Drowning is rules?

[Brendan]

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

I stand by my statements.

No, I have an understanding of Philosophy from a Theology perspective.

It is the method used to distinguish Truth from opinion and is the standard for logical debate.

 

[Brendan]

Try the GIRM for starters.

Yes, I am very familiar with the GIRM, it was part of one of my Canon Law classes ( Liturgical Law).

Certain items have declared ‘flexibility’, others do not.

If the priest is using a valid option in an area of the GIRM that specifically allows for that, then I have no issue.

On the other hand, if there is NO listed flexibility, flexibility does not exist, and ergo, falls under my sacred duty to see that it is corrected.

Simple.

Did I even suggest that? Of course not.

That was why I was asking.

 

[TMC]

Certain items have declared ‘flexibility’, others do not.

If the priest is using a valid option in an area of the GIRM that specifically allows for that, then I have no issue.

Do you agree that the GIRM allows the priest to leave the sanctuary during the homily, then? Hate to keep on this one point, but its one of the points we have been discussing on this thread and I cannot see how the GIRM forbids this. Is my reading of the document that far off?

 

[otjm]

Yes, I am very familiar with the GIRM, it was part of one of my Canon Law classes ( Liturgical Law).

Certain items have declared ‘flexibility’, others do not.

If the priest is using a valid option in an area of the GIRM that specifically allows for that, then I have no issue.

On the other hand, if there is NO listed flexibility, flexibility does not exist, and ergo, falls under my sacred duty to see that it is corrected.

Simple.

That was why I was asking.

Well, then, you might want to go back and read it again, since you seem to be taking issue with where the priest can give the homily. From your comments you seem to be saying that you are much better educated than I on such matters, so I will bow to your expertise.

Please explain how the homily is only to be given from the ambo when the GIRM states: “136 The priest, standing at the cahir or the ambo itself, or when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily.”

Perhaps, with all of your work with European Law and the EU regulators every day, you have discovered something that I missed; or perhaps it is your training in Canon law.

And since it is your sacred duty to correct, and I am just a dumb cluck, please, enlighten me.

Oh, and since you seem to want to duel with the words of Cardinal Arinze, I am waiting for your response to his comments about not intending to regulate posoture so rigidly. It seems to me that you pick and choose what you want to quote from him when it suits your purpose, and ignore what else he has to say.

But then, like I say, I am just a dumb cluck. Maybe it is all that EU stuff.

 

[b_justb]

Hey look!

People beating each other over the head with the GIRM in a thread about the Church drowning in rules.

Well now, isn’t that just perfect!

ps - is there a section in the GIRM about using it as a weapon against your fellow Catholics? If there isn’t then does that mean we can have a solid knock down drag out arguement about whether or not it’s allowed to be used that way or not? Can’t wait!

 

[Brendan]

Well, then, you might want to go back and read it again, since you seem to be taking issue with where the priest can give the homily. From your comments you seem to be saying that you are much better educated than I on such matters, so I will bow to your expertise.

Please explain how the homily is only to be given from the ambo when the GIRM states: “136 The priest, standing at the cahir or the ambo itself, or when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily.”

I was just using the example given by others as a discussion point.

Perhaps, with all of your work with European Law and the EU regulators every day, you have discovered something that I missed; or perhaps it is your training in Canon law.

And since it is your sacred duty to correct, and I am just a dumb cluck, please, enlighten me.

Is sarcasm part of your “Philosophy of Law” that I am so under educated in? If that is your preferred method of debate, I can accomodate that style as well.

My preference would be an more reasoned examination of the merits of the propositions.

Oh, and since you seem to want to duel with the words of Cardinal Arinze, I am waiting for your response to his comments about not intending to regulate posoture so rigidly. It seems to me that you pick and choose what you want to quote from him when it suits your purpose, and ignore what else he has to say.

Cardinal Arinze was speaking in regards to GIRM 43. Are you saying that everything that the good Cardinal says about one particular Canon applied to all of them?

But, in every case where I disagree with anothers interpretation of a liturgical rule, I most certainly will follow the directions of the appropriate dicastery, and I expect others to do so as well. Is there anything wrong with that?

But then, like I say, I am just a dumb cluck. Maybe it is all that EU stuff.

You were the one who brought forward the premise that the Europeans have a tendency to view rules more as guidelines. I spoke of my personal experience and asked if you had any specific cases where a European regulatory body has issued rules with the understanding that they are to viewed more as guidelines. If you are still holding to your premise, could you list some examples?

 

[brittrossiter]

Hey look!

People beating each other over the head with the GIRM in a thread about the Church drowning in rules.

Well now, isn’t that just perfect!

It does have a bit of irony about it, sadly.

 

[otjm]

I was just using the example given by others as a discussion point.

Oh. Previously, you said that it wasn’t allowed. But that was just a “discussion point”. I get it. I think?

Is sarcasm part of your “Philosophy of Law” that I am so under educated in? If that is your preferred method of debate, I can accomodate that style as well.

