Fidelity in small things

33 comments

• Dom, don’t get me wrong.  I consider rubrics very important, but we must be weary of rubricism, as that is unhealthy and not what God wants.  Also, there are some situations where ideal conditions do not exist for all rubrics to be celebrated, as I’m sure you know and agree.

• The law is the law. The Church has foreseen those instances where less-than-ideal conditions may exist and allowed for local options.

  Under what circumstances would an overlay stole be an onerous burden? Do they exist in a typical American parish? Did they exist in San Francisco’s cathedral at the installation of an archbishop?

  One of the fallacies of Catholic debate is to take a legitimate topic and making it extreme and saying that God doesn’t want that. (I’m not assuming ill intent on your part; it’s a common error that I fall into too.)

  If there is a crisis in liturgy in this country, it is not one of extreme rubricism.

• “The right clothes do not necessarily indicate personal holiness any more than the wrong clothes indicate carelessness.

  But they do help in both indicating and inculcating a state of mind or attitude.”

  With respect I disagree. I honestly feel your first statement stands firm while the second contridicts it. Only God knows how reverent you are and that is the only “one” who counts. What everyone else thinks is pure rubbish.

  Like you eluded to in your first paragraph (silly…vestments and such) let’s have people attend mass on a regular basic, get abortions stopped, encourage more confession, saying of the rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, properly maintain the idea of marriage, and have everyone on the same page when it comes to church history and such; like the Tridentine Mass for example. Once, and if we get to that point then we can spend cycles worrying whether Johnny wears jeans to mass or not.

  I’m sorry but I’m just not the type of person to guess anothers state of mind by what he wears.

• I am reminded of the parish priest St. John Vianney. Even though he wore patched and threadbare clothes and ate semi-rotten potatos on occasion—he always made sure that his church had the very best vestments and vessels or plate and liturgical books. Nothing was too good for his Lord and Saviour. This is the kind of faith-filled passion we need in the priesthoood (and diaconate).

• Friends,
  Yesterday, I didn’t have a chance to read the controversial thread.  Therefore, I just read the whole thing (opening message and fifty-one comments), plus today’s spinoff thread and its comments.

  It always breaks my heart to read Catholics trying to rationalize/defend the breaking of any just law (be it civil law, canon law, liturgical law, or one of the Ten Commandments). 

  I was so saddened at the comments posted by “Mark from MA” and “infanted” and especially “aplman.”  This last is a priest and ought to know better.  This is the second or third thread on which I’ve read bad posts from him. I think that he should be forbidden from celebrating Mass publicly until he does public repentance. 

  Second-worst was “infanted,” who did the devil’s bidding by speaking against “rubricism.”  There is no such thing as “rubricism.”  That is a term that was recently invented by so-called progressives/dissenters who WANTED to disobey the Church’s liturgical law and had to invent some kind of phony, guilt-inducing label to pin on good Catholics who know how much God is pleased by those who obey Him and His Church.

  I strongly criticize laymen like Mark and infanted.  If we laymen would all stand together against all law-breaking, then weak priests like “aplman” might be moved to be obedient.  As long as there are weak laymen, the weak priests will be emboldened to do what is wrong.

  Three cheers for the priest (Fr. J. Clark) and laymen (Dom, GOR, Colleen, and Brian) who spoke out in favor of doing what is right.

  Someone quoted “Redemptionis Sacramentum” (2004) to show that the chasuble is to be worn over the stole.  But we shouldn’t quote a 2004 document as though it contained some “news” or a needed clarification.  The fact that the chasuble (or dalmatic for deacons) MUST be on top has been the very clear norm since the Mass of Paul VI began to be celebrated in 1970.  This can be seen online (at EWTN) in the second edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] (1975):

  “299. Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn OVER the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.  300. The dalmatic, worn OVER the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the deacon.”  [My emphasis added]

  This norm was repeated, in new phrases, in the 2000 edition of the GIRM:

  “337. The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn OVER the alb and stole.  338. The vestment proper to the deacon is the dalmatic, worn OVER the alb and stole. The dalmatic may, however, be omitted out of necessity or on account of a lesser degree of solemnity.”

  The Church’s law has always provided for the possibility of getting the Holy See’s permission for “adaptations” to the standard rules on vestments, but no such adaptation was ever sought by the U.S. bishops (and probably ditto for bishops of other English-speaking nations).

