God cares more about relationship than ritual?

[RyanML]

I was talking with a friend yesterday about Lifeteen Masses and holding hands during the Our Father and giving my reasons why I didn’t see the need for these practices. He disagreed. He told me that people are different and have different needs. He said that if every parish was the same, the Church would not attract very many people. He said anything that brings people closer to God must be a good thing. His main point was that there are so many “traditionalist” Catholics that make such a big deal about doing everything just right but that God cares more about our relationship with Him than perfectly structured rubrics and followed rituals. I don’t mean for this to be a thread about Lifeteen or holding hands, I just use those as examples. How can we find that balance between ritual and relationship? God bless!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The ritual is expressive of the relationship and they both feed one another. I’m not saying that the ritual should or should not preclude the holding of hands, but if it is to be included ritually, ie, liturgically, then what does it signify, particularly at that moment? Is what is being said by the hand holding what we need to say at that point in the liturgy or what we intend to say?

I think either extreme of the spectrum is dangerous. One can become so “relationship” oriented that a casualness can develop. God certainly is our Father, our “Abba,” as the Holy One Himself taught us to call Him. He is also the Ancient of Days, the Lord God, the Creator, and the King of the Universe. The Lord Jesus is our Greatest Friend, true, but He is never our buddy or pal. Our Redeemer, yes, our Savior, but eventually, also our Judge. Likewise, one can become so leglistic in ritual matters that the relationship can be impaired. All of these things must be kept in balance.

If your friend thinks ritual is unimportant as compared to relationship, let us hope and pray that he is able to recall that the ritual clothes that which IS the relationship, ie, HOW we relate to the Holy One and HOW He relates to us, the Sacraments themselves. They are effectual, that is to say, they DO what they are purported to do: save us, forgive us of our sins, convey grace, unite us to God. That’s nothing to be casual about.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I think that people do have different spiritual needs and wants because we all have different personalities and temperments. Think about prayer in general. For the most part I think people have their favorite ways to pray and would find it uncomfortable if they were suddenly told they had to pray a different way. The person who likes the rosary may not like lectio divina; the person who likes centering prayer may not like the Liturgy of the Hours.

Similarly, the person who likes the praise music at a LifeTeen Mass may not respond to Gregorian chant, and the person who likes contemporary music at Mass may be put off by more traditional hymns.

While I think it’s good to recognize that the Mass is corporate worship and not necessarily geared toward individual preferences, I also think it’s good if there’s some variety to meet people’s different needs. God made us all different!

 

[Dolphincrc]

IMHO, we shouldn’t be the liturgy police, but at the same time we should remember that liturgy’s primary purpose is for the worship of God and to give thanks. If anything detracts from this it does not belong. For example, Paul reproves the Corinthians for eating and drinking rather than celebrating the Lord’s Supper:

When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? (1 Cor 13:20-22)

The liturgy itself is a communal celebration (the word itself means “public duty”). I think the community would benefit more from prayerful, reverent worship than making the Mass into an entertaiment gig. Also, if you allow one or two things which don’t seem like a big deal, where do you draw the line? I’ve been in places where the Mass has been transformed into something completely different, with emphasis on “relationship” and not on GOD.

 

[ncjohn]

I think either extreme of the spectrum is dangerous. One can become so “relationship” oriented that a casualness can develop. God certainly is our Father, our “Abba,” as the Holy One Himself taught us to call Him. He is also the Ancient of Days, the Lord God, the Creator, and the King of the Universe. The Lord Jesus is our Greatest Friend, true, but He is never our buddy or pal. Our Redeemer, yes, our Savior, but eventually, also our Judge. Likewise, one can become so leglistic in ritual matters that the relationship can be impaired. All of these things must be kept in balance.

I would totally agree with you on this.

Pope John XXIII expressed it well, in quoting an uncertain past writer (often attributed as Augustine) with the well-known saying: “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Peace,

 

[Robster7]

We must beware of making an idol of ritual of whatever sort.
I appreciate both traditional Latin Mass, and the contemporary Mass.

You can forget the ultimate reason for being present if you are there with your checklist yearning to catch something amiss (Aha! Caught you!).

Relationship with others is more important at certain times than liturgical correctness (assuming the departure from ritual is a minor not major omission). Remember the story of the Good Samaritan, where adhering to the rule of cleanliness prevented the priest and levite from touching, a bloodied, possibly dead body.

