Scrupulousity

[christulsa]

James is talking about scrupulous people who believe you are required to do many FORMAL prayers every day under pain of sin.  Hence the test for that particular group to do the basic minimum, to ID scruples.  But we are not even strictly speaking, under pain of sin, required to formally pray every day, or so many times of day, even though that is the constant tradition and recommendation.   If you're not attending to duties of state first, but spending long periods of the day going to daily Mass, adoration, rosary group, etc, because you think that is God's will, while the dishes are piling up at home, and the bills aren't getting paid, you would agree that suggests scruples and some remedy for them.  I'm sure priests have given similar advise. 

And you can still "pray without ceasing" without any formality or hardly even thinking about it throughout the day.  I deal with a chronic pain condition, so every moment I offer it up even subconsciously I am praying.

Are you admitting that your opinion and James opinion is guided by conjecture and vibes off of what you think priest would say? There are numerous books on this topic, and that address this topic.  Scrupulosity, which is a serious problem deserves a better medicine.

James minimum of prayer is wrong, and it is so wrong that for a soul to follow it could in fact drive a person into further sin.  Formal Prayer is not an enemy.  Vocal prayer is not an enemy.    Prayer is one of the only ways to overcome the spiritual ailment of scrupulosity.  Scrupulosity is rooted in defects against the virtue of Hope and Charity which are increased through the sacraments and prayer.   A person suffering from scruples does not need less prayer in their life.  Furthermore, James advocacy of a minimal prayer life to give oneself a little test if they are scrupulous is telling Christians to withdraw from calling on God for help.

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine.  No, not in the least is James' advise (or mine) based on vibes what a priest would say.   You need to demonstrate that before you make a judgment.

Can you give a source that says it is a SIN on a particular day to not engage in FORMAL prayer?  Or to just do a few minimal FORMAL prayers?  How precisely is limiting FORMAL prayer for a few days DIABOLICAL?   You haven't even remotely demonstrated that.

Answer with sources and specific principles.  Otherwise you commit rash judgment about James' advise and should correct yourself.  Rash judgment is itself a sin.

[nmoerbeek]

James is talking about scrupulous people who believe you are required to do many FORMAL prayers every day under pain of sin.  Hence the test for that particular group to do the basic minimum, to ID scruples.  But we are not even strictly speaking, under pain of sin, required to formally pray every day, or so many times of day, even though that is the constant tradition and recommendation.   If you're not attending to duties of state first, but spending long periods of the day going to daily Mass, adoration, rosary group, etc, because you think that is God's will, while the dishes are piling up at home, and the bills aren't getting paid, you would agree that suggests scruples and some remedy for them.  I'm sure priests have given similar advise. 

And you can still "pray without ceasing" without any formality or hardly even thinking about it throughout the day.  I deal with a chronic pain condition, so every moment I offer it up even subconsciously I am praying.

Are you admitting that your opinion and James opinion is guided by conjecture and vibes off of what you think priest would say? There are numerous books on this topic, and that address this topic.  Scrupulosity, which is a serious problem deserves a better medicine.

James minimum of prayer is wrong, and it is so wrong that for a soul to follow it could in fact drive a person into further sin.  Formal Prayer is not an enemy.  Vocal prayer is not an enemy.    Prayer is one of the only ways to overcome the spiritual ailment of scrupulosity.  Scrupulosity is rooted in defects against the virtue of Hope and Charity which are increased through the sacraments and prayer.   A person suffering from scruples does not need less prayer in their life.  Furthermore, James advocacy of a minimal prayer life to give oneself a little test if they are scrupulous is telling Christians to withdraw from calling on God for help.

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine.  No, not in the least is James' advise (or mine) based on vibes what a priest would say.   You need to demonstrate that before you make a judgment.

Can you give a source that says it is a SIN on a particular day to not engage in FORMAL prayer?  Or to just do a few minimal FORMAL prayers?  How precisely is limiting FORMAL prayer for a few days DIABOLICAL?   You haven't even remotely demonstrated that.