  Thus, “Redemptionis Sacramentum” simply reiterated the clear norm that NO AMERICAN PRIEST HAS EVER HAD THE RIGHT TO DISOBEY during the last 36 years.

  [concluded below]

• [conclusion of the above:]

  About the sinfulness of deliberately vesting wrongly?  Those who said that the sin is “disobedience” are correct.  However, more should be said.  It is also a second sin—that of bad example.  When a priest or deacon deliberately breaks the law, he signals to other clergymen and to the laity (i.e., those who know the GIRM) that they too may be disobedient.  It may be that this dual offense, especially if done with great malice (contempt for, or rejection of, the binding power of the pope), can rise to the level of the grave matter required for the commission of mortal sin.

  I hesitate to try to guess what happened involving the photo of Cardinal Arinze, who (I feel sure) vests properly, under normal circumstances.  I have to believe that he found himself in ABnormal circumstances.  For example:
  1.  The stole may have been attached (perhaps with velcro) to the outside of the chasuble—and could not be removed without exposing the velcro on the chasuble.
  2.  The Cardinal arrived late, began vesting, and, seeing that the many other concelebrants were already improperly vested, chose not to embarrass them all and to force them all to re-vest (which may have delayed the start of the Mass).

  God love you all.

• Mark,

  Once again it’s not about the clothes, it’s about obeying the law. Why can’t people seem to understand that?

  AnUnSi gets it.

• Something I don’t think people are getting is that this isn’t about vestments per se. It could be about anything. To say that God doesn’t care about vestments misses the point.

  The Church has liturgical laws. Is it okay to disobey the laws because you feel like it? If it’s okay to do what you want with vestments, how about with prayers of the Mass? Is it okay to tell people they can’t kneel during the Consecration? Is it okay to change the words of the Creed to make them more “inclusive”?

  All of these things are forbidden by the liturgical law, but the way some of you are defending disobedience, you seem to be saying that God doesn’t care if you disobey the Church and do any of these things.

  You’re wrong.

• All of these things are forbidden by the liturgical law, but the way some of you are defending disobedience, you seem to be saying that God doesn’t care if you disobey the Church and do any of these things.

  You’re assuming that Bishop Levada and Cardinal Arinze were “disobeying” the Church.

  Even granting your interpretation of Liturgical law, that doesn’t mean they were being “disobedient”. These are Bishops. We’re talking about a stole over a chasuble. I think they know a thing or two about the mind of the Church.

  I don’t know what their reasons were for wearing a stole over a chasuble. When I see a Priest stray in a minor way from the rubrical standard, I don’t think “Oh my gosh, he’s blatantly disobeying the Church, the next thing he’ll be consecrating beer and pretzels”.

  It’s not a big deal. Especially when all we have to go on is a picture.

• Just finished watching Sunday Night with Fr. Groeschel on EWTN.  Quite germane to the current discussion.  I would recomemnd it to all.  It usually repeats later tonight and on Saturdays at 5 PM.

• Jason said

  “When I see a Priest stray in a minor way from the rubrical standard, I don’t think “Oh my gosh, he’s blatantly disobeying the Church, the next thing he’ll be consecrating beer and pretzels”.

  No, maybe not, but I bet they might be the same guys that try to consecrate “illict or invalid matter”.  I would also bet it might be the same priests that tell you in confession, if anyone actually goes any more, that artificial contraception is ok, for a “good reason”.  And it certainlly would be the same priests that fail to educate the souls in their care of abstinence from fleshmeat on every Friday of the year, according to canon law, or to notify their flock of the required replacement for abstaining.

• Jason—if an admiral in the U.S. Navy one day decided . . . for whatever GOOD reason . . .to begin wearing his undershirt on top of, rather than underneath, his dress shirt, would you think that the Chiefs of Staff would not (pardon the pun)upbraid him for that practice?

  Oh?

  You mean others have the right to decide uniformity of dress?

  And, if such a right exists in the U.S. Navy, does it not also exist in the Church?

• and especially “aplman.” This last is a priest and ought to know better.  This is the second or third thread on which I’ve read bad posts from him. I think that he should be forbidden from celebrating Mass publicly until he does public repentance.

  I think this part of your post is a “bad one.”

  (And yes, Dom, I get it about obeying the law.)

