The Charge of Being a Pharisee

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

awfulthings9

Guest
I’m preparing to write a letter to our deacon and pastor, both of whom have been throwing the label “Pharisee” around lately after some complaints from a small community about liturgical abuses, such as glass chalices, liturgical dancing, etc. Any thoughts on this to help me with composition. How would some of you respond to a similar charge. Today’s homily by the deacon really presented an either-or, that either you are at Mass scrutinizing the rules, or you are there to fully participate. Very insulting. Your thoughts …
 
I’m preparing to write a letter to our deacon and pastor, both of whom have been throwing the label “Pharisee” around lately after some complaints from a small community about liturgical abuses, such as glass chalices, liturgical dancing, etc. Any thoughts on this to help me with composition. How would some of you respond to a similar charge. Today’s homily by the deacon really presented an either-or, that either you are at Mass scrutinizing the rules, or you are there to fully participate. Very insulting. Your thoughts …
I think your Deacon is dead-on with his commentary. How can an individual prepare themselves spiritually to properly receive the Body and Blood of Christ at the Mass while preoccupied with their own complaints against the Church and/or it’s Clergy?

It also sounds like the Deacon’s homily was drawn from the readings of today, which is totally proper and appropriate.

Perhaps you are just paranoid or self-conscious. We had a similar homily today, based on the readings. Maybe it ISN’T “all about you” after all? You might go back and review today’s readings before penning your letter.

TBL
 
I think your Deacon is dead-on with his commentary. How can an individual prepare themselves spiritually to properly receive the Body and Blood of Christ at the Mass while preoccupied with their own complaints against the Church and/or it’s Clergy?
TBL
The Church is fine, but no one ever said that that all it’s clergy respect their vow of obedience.

In much the same way that we are to encourage a marriage man to stay faithful to his vow of marriage if he shows signs of adultery, we are to hold our clergy to their vow when they show signs of disobedience.

The Charge of ‘Pharisee’ is inappropriate because no one is making up their own laws (as the Pharisees did, or acted as hypocrites, not practicing what they preached)

It is Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict who created these liturgical laws, are these clergy accusign Pope Benedict of not practicing what he preaches?? That’s a pretty big accusation.

In addition, clergy are to follow the teachings of Christ. Christ did not object to the laws given by the legal authority. In fact, He ordered His followers to obey them,

Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do
The Pope sits in the Seat of Moses, we are all to do what he tells us to do, just as Christ commands.
 
It is about us - we, the laity, are entitled to an authentic liturgy. That means a liturgy as laid down by the rules of the Church. A liturgy with proper vessels (not glass chalices), no liturgical dancing in countries where it has not been approved by the Vatican, etc., etc…

How can we properly prepare ourselves spiritually to receive our Divine Lord when we are distracted by the (sometimes) blatant disobedience of our clergy, some of whom are determined to “do it their way”?

We are not being Pharisees when we complain. We are merely asking for justice. Why should be have to just accept, as if it was true liturgy, the abuses inflicted on us? We are worth more than that! Canon Law states our right to proper liturgy.
 
There is also Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I
  1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this **not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government **of the Church throughout the world.
You can ask the priest and deacon why they are not obligated by the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, or if the Holy Spirit, who inspires the promulgations of these Councils, is a Pharisee.
 
It is about us - we, the laity, are entitled to an authentic liturgy. That means a liturgy as laid down by the rules of the Church. A liturgy with proper vessels (not glass chalices), no liturgical dancing in countries where it has not been approved by the Vatican, etc., etc…

How can we properly prepare ourselves spiritually to receive our Divine Lord when we are distracted by the (sometimes) blatant disobedience of our clergy, some of whom are determined to “do it their way”?

We are not being Pharisees when we complain. We are merely asking for justice. Why should be have to just accept, as if it was true liturgy, the abuses inflicted on us? We are worth more than that! Canon Law states our right to proper liturgy.
Ah, the liberal “entitlement” card…on the traditional sub forum, no less… :rolleyes:

Silly me, I thought it was about Christ and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Perhaps if you were focused on your own sins, and praying to be worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, you wouldn’t be so bizzy looking for minutae to be “distracted” by.