Answer with sources and specific principles.  Otherwise you commit rash judgment about James' advise and should correct yourself.  Rash judgment is itself a sin.

"For one week, only say a morning offering in the morning, and an act of contrition before bed.  For one week, that's it, no other prayers or devotions."

Explain to me first how this is limited to formal prayer only. 

[christulsa]

Obviously he's talking about particular devotions.  Reread that statement.  You're jumping to conclusions.  He didn't say to not think about God, offer your cross, etc throughout the day.

One form of scruples is excessive formal prayer, thinking it's a duty to literally pray FORMALLY all day long.  That's very common with scrupulous people.  I've known some real fanatical souls whose life is disordered, and they argue others should be as regimented in their daily religious exercises as them.  I've heard trad priests address this in conferences and in discussions emphasizing simplifying the prayer schedule.   You have given no reason to accuse James of negating the command to "pray ceaselessly" ie informally from the heart. 

Now please answer my questions (there are 3 of them).

[nmoerbeek]

Obviously he's talking about particular devotions.  Reread that statement.  You're jumping to conclusions.  He didn't say to not think about God, offer your cross, etc throughout the day.

One form of scruples is excessive formal prayer, thinking it's a duty to literally pray FORMALLY all day long.  That's very common with scrupulous people.  I've known some real fanatical souls whose life is disordered, and they argue others should be as regimented in their daily religious exercises as them.  I've heard trad priests address this in conferences and in discussions emphasizing simplifying the prayer schedule.   You have given no reason to accuse James of negating the command to "pray ceaselessly" ie informally from the heart. 

Now please answer my questions (there are 3 of them).

No, it is not obvious.  In the world of James, a person who normally says "Lord Jesus Christ, Have Mercy on me a sinner" throughout the day is scrupulous if when deliberately withdrawing from those prayers they feel a since of anxiety for neglecting prayer. 

If you read my objection, in which I explicitly bring up the example of temptation, and also praying before meals you understand the context of my complaint.

[nmoerbeek]

Obviously he's talking about particular devotions.  Reread that statement.  You're jumping to conclusions.  He didn't say to not think about God, offer your cross, etc throughout the day.

One form of scruples is excessive formal prayer, thinking it's a duty to literally pray FORMALLY all day long.  That's very common with scrupulous people.  I've known some real fanatical souls whose life is disordered, and they argue others should be as regimented in their daily religious exercises as them.  I've heard trad priests address this in conferences and in discussions emphasizing simplifying the prayer schedule.   You have given no reason to accuse James of negating the command to "pray ceaselessly" ie informally from the heart. 

Now please answer my questions (there are 3 of them).

By the way if you are going to demand of me to spend the time to go through my books with specific citations, then by all means give me the same courtesy.  Don't make up definitions of what you think scrupulous behavior is, give me specific citations from sources.

[james03]

and then telling people that if they feel uncomfortable (which every pious Christian should if they took your test)

Why did you feel the need to lie? 

they feel a since of anxiety for neglecting prayer. 

And again.

If you believe you are SINNING by meeting the prayer requirement of the Church, you have scruples.  I specifically addressed if you feel "twitchy" because you feel the loss of prayers that uplift you, and said you don't have scruples.

And you've mentioned people who abhor the thought of a venial sin.  Those are indeed holy people, but you are dealing with someone highly advanced in spiritual development.  Before that you have to develop sorrow for sin, not due to fear of hell, but due to your love for God.  A lot of people don't even make it that far. 

This is a test.  This is not what they should do if they actually have scruples.

[christulsa]

No Nmoerbeek, I won't have to prove anything.  You do.  Because you are the one making the a actual accusations.  Not me.  I'm just responding to it defending James.  You don't honestly believe there's any Catholic source that says one must do a certain amount of formal prayer a day under pain of sin, unless they are bound to a Rule like is common for 3rd order members of a religious order.  To think that WOULD itself be scrupulous!   If you are a gentleman, you would either show a source to back up your judgment, or confess your rash judgment.