  Father Fleming and I…

  One sec: parenthetical comment coming up:

  (as I wrote to Father Clark and Dom—the former, by the way, ANuSI, apologized to Father Fleming, excuse me “Aplman,” in the other thread, did you miss that, ANunSI, and incidently where do these NAMES come from?)

  …have locked horns on everything from VOTF to Communion under both species.

  I have also read his sermons. And they are nothing but orthodox. And Catholic. It gave me pause…and some badly needed humility.

  (Although I still think he’s wrong about VOTF, “Eucharistic Ministers” and probably other stuff, and I’m nearly positive this a vice-versa sorta thing.)

  I’m glad you’re not in charge of deciding who should say Mass, ANuSI. Because if you were, last month a Mass would not have been offered for the soul of my late husband. Would that have mattered to you, so long as you felt justified in your judgment of “bad posts?”

  I hesitate to try to guess what happened involving the photo of Cardinal Arinze, who (I feel sure) vests properly, under normal circumstances.  I have to believe that he found himself in ABnormal circumstances.  For example:
  1.  The stole may have been attached (perhaps with velcro) to the outside of the chasuble—and could not be removed without exposing the velcro on the chasuble.
  2.  The Cardinal arrived late, began vesting, and, seeing that the many other concelebrants were already improperly vested, chose not to embarrass them all and to force them all to re-vest (which may have delayed the start of the Mass).

  And here you go down sinking, if you’ll pardon me. And you didn’t do any favors for those who are breaking their backs trying to absolve poor Cardinal Arinze (who, by the way, needs no “absolving” from you, so relax).

  What astounds me is that a simple lady in the pew who knows zilch about vesting properly (unlike all you experts, including old Rocco) can understand this.

  Read the rubrics again. Then look at the photo. Then read the rubrics AGAIN.

  From what Dom quoted:

  “The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.”

  Okay. Now which one of you experts are going to tell me that this is a photo of a man at Mass, or in any other sacred action connected to the Mass?

  Hands?

  None?

  Thought not. This is so obviously a studio portrait! There’s no “Mass” or “sacred connection” involved at all. Heck, maybe he had it done for his mom, who knows.

  I’m a little dizzy…defending and dissing Father Fleming in the same post does that to me.

• This is the bottom line.

  1.  Not only is the stole over the chasuble improper, it is UGLY.  It simply looks STUPID.

  2.  Those who defiantly wear the stole over the chasuble are either ignorant or defiant. 

  I am wondering if each diocese should open up a diocesan jail.  The way I see it, each diocesan jail would have four floors, sort of like Dante’s Inferno.

  1st Floor:  Those who are doctrinally in error—heretics and the like.
  2nd Floor:  Those who are violate liturgical directives.
  3rd Floor:  The moral degenerates.
  4th Floor:  The just plain stupid.

  I daresay most of the bishops would be on the fourth floor.  I’d love to be the warden.

• Domenico, you are 100% correct. 

  It is one of the fallacies of Catholic discussion that everytime someone points something out, it has to be exaggerated into one of the extremes and vilified.  It’s part of the reason Catholics can’t talk about things intelligently half the time.

• Even granting your interpretation of Liturgical law, that doesn’t mean they were being “disobedient”. These are Bishops. We’re talking about a stole over a chasuble. I think they know a thing or two about the mind of the Church.

  This isn’t about “interpretation.” The law is clear and simple. Go to the post previous to this one and read the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum. It’s spelled out in black and white.

  As I said before, because they’re bishops does it mean that they are above the law? Are the rules only for priests and laypeople? Do they get to follow the “spirit” of the law while the rest of us obey the letter of the law?

  If that’s so then that way lies anarchy. It’s also the justification given by many for living by the “spirit” of Vatican II.

• I would also bet it might be the same priests that tell you in confession, if anyone actually goes any more, that artificial contraception is ok, for a “good reason”.

  Sure, this sums up Bishop Levada (handpicked by Papa Ratzi as Prefect of the CDF) and Cardinal Arinze (Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship) perfectly. */Sarcasm*

  I see small strays from the rubrics all the time, from good, holy, orthodox Priests. It doesn’t make them evil, or schismatic, or insubordinate. Who knows why they strayed a little? I don’t think about such things. They are still holy, orthodox Priests.

  would you think that the Chiefs of Staff would not (pardon the pun)upbraid him for that practice?

  I don’t know. That’s up to them. I’ll leave it to the Pope to excommunicate Cardinal Arinze if he wants.