Also, Jesus critcized the Pharisees for paying attention to paying tithes on mint etc., while neglecting the more important works of mercy. “These you SHOULD have done, WITHOUT neglecting the others.”

However, this does not mean it’s okay to drop the Creed at Sunday Mass, or do your own words to the Canon of the mass (both of which I’ve seen at my parish).

Part of the problem is two different aspects of God: one is the Almighty, All-powerful, etc. etc. …utterly Other Being. The tridentine rite seems to emphasize this aspect. Altho a pitfall of this approach could put God at arm’s length; someone to respect, not love.

The other is the personal God revealed thru Jesus. A human person who’s been there on earth, and understands our human condition. The Lifeteen approach seems to emphasize this. Altho the pitfall of this could be to make God too familiar and casual.
You could make Jesus your buddy, telling him jokes like,
“So a priest, a minister and a rabbi play golf, and …”

I hope this doesn’t ramble too much; topic requires some more thought. I am undergoing nicotine withdrawal (giving up smoking).
As a result, I feel dull-witted and unmotivated!.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There’s nothing wrong in itself with holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer, or any other time, I suppose.

But how do you make the sign of the Cross?

FWIW, Melkites, Antiochians, and Syriacs generally take the orans position for this pra;yer.

 

[RyanML]

I really appreciate all the responses! At times I find myself being a little too scrupulous about the rubrics and will tend to nit pick. But as many have said, balance is important. We can not just throw out the Church’s liturgical traditions since they are a part of our Catholic heritage and they have meaning, but we must always remember to put true charity before keeping the rules just for the sake of keeping them.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

While it’s absolutely true that God made us all differently and that we commune with Him in different ways, it does not follow that all things are appropriate at all times. “For everything a season.”

Let’s look at it this way: sex is a very powerful way for married couples to grow closer to one another and, ideally, closer to God as well through their celebration of their vocation. Yet it’d be a pretty inappropriate way to worship in the pews.

The Church has instructed us that Gregorian chant and the organ deserve “pride of place” in the liturgy. I would argue that “praise bands” deserve considerably less. This is not to say that praise and worship music (however much I might dislike it) is inappropriate in and of itself. It’s just better celebrated outside of the liturgy. Indeed, we should encourage people to gather together outside of the Mass to continue to worship and to praise their Creator and Redeemer.

Remember that worship is primarily vertical: it is how we bring honor and praise to God. Sometimes it is appropriate to more fully explore our tastes and appetites, thankful for how He’s made us. Other times it’s appropriate to be submissive to what the Church has told us is a better way.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

p.s. Canonist Ed Peters has a very interesting article exploring the roots of the congregation’s use of the orans posture during the Pater Noster, and how it’s mostly founded on confusion. You can read it HERE.

 

[brigid12]

You might be interested in reading C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, especially the letter regarding kneeling. He (along with our Holy Father in Spirit of the Liturgy) also speaks of how the human being, since they are corporeal, need for total honesty to express themselves both by reason and will, but also materially (with our body).
Obviously, as a person ages and is able to not use parts of his body as he wishes, a person is more able to “imitate” those things in his heart. That is made allowance for in the rubrics. The problem with being “liturgical police” is that of focus - rather than focussing on Him, we are focussed on something that should have been part of the liturgical preparation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

At the risk of sounding somewhat like a devil’s advocate, I would like to know when the focus of Mass shifted from worship of God, obedience, commemoration and communion with Christ’s sacrifice into a ‘medium’ whereby we are scolded if we are not providing sufficient or ‘agreeable’ tools in which to give each and every individual the satisfaction in participation which best suits his individuality and ‘needs’. . .

 

[Genesis315]

Holy obedience is a fruit of faith and humility and divine charity (loving God even when it doesn’t feel good). God cares about those things the most.

We are offering a sacrifice to God at Mass, it is not offered for us. But in it, God also gives Himself to us–in the preaching of the word, but most especially in Holy Communion. That is what is for us, the rest is for God.