[nmoerbeek]

No Nmoerbeek, I won't have to prove anything.  You do.  Because you are the one making the a actual accusations.  Not me.  I'm just responding to it defending James.  You don't honestly believe there's any Catholic source that says one must do a certain amount of formal prayer a day under pain of sin, unless they are bound to a Rule like is common for 3rd order members of a religious order.  To think that WOULD itself be scrupulous!   If you are a gentleman, you would either show a source to back up your judgment, or confess your rash judgment.

My Friend, find me where I make such a demand and stop inventing a straw man.  My complaint was rooted against James because he does not want people to make recourse to prayer throughout the day.  The specific example I made was in temptation.

[james03]

Let's observe the damage done by telling someone with scruples they have to pray unceasingly (an exhortation from St. Paul), WITHOUT the caveat you aren't talking about Formal Prayer.

So he tries it and fails.  And he knows it is impossible to do.  So now he wants to go to confession because he sinned by not formally praying continuously.  But there's a problem.  He knows it impossible to do.  Sacrilegious confession.  He knows if he confesses it, he doesn't have a firm purpose of amendment.  But if he withholds the sin, he's also screwed.  So he quits going to confession and communion.  The demons now have him.

That is the damage you are doing by saying this.

[nmoerbeek]

Let's observe the damage done by telling someone with scruples they have to pray unceasingly (an exhortation from St. Paul), WITHOUT the caveat you aren't talking about Formal Prayer.

So he tries it and fails.  And he knows it is impossible to do.  So now he wants to go to confession because he sinned by not formally praying continuously.  But there's a problem.  He knows it impossible to do.  Sacrilegious confession.  He knows if he confesses it, he doesn't have a firm purpose of amendment.  But if he withholds the sin, he's also screwed.  So he quits going to confession and communion.  The demons now have him.

That is the damage you are doing by saying this.

Define formal prayer.

[christulsa]

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You're demanding your own interpretation of James' statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don't you ask him if in his "test" for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You're jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is "diabolical."   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that. 

[nmoerbeek]

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You're demanding your own interpretation of James' statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don't you ask him if in his "test" for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You're jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is "diabolical."   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

Please tell me about these formal prayers.  I have not heard such a distinction except with Liturgical prayers.  Do you mean vocal prayers? 

[nmoerbeek]

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You're demanding your own interpretation of James' statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don't you ask him if in his "test" for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You're jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is "diabolical."   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

I was having a conversation with James till you unhelpfully butted in, treating James like a child that cannot speak for himself.  Why don't you butt out and let us talk this out?

[james03]

Define formal prayer.

Too late.  Burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you tell the people with scruples what would constitute sinning with regards to "pray unceasingly".  And include a cite, otherwise it's just your opinion.  You are dealing with people who have scruples who are being dragged away from the sacraments and prayer, so make darn sure you are quoting something authoritative. 

To be a Catholic in good standing we have the 5 precepts.  Not a good idea to be at this minimum, but you'd still be a Catholic in good standing.  My source is the CCC.  So give me your cite.

[christulsa]

I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You're demanding your own interpretation of James' statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don't you ask him if in his "test" for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You're jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is "diabolical."   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

I was having a conversation with James till you unhelpfully butted in, treating James like a child that cannot speak for himself.  Why don't you butt out and let us talk this out?

No. You weren't having a "conversation" buddy. And this isn't a private discussion forum. 

The level of pride and in civility you are exhibiting in this thread IS diabolical.  You ask questions that get answered, but refuse to answer others' questions or valid points.  Rashly accuse. Refuse correction. And now this post.

At this point I think James struck a nerve with you about this prayer test, because you yourself are probably proudly scrupulous, and his "test" proved that.  You're a layman, not a religious or spiritual director.  So far we're just giving our opinion about scruples, while you are rendering personal judgments at persons.  Nobody here deserves that.