  This isn’t about “interpretation.” The law is clear and simple. Go to the post previous to this one and read the quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum. It’s spelled out in black and white.

  It’s black and white to you. As I said, I think Cardinal Arinze, a Prefect in charge of the Liturgy, knows a tad more than you about the mind of the Church. Who has more credibility here: you or him?

  Do they get to follow the “spirit” of the law while the rest of us obey the letter of the law?

  If they determine that the spirit of the law is applicable in a particular circumstance, sure. They are successors to an Apostle. You and I are not.

  I respect your opinion on this, but I think you are being legalistic. Straining at gnats, etc…

• Dom,

  You are absolutely correct about “Fidelity in small things”.

  The attitude express by many here is whet led to liturgical abuses, at least at the time they were considered as such, as altar girls, Holy Communion in the Hand and the poliferation of “Eucharistic Ministers”.

  To give an inch is never enough for the Modernists.  They want the whole ball of wax.  They hate Roman Catholism.  It went from ending Latin in the liturgy to where we are now with demands for women priests and not only acquiescence for homosexual seminarians but to a homosexual coup of the American priesthood.

  It is always the same story.  A little disobedience is ok for a good reason.  Pretty soon, there is an elephant in the living room.

• “I respect your opinion on this, but I think you are being legalistic.”

  There’s nothing wrong with legalism, i.e. following the law.

  It’s what we Catholics do, in case you didn’t notice. Try reading your Bible to ge a sense of how important it is to God that we follow all the laws he or his ministers set down for us.

• Try reading your Bible to ge a sense of how important it is to God that we follow all the laws he or his ministers set down for us.

  Ok.

  From the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 12:

  At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.

  But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.”

  He said to them:

  “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

  “Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?

  “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.

  “And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

  “For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

• Jason:

  None of which has any relevance whatsoever to this disucssion.

  The orthodox on this blog have already, and on several occasions, gone out of our way to note that ecclesiastical laws to admit of exceptions when there is a grave cause for breaking said laws. In these exceptional circumstances, the letter of the law is violated but not it’s spirit.

  Most deliberate violations of the liturgical rubrics are not made for similarly grave reasons (e.g. starvation). There might be a good reason for doing so (ANUNSI gave us a good example), but this simply does not apply to what goes on in our parishes.

  Oh, and in any event, Jesus was God the Son, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It was completely within his rights to override the Mosaic law as He saw fit. The same is not true for our parish clergy who are otherwise bound by the liturgical laws laid down by Rome.

  Period.

• Mark,

  While one’s clothes may not be an indication of one’s holiness, they can be an indication of one’s disposition towards something.  Especially in the “negative”; meaning when one does not wear the appropriate attire. 

  More specifically, if someone has access to the proper clothing, and chooses to wear clothing that displays a lack of respect or reverence, what else can one infer but that the person doesn’t truly value the venue, event, person, etc.

  I don’t know if you are married, Mark, but if you had arrived at the Church to marry your wife in jeans and a t-shirt, I’m guessing she wouldn’t have been too happy.  Do you think she would have thought it was an indication of how important your wedding day was to you?  Would she have thought you didn’t respect her or value her?  Of course. 

  If you were too poor to wear something more “fine”, sure.  No harm, no foul.  Everyone gets it.  But when you have a choice, and you choose to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass in a t-shirt…well, do you think our Lord feels like you value him?

  All of those things you mentioned that we should be concerned about?  I agree.  I just don’t think you understand the relationship of the vulgarization of our culture, and its decline. 

  Also, I don’t know how old you are, but a lot of us “old folks” don’t laugh at the “slippery slope” argument.  We’ve been slidin’ for about forty years or so.

  Like Dom said:

  “Faithfulness in small things, even unimportant things, is a sign that one is capable of fidelity in larger things.”

• “If there is a crisis in liturgy in this country, it is not one of extreme rubricism.”

  Priceless.  That wins the “understatement of the last forty years” award!  Hee hee…

• I see alot of young adults(college age) that understand this. It’s like the venial vs mortal sin issue. The small sins fester, it then gets easier and easier to sin in the small things and can lead to mortal sin.

• “those without sin may cast the first stone.”

  Let me be more clear in my position, I am a sinner and refuse to judge others. Simply put, if the person attends mass regularly, follows their faith (ie doesn’t support abortion and such) I am not going to judge them.

  For me personally, the whole plank in the eye thing jumps to mind and I just can’t do it.

