Pharisees & Rubrics

[robertaf]

msproule:

I just knew it was merely a matter of time before somebody would drag the spirit into this discussion!

I agree that the liturgical free spirits that cry “Pharisee” at the first opportunity are cowering behind that term in order to compensate for a lack of any justification for their position (or posture, in this context) on the matter of rubrics. Furthermore, the fact that they most often misuse the term when applying it demonstrates the shaky foundation upon which their understanding is built.

It is the letter of the law through which the spirit of the law is made apparent.

Does anyone else find this post a bit strange? Not to be critical, that is not the SPIRIT it is meant.

What could possibly be the objection to the use of the spirit of things. We are or should be spiritual folks, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I would say it is the Spirit through which the letter of the law is made and in which the spirit of the law is manifested.

 

[mosher]

robertaf:

Does anyone else find this post a bit strange? Not to be critical, that is not the SPIRIT it is meant.

What could possibly be the objection to the use of the spirit of things. We are or should be spiritual folks, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I would say it is the Spirit through which the letter of the law is made and in which the spirit of the law is manifested.

Right, but the Catholic understanding of being guided by the Spirit is being obedient to the Church in all things because it is through the Church that the Spirit guides us.

 

[robertaf]

Amen!
I agree mosher.
But, isn’t possible to be obedient to Holy Mother Church without being so uptight about it?

I think some of the referrences to Pharasees is aimed at those who almost say, " I am so glad I am not a sinner like one of these…" Remember Jesus reply?

 

[TJD]

mosher,

Yea I know.

My point is if done right, He is present. There is a point where He will not be present if the Liturgy is abused. I don’t know where that point is, but it exists.

I think it imprudent to play with fire.

Christ’s Peace,

TJD

 

[robertaf]

TJD:

mosher,

Yea I know.

My point is if done right, He is present. There is a point where He will not be present if the Liturgy is abused. I don’t know where that point is, but it exists.

I think it imprudent to play with fire.

Christ’s Peace,

TJD

TJD,
I am not trying to be a smart aleck but how do you know this?
I have been a Catholic for a long time and no one has ever told me this.
This may be possible if the Priest is not a valid one.
Is there something I can read that says that?

 

[Topher]

robertaf:

Amen!
I agree mosher.
But, isn’t possible to be obedient to Holy Mother Church without being so uptight about it?

I think some of the referrences to Pharasees is aimed at those who almost say, " I am so glad I am not a sinner like one of these…" Remember Jesus reply?

He’s not being uptight. He’s being reverent. God derserves the very best in the Liturgy and nothing less. Therefore, we go to great pains to give him the very best.

 

[robertaf]

Topher:

He’s not being uptight. He’s being reverent. God derserves the very best in the Liturgy and nothing less. Therefore, we go to great pains to give him the very best.

I didn’t mean Mosher was uptight about it, I was speaking in general about some who are often compared with pharisees.
I wouldn’t consider Mosher one of these.

 

[netmilsmom]

robertaf:

I didn’t mean Mosher was uptight about it, I was speaking in general about some who are often compared with pharisees.
I wouldn’t consider Mosher one of these.

Wow, good side step!
Kind of like, “I was only kidding.”

 

[robertaf]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Wow, good side step!
Kind of like, “I was only kidding.”

Would you care to explain that unkind remark?

 

[netmilsmom]

robertaf:

Would you care to explain that unkind remark?

It wasn’t unkind, it was honest.

You said, " I agree mosher.
But, isn’t possible to be obedient to Holy Mother Church without being so uptight about it?" (note the personal address of Mosher)

Then said, " I didn’t mean Mosher was uptight about it, I was speaking in general about some who are often compared with pharisees."

There is a great duck there. It’s like saying, “Fat people are slobs.” then when someone points out a friend who is overweight, retorting with, “OH but not her, just others.”
It’s through the back door to get the point across. And I think you did it spendidly!

 

[msproule]

robertaf:

Does anyone else find this post a bit strange? Not to be critical, that is not the SPIRIT it is meant.

What could possibly be the objection to the use of the spirit of things. We are or should be spiritual folks, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I would say it is the Spirit through which the letter of the law is made and in which the spirit of the law is manifested.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. That was the third time I wrote that post prior to submitting it because my computer inexplicably erased it twice. I had lost my train of thought by the third go-around!

My intention was to indirectly reference recent posts on a related thread in which at least one individual not only threatened to use the “Pharisee” charge but defended liturguical abuse by suggesting:
“…what is in question is if one is to abide by the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. The liturgical changes promulgated by RS cannot be deemed more important than the SPIRIT in which those changes were made.”
To me, this is strange…not to mention flat out wrong.

 

[netmilsmom]

msproule:

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. That was the third time I wrote that post prior to submitting it because my computer inexplicably erased it twice. I had lost my train of thought by the third go-around!

My intention was to indirectly reference recent posts on a related thread in which at least one individual not only threatened to use the “Pharisee” charge but defended liturguical abuse by suggesting:"…what is in question is if one is to abide by the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. The liturgical changes promulgated by RS cannot be deemed more important than the SPIRIT in which those changes were made."
To me, this is strange…not to mention flat out wrong.

You know, it’s funny. My hubby is a Prebyterian but his siblings are fundamentalist. When he was first dabbling in becoming a Catholic, I said to him that we are the only religion that has Christ right there in the Holy Mass.
He stated that the fundamentalists have the Holy Spirit come into them and because we believe in the Trinity, one is not more important than the other.
I asked, how can one be sure it is the HOLY Spirit coming into them. His sister believed that the Holy Spirit guided her to her former husband. He helped her overcome addiction and seemed to be a very Christian man. He beat her. Actually broke bones before she left him. Did the Holy Spirit guide her?
I would rather put my trust into the guidance of the Vatican than to trust that the spirit guiding me is the Holy Spirit. What if it isn’t?

