Arm around spouse/ date/"nuzzling" in pews during Mass?

[JimG]

I have not seen anything, even remotely authoritative, suggesting otherwise. Have you? The GIRM states that the exchange of the sign of peace is to be “…in accordance with the culture and customs of the people”, not the other way around. The caveat is added at the beginning of that statement that the manner is “to be established by the conferences of Bishops…”. If we are to take the GIRM literally, and I assume the writers stated what they intended to, it is not even up to the local bishop, but rather than entire conference of bishops.

So, unless there exists some sort of document from the USCCB stating that married couples are not supposed to kiss or hug their children during the sign of peace, we are left with unfounded speculation, personal preference, and subjective opinion being passed off as authoritative teaching.

I disagree. I fail to see how the liturgical meaning has changed because I kiss my wife before I --shake someone else’s hand. The only reasonable explanation which comes to mind is if you are suggesting that a married person who kisses his/her spouse and then shakes the hand of another person is somehow not really wishing that second person the peace of Christ because they did not hug or kiss them also. Of course, that would require the judging of motivations and what is going on inside someone else’s head, which I am sure you are not suggesting. So with that in mind, again, if you have something authoritative regarding how the sign of peace’s lirturgical meaning is disrupted by married couples exchanging a chaste kiss, I am open to seeing it.

No, I don’t think that the rubrics say how the congregation is to exchange the sign of peace.

Of course, the rite of peace has been around a long time. It was part of the Mass even before 1960: If I recall correctly, it went like this, after some preceding prayers:

Priest: Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum.
Servers: Et cum spiritu tuo

It was usually not accompanied by any physical sign, except in solemn liturgies.

So the rite of peace is always there, while the congregational exchange is optional.

It does seem to me that the liturgical meaning has changed over the years, whether intended or not. From being an invocation of the peace of Christ and the brotherhood of all in communin with him, it seems to have changed into an opportunity within the Mass for the exchange of signs of affection among those present, different, as you say, for family and non-family.

Whether that’s a good thing or not, I can’t say. But the liturgical meaning is subtly, or not so sublty, different.

 

[bearer]

As far as kissing at the sign of peace, ideally one should not offer a different sign of peace to one’s spouse or family than one offers to those around them. The Sign of Peace is intended to express our unity in Christ as a prelude to communion. When we give different signs to different people based upon levels of affection, it serves to emphasize differences rather than unity. If you’re going to kiss the spouse, then kiss everyone else as well!.

Michelle Arnold explains in better in these two posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=303622

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300671

You know, that’s an excellent point, and one I hadn’t though of before. There have been times in which our niece or goddaughter has sat between us, and having given my wife a handshake in place of my usual kiss on the forehead, she almost took offense. I’m going to have to explain this rationale of communion with the whole church to her.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m just going to throw my :twocents: in here as well

To be perfectly honest, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with holding hands, putting an arm around a spouse, or even a small amount of backrubbing. It all depends on the circumstances, in particular the intent of the spouses.

First off I would say that anything done for an erotic purpose is clearly not ok. I’m pretty sure that everyone would agree with that, but if it is just a sign of unity between the spouses then I see nothing wrong, and in fact much good, in such a practice.

Sharing a physical sign of unity has special power to strenghten the unity between Catholics during Mass. I have in the past, and will again in the future, put my arm around/held hands with my fully grown sister during Mass. It was not a distraction for us. Instead, there was a special bond of unity that was made apparant to us through this sign of our affection. Both of us were focused on the Mass while at the same time being aware of the fact that both of us were focused on the Mass. This practice makes you much more strongly aware of the Christ-centered aspect of your relationship. Which as long as Christ has the correct place in our hearts, helps us to realize all the more the important indissoluble nature of our relationship, that our relationship is based on so much more than simply a human or even natural familial ties, it is based in the unity that comes through Christ. It is a good thing for couples to strenghten their unity through a combined spirit at Mass which is often facilitated through external signs such as holding hands or putting an arm around a shoulder. It is possible that it will be distracting to others, yes, but children are also often distracting to others, even if they are just quietly moving around in their pew. Just because something can be a distraction to others does not mean it has no place in Mass. A further justification would be needed.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I have not seen anything, even remotely authoritative, suggesting otherwise. Have you? The GIRM states that the exchange of the sign of peace is to be “…in accordance with the culture and customs of the people”, not the other way around. The caveat is added at the beginning of that statement that the manner is “to be established by the conferences of Bishops…”. If we are to take the GIRM literally, and I assume the writers stated what they intended to, it is not even up to the local bishop, but rather than entire conference of bishops.