You are the one who has set yourself up as the expert, with your EU experience and your education; if you don’t want to come across with an attitude of superiority, then don’t wave your qualifications at me as if you were the anointed authority. You may have studied Canon law and studied the GIRM as part of that, but your response came across as having much superior knowledge. Maybe you read the GIRM as part of your study of Canon law, but I read it too, and I didn’t say that the priest could not give the homily from anywhere but the ambo; you did.

If you don’t want sarcasm, then maybe a little less of the superiority attitude would do for all us undeducated peons.

My preference would be an more reasoned examination of the merits of the propositions.

Suits me fine. That was what I was trying to do before you waded in with how educated and experienced you were.

Cardinal Arinze was speaking in regards to GIRM 43. Are you saying that everything that the good Cardinal says about one particular Canon applied to all of them?

And my response is, have you actually read all of my posts? I have never suggested that. What i have said, or tried to say, is that in most rules collections, there is a hierarchy; some are more important than others. His statement is indicative of the attitude of Rome, that some things are absolutes, some things are important, some are less important, and some are basically guidelines. They seem to get it, and they seem to be bemused at our inability to figure it out.

But, in every case where I disagree with anothers interpretation of a liturgical rule, I most certainly will follow the directions of the appropriate dicastery, and I expect others to do so as well. Is there anything wrong with that?

Perhaps that depends on the dicastery. We both know there are some that are in la la land - some figuratively, some literally…

You were the one who brought forward the premise that the Europeans have a tendency to view rules more as guidelines. I spoke of my personal experience and asked if you had any specific cases where a European regulatory body has issued rules with the understanding that they are to viewed more as guidelines. If you are still holding to your premise, could you list some examples?

Sigh. Go read what I actually wrote, not what you want to translate it as. I said there were two models, not one. Did you read that? You quote the Germanic model, and you are presuming because of your EU experience, that the Germainc model applies to all Europe in all things.

Last I recall, the See of Peter was not in Munich or Berlin, but was (surprise of surprises!) Rome. Aha! In an area we call the Mediterranian (did you read my post? A clue - the second model is called the Mediterranian…). Both are models, not absolutes. And as your cheap shot about Philosophy and Theology, let’s not presume that anyone who speaks of Philosophy in anything other than under the guise of Theology is not seeking Truth, ok? Or are the ground rules that you can take pot shots, but I can’t use sarcasm?

 

[Brendan]

Oh. Previously, you said that it wasn’t allowed. But that was just a “discussion point”. I get it. I think?

I was not the one who brought it up, I was simply following with that posters example.

You are the one who has set yourself up as the expert, with your EU experience and your education; if you don’t want to come across with an attitude of superiority, then don’t wave your qualifications at me as if you were the anointed authority

That was not my intent, When I asked for examples of rules that should be taken as guidelines, you responded with “Try the GIRM”

My comment was not to wave any qualification around, but to simply reinterate that yes, I have studied the GIRM. I’m sorry if it was taken badly, but your response seemed rather flippant to me.

. You may have studied Canon law and studied the GIRM as part of that, but your response came across as having much superior knowledge. Maybe you read the GIRM as part of your study of Canon law, but I read it too, and I didn’t say that the priest could not give the homily from anywhere but the ambo; you did.

Again, I was using a given example. If you prefer, I could pick an example that I consider to be clear and unabigious ( such as GIRM 183 (purification of vessels can only be done by priests, deacons or Instituted Acoyles)

Or maybe something even simpler, such as the necessity of bowing during the Creed.

Or, if you rather, you could submit a GIRM or RS entry that you consider to be more of a guidline.

If you don’t want sarcasm, then maybe a little less of the superiority attitude would do for all us undeducated peons.

Suits me fine. That was what I was trying to do before you waded in with how educated and experienced you were.

And my response is, have you actually read all of my posts? I have never suggested that. What i have said, or tried to say, is that in most rules collections, there is a hierarchy; some are more important than others. His statement is indicative of the attitude of Rome, that some things are absolutes, some things are important, some are less important, and some are basically guidelines. They seem to get it, and they seem to be bemused at our inability to figure it out.

Perhaps that depends on the dicastery. We both know there are some that are in la la land - some figuratively, some literally…

Sigh. Go read what I actually wrote, not what you want to translate it as. I said there were two models, not one. Did you read that? You quote the Germanic model, and you are presuming because of your EU experience, that the Germainc model applies to all Europe in all things.

Of course I didn’t make any presumption, that’s why I asked for other examples and I opened it up to any European body. Fine, the Holy See is in Rome. Can you list any examples of an Italian regulatory body issuing regulations that they expect to serve as guidelines only.

Last I recall, the See of Peter was not in Munich or Berlin, but was (surprise of surprises!) Rome. Aha! In an area we call the Mediterranian (did you read my post? A clue - the second model is called the Mediterranian…). Both are models, not absolutes

I never said anything about absolutes. I asked simply for an example. A model should produce one example, should it not?