Sheesh :whistle:
 
Ah, the liberal “entitlement” card…on the traditional sub forum, no less… :rolleyes:

Silly me, I thought it was about Christ and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Perhaps if you were focused on your own sins, and praying to be worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, you wouldn’t be so bizzy looking for minutae to be “distracted” by.

Sheesh :whistle:
The problem is that there is a grave danger of heresy being preached if these abuses are allowed to stand. If these abuses are allowed to stand, what’s to stop the “speaker” from advocating positions that are heretical?
 
Ah, the liberal “entitlement” card…on the traditional sub forum, no less… :rolleyes: :
No, Joan is simply restating Redemptionis Sacramentum
Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline.
Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command
It’s all about being obedient to the Church.
 
The problem is that there is a grave danger of heresy being preached if these abuses are allowed to stand. If these abuses are allowed to stand, what’s to stop the “speaker” from advocating positions that are heretical?
I certainly hope God isn’t as picky on Judgement Day with us, as some of us are with his clergy on a daily/weekly basis. :eek:
 
No, Joan is simply restating Redemptionis Sacramentum

It’s all about being obedient to the Church.
I don’t see the word “entitled” in there, nor do I see “it’s about us”.

🤷
 
I don’t see the word “entitled” in there, nor do I see “it’s about us”.

🤷
If something is our right, then we are “entitled” to it, aren’t we? It’s our right to have a liturgy without abuses and the Vatican has defined what are abuses.

As for the Pharisee homily, anytime someone complains about how Mass is not celebrated as it’s supposed to be in our parish we get the Pharisee homily, whether or not it’s connected to the readings.
 
If something is our right, then we are “entitled” to it, aren’t we? It’s our right to have a liturgy without abuses and the Vatican has defined what are abuses.

As for the Pharisee homily, anytime someone complains about how Mass is not celebrated as it’s supposed to be in our parish we get the Pharisee homily, whether or not it’s connected to the readings.
But THIS weekend, the readings ARE about the subject. Perhaps those offended by the homily of this weekend might consider that the Holy Spirit is tapping them on the shoulder? Why else would they be so sensitive about it?

Timing is everything 😃
 
Perhaps you are just paranoid or self-conscious. We had a similar homily today, based on the readings. Maybe it ISN’T “all about you” after all? You might go back and review today’s readings before penning your letter.
I did. I also reviewed the letter our pastor sent to a friend, which actually accused him, literally, of being a pharisee. Hard to assume it isn’t “all about you” after such a letter.
 
I did. I also reviewed the letter our pastor sent to a friend, which actually accused him, literally, of being a pharisee. Hard to assume it isn’t “all about you” after such a letter.
Well, I am many miles from you, but we had the same readings, no?

We also had similar sermons, yes?

Then it’s likely not “all about you”…unless that’s your conscience talking…
 
Ah, the liberal “entitlement” card…on the traditional sub forum, no less… :rolleyes:

Silly me, I thought “it” was about Christ and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Perhaps if you were focused on your own sins, and praying to be worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, you wouldn’t be so bizzy looking for minutae to be “distracted” by.

Sheesh :whistle:
Read back through the posts and see what the antecedent to your pronoun is. The “it” that you originally referred to was the content of the homily, not the purpose of the Mass, so the self-righteousness of your chastisement is directed at a red-herring. Nobody said the Mass was all about us. If someone did, please quote that part.
 
Perhaps those offended by this thread might consider that the Holy Spirit is tapping them on the shoulder? Why else would they be so sensitive about it?

Timing is everything 😃
Kind of works both ways when I switched your subject from “the readings this weekend” to “this thread”.
 