  If you can, you are a better person then me.

• I really don’t think that people are talking about judging others it’s just that we need to beware of the small things. Talking about judging remember we can not judge someone’s heart or their relationship with God but we can judge behavior to determine if we want to be around this person.

• Come on everyone……….keeping in mind that there are exceptions to the rule under certain circumstances, the “debating”, so to speak, is really closed. Dom, along with others, has nailed the door shut. “Obedience to lawful authority is being offended against.”

• MarkfromMA,

  Sorry but this kind of passive christianity certainly isn’t the heritage of Catholicism.  We are to avoid sin for ourselves AND we are called to bring attention to the potential of sin in others, and help them away from that sin. It isn’t judgement, it is looking after our brothers’ spiritual health.

• My first thought after viewing the picture was that C. Arinze might have been posing, wearing a gift (the stole) from someone and having his picture taken with the gift.  While no one seems to know all the facts about this there sure are some great efforts in correcting the Cardinal.  Maybe that’s what com boxes are for – lots of air that may never be later inhaled!  Meanwhile, I was more scared about the sorta home-spunny image of the Holy Spirit (I guessed) in the mitre.  Hope that was borrowed also! 

• The original post was not about Cardinal Arinze, but about Cardinal Levada at the installation of Archbishop Niederauer. The link to the photo is in the post previous to this one.

• Thanks to those who gave me a “thumbs up.”

  I was heartened to see five more people to whom I can give “three cheers”: Eric, Decoder Ring, Robin, Blanchard, and CPT Tom.  The “good guys” are definitely in the majority here.

  Dear Kelly Clark,
  Sorry, but you’re wrong.  I stand by what I posted yesterday—even what you called the “bad” part of my post.  I also cannot make any sense out of the following words of yours:
  “I’m glad you’re not in charge of deciding who should say Mass, AnUnSi. Because if you were, last month a Mass would not have been offered for the soul of my late husband. Would that have mattered to you, so long as you felt justified in your judgment of ‘bad posts?’”

  Please read my posts more carefully.  I said that a priest who argued for tolerance of liturgical abuse should be forbidden to celebrate Mass PUBLICLY … and only UNTIL he repents of being soft on disobedient priests.  I didn’t say that private celebration of Mass should be forbidden to such priests.  Also, the “until” would allow for potentially immediate repentance and “reinstatement.”  No Mass for the soul of your late husband would have been omitted.

• Yes it’s important that we don’t become infected with “rubricism” but that is hardly the problem right now for the Church. Quite the contrary.

  Context is important, as they say. If this was an isolated incident I think we could cut them a little slack but this is simply the latest in a four-decade long orgy of liturgical improvisation and lunacy. It comes on the back or maybe in the middle of a clerical abuse scandal which was facilitated in large part by episcopal abdication of duty. Enough is enough.

  And when all is said and done, it’s not clear why one would wear a stole over the chasuble. It’s just as easy to put it underneath. No big deal. Unorthodox liturgies or vestments may be excused and even justified if performed in out of the way places or in circumstances such as overt persecution, where certain elements of the liturgy, otherwise considered essential, may be lacking. But here we’re simply talking about putting a stole under a chasuble. It’s not like all these men would have been marched out and executed of they did it the correct way. Why do it like this? What purpose is served here, other than perhaps making a liturgical fashion statement? I don’t get it.

  At best, it indicates a sloppy and inexact attitude to the liturgy. At worst, it indicates a stubborn pride, an absence of true humility and an attitude that the liturgy belongs to us and we are free to mess with it as we see fit.

• Please read my posts more carefully.  I said that a priest who argued for tolerance of liturgical abuse should be forbidden to celebrate Mass PUBLICLY

  Please read your own posts more carefully. What you wrote was:

  This is the second or third thread on which I’ve read bad posts from him. I think that he should be forbidden from celebrating Mass publicly until he does public repentance.

  I got the PUBLIC part. What I didn’t, and still don’t, get is where you get off making judgement calls as serious as this one on the basis of brief Internet posts.

  The really stupid thing about this is that I’m the one in hot water in my own parish for being a stickler for liturgy. That said, I tend to bristle at pompous statements, along with…

  The “good guys” are definitely in the majority here.

  The mind-set that generates statements like the above.

  Please be very careful about, by H U G E implication, judging the morality of others. Some “bad guy” might swat you with her black hat.