He established a hiearchy to make such rules (as St. Paul “set things in order”) for our good. To say He doesn’t care about such things shows a lack of faith in the plan He has revealed.

edit: great post Tantum Ergo

 

[nahbios]

I just came across this thread and only five minutes ago had read two prophecies on a traditionalist Catholic’s YouTube page relating to this. Here they are:

Our Lord’s Message to Marie-Julie Jahenny concerning the new liturgy: On November 27, 1902, Our Lord warned of the new liturgy which would one day be instituted: “I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.” ~ “The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.” ~

On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and their liturgy: “They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children.” ~ She announces the “dispersion of the pastors” by the Church herself true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: “…new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities.”

The woman on the site thinks that both refer to the NO liturgies. What do you think? Since I’m rather scrupulous, I worry about these things, but I remind myself of Padre Pio - he was in line with the Vatican after the Second Vatican Counsel and now he’s a saint. I think he was pretty traditional too (he didn’t want any women coming to confession in trousers or in skirts above the ankles, for instance). Thoughts, anyone?

Thanks.

 

[Genesis315]

Also, Cardinal Arinze answers these questions here (introducing Redemptionis Sacramentum):

1. Reasons for Liturgical Norms
   Someone may ask why there should be liturgical norms at all. Would creativity, spontaneity, the freedom of the children of God and ordinary good sense not be enough? Why should the worship of God be regimented by rubrics and regulations?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-card-arinze_en.html

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

He told me that people are different and have different needs. He said that if every parish was the same, the Church would not attract very many people.

Could he then explain how for 500 years the Church in the Latin Rite had ONE Mass, to be followed faithfully to the rubrics?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

At the risk of sounding somewhat like a devil’s advocate, I would like to know when the focus of Mass shifted from worship of God, obedience, commemoration and communion with Christ’s sacrifice into a ‘medium’ whereby we are scolded if we are not providing sufficient or ‘agreeable’ tools in which to give each and every individual the satisfaction in participation which best suits his individuality and ‘needs’. . .

Why, with the NO, of course.

That’s where it seems to have started, at least.

 

[Genesis315]

I just came across this thread and only five minutes ago had read two prophecies on a traditionalist Catholic’s YouTube page relating to this. Here they are:The woman on the site thinks that both refer to the NO liturgies. What do you think? Since I’m rather scrupulous, I worry about these things, but I remind myself of Padre Pio - he was in line with the Vatican after the Second Vatican Counsel and now he’s a saint. I think he was pretty traditional too (he didn’t want any women coming to confession in trousers or in skirts above the ankles, for instance). Thoughts, anyone?

Thanks.

It’s tough without seeing things in context. I am not even sure of the status of these revelations (never heard of them before).

Anyway, it sounds more like what is beginning to happen in Venezuela with their new state run “Reformed Catholic Church.” It could be more of the same in the reign of the antichrist.

Furthermore, it could also relate to simply those who use PC sacramental forumlae (like the priest in Australia, for example)–there are those who mess with the liturgy in the same way.

 

[Genesis315]

Why, with the NO, of course.

That’s where it seems to have started, at least.

No, it was going on beforehand, it’s just that the promulgation of the new Order gave those who were already pushing in that direction an pretext to do things in way not in continuity with the past.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I just came across this thread and only five minutes ago had read two prophecies on a traditionalist Catholic’s YouTube page relating to this. Here they are:

Our Lord’s Message to Marie-Julie Jahenny concerning the new liturgy: On November 27, 1902, Our Lord warned of the new liturgy which would one day be instituted: “I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.” ~ “The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.” ~

On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and their liturgy: “They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children.” ~ She announces the “dispersion of the pastors” by the Church herself true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: “…new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities.”

The woman on the site thinks that both refer to the NO liturgies. What do you think? Since I’m rather scrupulous, I worry about these things, but I remind myself of Padre Pio - he was in line with the Vatican after the Second Vatican Counsel and now he’s a saint. I think he was pretty traditional too (he didn’t want any women coming to confession in trousers or in skirts above the ankles, for instance). Thoughts, anyone?

Thanks.

The disciplines of the Church, that with which she governs her sacraments and worship, among other things, enjoy at the least a negative infallibility. That means that, though the prudential wisdom of those disciplines may be question, those disciplines cannot lead the faithful into impiety. It is impossible for the Church to promulgate for the faithful a liturgy that does not do what the Church intends that liturgy to do, ie, confect the Holy Sacrifice.

Is this an approved apparition/seer?