. And as your cheap shot about Philosophy and Theology, let’s not presume that anyone who speaks of Philosophy in anything other than under the guise of Theology is not seeking Truth, ok? Or are the ground rules that you can take pot shots, but I can’t use sarcasm?

My ‘cheap shot’ was a clarification, you made an accusation that I had no background in “the philosophy of law” and that somehow it invalided my examination of issues from multiple angles.

Is it a ‘pot shot’ to state that yes, I do have a backgroud with philosophy, but it came from a study of the Scholastics? Go back and read what I wrote.

As part of that, I learned what an apagogical argument was and how to apply it. My claim of seeking truth was directed towards my use of questioning, NOT necessarily that it was coming from a Theological nature, but WHERE I learned about philosophical inquiry.

I fully and wholeheartily agree that the various Philosophical disciplines are directed towards Truth. What I fail to see is how my use of exploring what I percieved was flaws in your logic to be somehow ‘wrong’ I did not use a ‘philosophy of law’.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Folks:

Please step back – take a deep breath before you post and refuse to personalize - simply address the content of the responses and keep in mind that we are limited to the written word in a forum such as this. We cannot see nor hear the tonal inflections which accompany our “talk” – so try and overlook the faults of one another as so often we misunderstand and either take or give offense when we didn’t mean to at all.

Thanks for your help in staying civil and courteous.

 

[otjm]

When I asked for examples of rules that should be taken as guidelines, you responded with “Try the GIRM”

We are going to beat this to death. I am not going to second guess which other things Arinze might comment on; but he did comment on the GIRM which appeared to require that people stand all through Communion even after receiving, by saying that Rome did not intend to regulate posture that rigidly.

Again, I was using a given example. If you prefer, I could pick an example that I consider to be clear and unabigious ( such as GIRM 183 (purification of vessels can only be done by priests, deacons or Instituted Acoyles)

Or maybe something even simpler, such as the necessity of bowing during the Creed.

You seem to want to draw me into a discussion on your terms, and I won’t be drawn in. You have either not understood what I wrote, or are ignoring it, or simply did not read it. I did not start my comments to try to debate you or anyone else on what the GIRM says or doesn’t say. I will try to restate it in a way you get.

Whether or not you are aware of it, there are two recognized attitudes, or philosophies of law generally in Europe. One is the germanic approach, which is that whatever is not allowed is forbidden; the other is the mediterranian approach which is that whatever is not forbidden is allowed. If you cannot understand the difference between those two, then I am at a loss as to how to explain it.

I am not discussing specific laws, nor am I discussing the EU. I am addressing people’s attitudes. If you are unfamiliar with the attitudes of the man in the street in Italy or in Germany, then I would suggest that you go to those countries and live there for a period of time and observe, or ask people who have lived there what the general attitudes towards law are. Note: if you go there and try to look at specifics, you won’t get it. I was speaking of attitudes, not specific violations or lack thereof. In general, the same can be said of interpersonal relationships in the two countries (and others surrounding them); Germans tend to be more formal, more distant, more proper; Italians are known as being more relaxed, less formal, more intimate. Go and analyze any specific realtionship and you won’t get it.

No one is saying that the Italians are going to go and violate specific rules of the EU. What I am trying to get across is that the Italians see laws generally in a more relaxed, less formal manner; it is not that there are no laws, it is not that they have an attitude of intentionally violating them; but more that they see laws more as a guideline than as an absolute. Doing so does not mean that they intentionally violate any specific one; more that if they do not follow a specific one, it is less with an attitude of intentionally violating it as just not paying real close attention to it.

Germans on the other hand tend to see laws as very specific and absolute; if there is a law it must be obeyed and failure to do so is serious. The Italians wonder why it is so serious.

Of course I didn’t make any presumption, that’s why I asked for other examples and I opened it up to any European body. Fine, the Holy See is in Rome. Can you list any examples of an Italian regulatory body issuing regulations that they expect to serve as guidelines only.

As I said, you don’t appear to understand what I am saying. I haven’t lived in Italy, but I have friends who have; they have all talked about the attitude of the Italians. The same goes for Germany, and for friends I have who have lived in both countries, they have made the same comparisons. My responses have been primarily for the OP. She got it. So, I think, have several other posters.

What I fail to see is how my use of exploring what I percieved was flaws in your logic to be somehow ‘wrong’ I did not use a ‘philosophy of law’.

There are not flaws in my logic; there is a failure to communicate. You have a very germanic approach to this. I am not suggesting that any particular law should be violated. What I am trying to say is that those who have the philosophical approach to law that is typified by a Mediterranian approach are much less worried about some (notice, I did not say all) violations of specific rubrics in the GIRM than are those whose approach is more Germanic.

And being much less worried does not mean that they don’t notice that a law was not specifically followed, only that they tend to be less upset about it.

And none of that means that the laws should not be followed.