The “Do I Have To” argument can become quite dangerous, imho, because it can lead to the bad tendency whereby one looks at the bare minimum one has to do - and consequently, people in the Latin Rite have stopped fasting (it’s only required that they give up meat on Fridays in Lent and Ash Wednesday, and eat light on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) and stopped fasting before Communion (the sad result of the hour-long “fast”). And it has had dire theological consequences, as people feel free to reject the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and anything which has not been formally, solemnly defined by the Pope as binding on the whole Church (in other words, almost nothing!) And the liturgical consequences of this attitude have been even worse for the West. In the words of our German Shepherd, who is more authoritative than I,
[Cardinal Ratzinger, *The Nature and Mission of Theology
, Ignatius Press edition pp. 111-112.]
On the other hand, the “Should I” argument can be equally dangerous, for several reasons. For one thing, it can lead to judgmentalism as people set higher standards than the Church does. For example, one certainly
should abstain from meat and cheese on Wednesdays and Fridays, and even as late as the High Middle Ages people were expected in the West to find a suitable penance to replace the fast - but most Roman Catholics eat meat on Wednesdays, and we aren’t supposed to judge them. (Even when a Byzantine Catholic eats meat on a Wednesday, there is no pain of mortal sin attached, and we’re still not supposed to judge them. Dispensations are granted freely in the East since the regulations are so strict - each spiritual director tailors the regimen to what his spiritual child can handle.)
Sometimes this can get so bad that people will get downright angry when others fail to practice their precise rule of prayer. I have heard people fume angrily at a close friend of mine “refusing” to go to Mass on a Tuesday afternoon. It’s not a Holy Day of Obligation, so there really isn’t any obligation to go to Mass, and consequently no guilt or wrongdoing or imperfection there. He didn’t like the guitars, New Agey homilies and hymns, and liturgical abuses, and frankly he was probably spiritually better off by simply going to Confession and then heading back to work instead of staying for Mass. I avoided the place entirely.
This argument/attitude can also be (mis)used to violate the legitimate diversity of the Church’s rites. One certainly should pray the Rosary, as Our Lady has asked - but I would hate to see people pushing the Rosary on the Eastern Church to the detriment of the devotions it would replace, the Akathistos and the chotki. It is certainly a good and pious practice to carry your Rosary in your pocket to remind you to pray it, but please don’t be scandalized that I carry my chotki instead. I appreciate your Advent Wreaths and the ever-changing rainbow of vestment colors, but please don’t express your outrage when I take you to Divine Liturgy and you see white vestments and no Advent Wreath. And my own ritual tradition has more than enough wealth (more than I can handle) of spirituality for me to use; please don’t question my Catholicism if I don’t practice any devotion to the Sacred Heart or the Stations of the Cross.
Great post, good job stating and keep the balance until…
“One certainly should pray the Rosary”
While the Rosary is a great private devotion, no one “should” pray it. If someone has a devotion to it, then great, but if not, it is okay not to pray it.
There is not should where the Church has not said there is. There is no should in private devotions. The Church is full of private devotions, more than enough for everyone to find those that appeal to them.
To say that one “should” pray the Rosary because “Our Lady said so” is to appear to raise a private revelation to the level of a dogma.
So I would add to your last sentence; “please don’t question my Catholicism if I don’t practice any devotion to the Sacred Heart or the Stations of the Cross”
or the Rosary.