 

[robertaf]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

It wasn’t unkind, it was honest.

You said, " I agree mosher.
But, isn’t possible to be obedient to Holy Mother Church without being so uptight about it?" (note the personal address of Mosher)

Then said, " I didn’t mean Mosher was uptight about it, I was speaking in general about some who are often compared with pharisees."

There is a great duck there. It’s like saying, “Fat people are slobs.” then when someone points out a friend who is overweight, retorting with, “OH but not her, just others.”
It’s through the back door to get the point across. And I think you did it spendidly!

You couldn’t be more wroing.
I was addressing Mosher when I said “I agree Mosher”

I then went on to address the subject.

You may think you know what I meant but you are wrong.
This is not the first time you have jumped too fast with your sarcasm without being sure of your facts. Personally, I don’t appreciate it.

 

[netmilsmom]

robertaf:

You couldn’t be more wroing.
I was addressing Mosher when I said “I agree Mosher”

I then went on to address the subject.

You may think you know what I meant but you are wrong.
This is not the first time you have jumped too fast with your sarcasm without being sure of your facts. Personally, I don’t appreciate it.

Perhaps it’s how others read it.
Someone else on this thread seemed to see it this way, as well.

Sorry, that you don’t appreciate that people read things at face value. No one reads your mind here, just your typing.

 

[robertaf]

Really???
I re-read the posts and you were the only one making any sort of remarks.

If Mosher thought I was referring to him and took offense, I will gladly apologize.

 

[Topher]

robertaf:

Really???
I re-read the posts and you were the only one making any sort of remarks.

If Mosher thought I was referring to him and took offense, I will gladly apologize.

I don’t think that you were insulting mosher. I think that perhaps people might read a post the wrong way because they cannot hear the tone of someone’s voice on the net or see their facial expressions.

 

[netmilsmom]

Topher:

I don’t think that you were insulting mosher. I think that perhaps people might read a post the wrong way because they cannot hear the tone of someone’s voice on the net or see their facial expressions.

Amen!

 

[mosher]

Insult or not it is irrelavent to me. Sure I appreciate the good pat on the back every now ans again. However the statement is confusing for anothe reason.

But, isn’t possible to be obedient to Holy Mother Church without being so uptight about it?

Let’s look at the statement objectivelly. In effect the statement is “Can we be obedient to the Church without following specifics?” The response to this is a simple no. Scripture speaks often about obedience in all things and in very specific forms of obedience. In each case when revelation speaks about obedience it is about a letter an iota and not a spirit of things. Of course if legalism violates charity that is a completely different subject. However, the difference between right and wrong is always a minor point (an fine line if you will). Therefore, it is an irronious conclusion to say that when we have a Church that is divinely guided in Her Magisterium that we should deviate for any dictate large or small. Rather, it should be our goal to conform our wills to the will of Holy Mother the Church and in so doing conform our wills to the Will of the Father.

 

[m134e5]

mosher:

Why is it that whenever a person expresses the need to hold firm to the rubrics of the mass there is a blast of statements concerning the Pharisees made by some individuals?

Some people seem to focus on the rules more than they focus on who the rules are about- that is what I mean when I refer to the Pharisees. I have noticed this tendency in traditional groups (though certainly not all traditionalists are this way). I’ve seen web boards (I have noticed it here at times, but I’ve seen ones that are MUCH worse about this than this one), and I’ve personally been in places where people talk like they’d stone the priest to death if he mispronounced a word, or tripped, or made some other honest mistake. When I refer to the pharisees- it’s that kind of attitude I’m condemning.

The Code of Canon Law, the GIRM, and other documents that concern rubrics weren’t written just because someone in the Vatican was bored and needed something to do. They were written for specific reasons- to maintain uniformity and orthodoxy in the liturgy, to foster a sense of the sacred, and to encourage reverence. To simply want this is not pharisaical- liturgies should follow the rubrics and should be reverent- and we should let clergy know if we have problems with how they’re doing things (in a charitable way), but even if things aren’t perfect, it is important that people never forget who the rules are about.

 

[mosher]

m134e5:

Some people seem to focus on the rules more than they focus on who the rules are about- that is what I mean when I refer to the Pharisees. I have noticed this tendency in traditional groups (though certainly not all traditionalists are this way). I’ve seen web boards (I have noticed it here at times, but I’ve seen ones that are MUCH worse about this than this one), and I’ve personally been in places where people talk like they’d stone the priest to death if he mispronounced a word, or tripped, or made some other honest mistake. When I refer to the pharisees- it’s that kind of attitude I’m condemning.

The Code of Canon Law, the GIRM, and other documents that concern rubrics weren’t written just because someone in the Vatican was bored and needed something to do. They were written for specific reasons- to maintain uniformity and orthodoxy in the liturgy, to foster a sense of the sacred, and to encourage reverence. To simply want this is not pharisaical- liturgies should follow the rubrics and should be reverent- and we should let clergy know if we have problems with how they’re doing things (in a charitable way), but even if things aren’t perfect, it is important that people never forget who the rules are about.

Well stated.

I would ask a follow-up question. Is it that “more traditional” people are rules are the sake of rules or is it that “more non-traditional” people are spirit or the sake of spirit and the perspective is then thrown off. Or is it that the more traditional groups are wounded because they have been given deaf ears to their concerns by much clergy or is it a mixture of this and more?