Here’s what I drafted:

Dear Deacon XXXX,
I am taking a few moments to write regarding your homily at the 8:30 Mass today. I enjoy your homilies, which are usually poignant and well-constructed, but must admit that I had some confusion about the message you delivered this morning.
This is the second homily of yours that I have heard which has alluded to the Pharisees and the strict adherence to the law by which they are often characterized. No doubt, a reference to Pharisees was completely appropriate, with the gospel reading taken from Matthew 9:9-13. What caused me some concern was that the end of your homily presented something of a zero-sum proposition by suggesting that we can be like the Pharisee, with a rigid insistence on following the “law”, or we can come to the liturgy intent on a full and heartfelt participation, without occupying ourselves with whether all the rules are being followed.
As much as I listened for a middle ground, I did not hear one, and it seems that what your homily is presenting two extremes, neither of which are healthy for the liturgical life of the church. To be sure, there was a problem in first century with Pharisees who held everyone but themselves accountable to the law.
Yet, one must also keep in mind that there were Pharisees in Jesus’s time who were holy, such as Gamaliel, who taught St. Paul. In addition, Christ commanded that the Jews obey the laws of the Pharisees who sit in the seat of Moses (even when the Pharisees did not follow their own laws – Matt. 23:1-10), echoing the words of 1 Sam. 15:22, which tells us that “obedience is better than sacrifice”.
So it doesn’t seem that the Scripture is upholding a message that strict observance of the law is, in and of itself, an impediment to our relationship with God. Rather, as many Pharisees were guilty, we should not observe the law for the sake of the law. This is a far stretch, however, from suggesting that one is participating in Mass less fully if he comes and gets worked up because someone takes one step outside of the rules, to paraphrase your homily.
continue …
 
To the contrary, it is out of extreme love for Christ that many wish to uphold – without negotiation – the rules and norms of the Church. The Church was established by Christ, after all, given the power to bind and loosen through his authority. And as Ephesians tells us that Christ and his mystical body, the Church, are one, obedience to the Church is obedience to Christ. Sacrosanctum Concilium reaffirms this with these words: “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop … Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (22-1, 3).
Speaking personally, I do not get worked up if the individual next to me fails to bow during the creed or to respond during the responsorial psalm. Whether his actions are out of ignorance or defiance, they are of little consequence in my participation in the liturgy. However, when violation of the general instructions or the rubrics for the Mass happen on an official level, such as by the celebrant, this is a different matter altogether. The faithful, as members of the body of Christ, have a right to be able to worship him in a manner that has been determined reverent and licit by the heads of our Church.
If I am asked to receive the sacred blood of Christ from a glass chalice rather than precious metals, how can I not be as offended as would be a bride if someone dressed her groom in rags for the wedding day? If the Mass is interrupted by unprescribed additions, such as liturgical dance, no matter how well-intentioned, how can I help but be as annoyed as if a guest stood to offer a well-intentioned toast during my wedding vows?
As much as your homily asked for us to focus on participation in the Mass, rather than worrying so much about the rules, I am sure that you would find it hard to keep silent if the priest decided to deliver the Eucharistic prayer in a rap, complete with beat-boxing from the altar boys. Is it not just a matter of degrees that we, the folks in the pews, should demand reverence at whatever level disrupts our worship?
As police officers will attest, if one only worries about the really serious crimes in a neighborhood, ignoring the windows that are broken by young boys with rocks, that unchecked minor mischief eventually grows into the “serious” problems that fill so many of our prisons. Likewise, while we will hopefully never see the days of beat-boxing altar boys, grave liturgical abuses are rampant in many parts of the world as those in charge of parishes recreate the sin of Adam and Eve by deciding for themselves what is right and wrong in worship. By keeping the love of Christ first and foremost in our hearts, we should insist on a strict observance of the rules of the Church because those rules exist to preserve the dignity Christ deserves in worship.
Understand that the intent of my letter is not to address any particular liturgical abnormality at XXXX or any other church. It is also definitely not to suggest anything unorthodox in what you have offered to the Church – I have great respect for all that you do for our Catholic community. Rather, I to ask for clarification following your homily, which seemed to neglect the fact that, out of love for our bridegroom, we actually have the responsibility to speak up when such a violation of the rules does occur.
 
Read back through the posts and see what the antecedent to your pronoun is. The “it” that you originally referred to was the content of the homily, not the purpose of the Mass, so the self-righteousness of your chastisement is directed at a red-herring. Nobody said the Mass was all about us. If someone did, please quote that part.
Post number 4, by Joan M It is about us - we, the laity, are entitled to an authentic liturgy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top