The Crossing of our head, lips and heart with our thumbs before the Gospel: Nothing in the rubrics or the norms that suggest that this should be done. It is again something we observed the Priest do and we are immitating him. It is a gesture with no real meaning.

Raising of our hands after the Our Father: Again, an immitation of the Priest not mentioned in the norms or rubrics.

Holding hands during the Our Father: This began as a tradition among concelebrating Priests and we immitated. However, the holding hands of Priests was squashed but we haven’t followed suit yet.

My view on these items:

Blessing ourself after the Penitential Rite: Good thing as in is a physical acknowledgement of the graces we have just recieved. We are a Church that stresses we need to make physical gestures (body) that conform to our spiritual state (spirit)

Blessing of our mind, lips and hearts before hearing the Gospel: Good. Again, it is a physical act to conform what we need to be doing prior to the Gospel. Prepare our mind to hear the Teaching from the Holy Spirit.

Raising our Hands after the Lord’s Prayer: Bad. My reasoning is not consistent. While it is good to take this pose as physical expression of us sending prayer to Heaven as a community, it looks goofy. Have you ever sat at Mass where you could see the congregation do this? It is distracting and looks goofy.

Holding Hands during the Lords Prayer: While to me it is again good as it is a physical gesture (body) of a communal spiritual prayer, we need to understand why the Church squashed it among concelebrating Priests. This may shed some light to which I don’t understand.

 

[Penitant]

The Crossing of our head, lips and heart with our thumbs before the Gospel: Nothing in the rubrics or the norms that suggest that this should be done. It is again something we observed the Priest do and we are immitating him. It is a gesture with no real meaning.

While I agree with much of what you said, for the sake of accuracy, I must say that you are wrong on this one point

From the GIRM:

1. At the ambo, the priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, Dominus vobiscum
   (The Lord be with you), and the people respond, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Then he
   says, Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), making the sign of the cross with
   his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well.

Pax Tecum,
Penitant

 

[Orionthehunter]

While I agree with much of what you said, for the sake of accuracy, I must say that you are wrong on this one point

From the GIRM:

1. At the ambo, the priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, Dominus vobiscum
   (The Lord be with you), and the people respond, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Then he
   says, Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), making the sign of the cross with
   his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well.

Pax Tecum,
Penitant

I stand corrected that it is in the Girm.

 

[TMC]

Like Neil Anthony, I do not consider myself a liturgical policeman and, until today, have never even looked at the GIRM. But after participating in this thread, I thought I should take a look at it.

So here is my question. One of the examples given throughout this thread of litugical abuse is the priest leaving the sanctuary to give the homily. Where in the GIRM does it say he shall not do this? This is what the GIRM says:

1. The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily. When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed.

(bolding is mine)

About the ambo it says this (in section 309):

From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; it may be used also for giving the homily and for announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful.

(again, my bolding)

So unless I am badly misreading this, it seems that our priests and bishops are not breaking the rules after all.

As for flowers, the GIRM makes it clear that they can be put around the altar, but not on the mensa. I remain a bit confused, because according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Cæremoniale Episcoporum allows flowers on the altar between the candles.

So the point of all this? Nothing, I guess, except that I agree with Orion that some of the things we may think are rules may not be the rules at all.

 

[Windmill]

MooCowSteph,

I am one of those who, for the longest time, has let the “rulebreakers” ruin my spirituality. I would go to Mass and roll my eyes at the bongo drums, shake my head at the overuse of EMHC’s, refuse to hold hands with the person next to me during the Our Father (even if it was my little 4 year old darling of a son who was just trying to hold his Daddy’s hand like all the other little sons out there in the crowd), I would hate it when the songs chosen were mediocre at best, and I would lament the shabbiness of the priest’s vestments. All this time, I couldn’t appreciate the fact that we have an Adoration chapel, the priests are orthodox in their homilies, the women are dressed modestly, the pipe organ is used, the poor are fed, the NFP group is packed, and the vast majority of our congregation is well catechized. That’s something to be very thankful for.

While I am still fighting these tendencies, I have found a number in insights that I need to live by:

1. While good liturgy is a vital part of renewing the Church, the responsibility of implementing the rules does not primarily lie on my shoulders. It is the responsibility of the ordained to “get with it”. I have enough to worry about my vocation in the real world not to have to shoulder the burden of rubrical details that don’t pertain to me.
2. Instead of complaining, do something positive. I did, and it has not only been beneficial to the Church in our area, but it has been remedial for me. I started a men’s Gregorian Chant group, and the people love it. We do Vespers, Latin Masses, funerals, weddings, confirmations, etc… Instead of focusing on what others are doing that detract from the Mass, I focus on what I can do to beautify the Mass. When beauty and ugliness are set side-by-side, you don’t have to talk about rules. People gravitate to those things that are beautiful. The Church has taken this into account when prescribing “rules”. We just need to focus on what we little we can do to help. Don’t try to be the Pope.
3. If I make sure every liturgical and customary rule is followed, but I end up damned for my lack of Christian living, then what have I accomplished?
4. Support priests when they stick their neck out for good things. Pray for them if they “miss it.”
5. Don’t pass off true moral laws as mere rules. But don’t put all laws on the same level of importance to the point that your faith crumbles if everything is not perfectly observed.
6. If you need everything to be very structured, try adding structure to your private spirituality. That way, order doesn’t depend on a liturgical “minister” or a liturgist. You can find shelter in something that you control, that you beautify, that you offer to God. I suggest the Divine Office or the Rosary. That way, if you go to Mass and see craziness, you can fall back on the order at home in your devotions.

All in all, don’t major on the minors. Don’t neglect the minors, but don’t make them the center of your spirituality. Nurture your own prayer life, frequent the sacraments, and get your soul to Heaven.

 

[otjm]

As far as answering questions, or exploring a point from a different angle, it’s called philosophical inquiry. It purpose is to identify logical errors in a position by examing the logical outcomes of a point.

And you appear to have no background in the philosophy of Law.

I stand by my statements.

 

[otjm]

But such is not the case for the regulations we are discussing. Where is it noted that the regualtion concerning the priests placement during the homily is NOT meant to be absolute. Where exactly are the guidelines published for determing the relative ‘absoluteness’ of a regulation?

Try the GIRM for starters.

Can each priest just make up his own?

Did I even suggest that? Of course not.