So, unless there exists some sort of document from the USCCB stating that married couples are not supposed to kiss or hug their children during the sign of peace, we are left with unfounded speculation, personal preference, and subjective opinion being passed off as authoritative teaching.

I disagree. I fail to see how the liturgical meaning has changed because I kiss my wife before I shake someone else’s hand. The only reasonable explanation which comes to mind is if you are suggesting that a married person who kisses his/her spouse and then shakes the hand of another person is somehow not really wishing that second person the peace of Christ because they did not hug or kiss them also. Of course, that would require the judging of motivations and what is going on inside someone else’s head, which I am sure you are not suggesting. So with that in mind, again, if you have something authoritative regarding how the sign of peace’s lirturgical meaning is disrupted by married couples exchanging a chaste kiss, I am open to seeing it.

Hi everyone: A gentle, :angel1:kindly meant note here from the OP: My post is** not** about the Sign of the Peace, as there will be a wide variety of opinions on how people like to greet each other during that time. Some will shake hands, some will kiss only spouses, etc., some will have other opinions. This is about “Pew Time” as seen in the original post.

I was speaking of the majority of the Mass time,** while sitting in the pew,** during the readings, during the homily, etc, (not during the times we kneel or give the Sign of the Peace.)

It’s also somewhat of a subtle question of attitude: Some find it “cute” or “cozy” to see couples nuzzling, kissing, and some like to just sit back and relax, their arm around their spouse, etc., exchanging whispers, kisses, nuzzling ears,etc. I was asking about how people feel personally, what is their take on the attitude reflected in our choices? I tend to personally choose the more sober approach, as we are going to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, while others may feel ready to kick back and feel “right at home.”

This doesn’t mean one is the only correct approach, and I appreciate all the answers concerning our how our physical comportment reflects our personal attitude during the majority of the Mass.

I also wanted to note how lovely it is that many parishes participate in making a special attempt to assure that all feel welcome despite special challenges: the elderly, those in wheelchairs, those using canes, people with special physical or emotional challenges. We have a wonderful program in place in our parish that addresses issues of everyone feeling welcome. Whenever we see someone struggling with a challenge, the best thing to do is smile and be helpful! :getholy:

As to this topic, I’m amazed at the difference in opinions here and find it a learning experience. It’s good to see that we can all just question ourselves, why we do things as we do, and seeing the answers here may very well help us each ask ourselves personally if our behaviors help or hinder others to concentrate on Christ, Who is the Center of the Mass.

Blessings:heaven::grouphug::heaven:
Kathryn Ann

 

[jwinch2]

Hi everyone: A gentle, :angel1:kindly meant note here from the OP: My post is** not** about the Sign of the Peace, as there will be a wide variety of opinions on how people like to greet each other during that time. Some will shake hands, some will kiss only spouses, etc., some will have other opinions. This is about “Pew Time” as seen in the original post.

Kathryn Ann,

Since you quoted my response above, I guess I should reply to you here.

Yes, your original post was not about the sign of peace. Frankly, I had no intent of taking the conversation in that direction. Unfortunately, someone else felt the need to do so. Since subjective opinion and personal preference were again being passed off as authoritative teaching I felt it important to respond.

Peace of Christ,

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Kathryn Ann,

Since you quoted my response above, I guess I should reply to you here.

Yes, your original post was not about the sign of peace. Frankly, I had no intent of taking the conversation in that direction. Unfortunately, someone else felt the need to do so. Since subjective opinion and personal preference were again being passed off as authoritative teaching I felt it important to respond.

Peace of Christ,

Hi Jason,:knight1: yes I realize you were not the only one beginning to take that direction, and I appreciate your note here, thank you, truly. I appreciate your very polite reply. I just saw a couple of postings pop up about things outside the original post, and as there could be many opinions on that, I thought it best to step in.

And you are right that sometimes people may post what is their personal opinion as if it were actually the teaching of the Magisterium. Of course the Church may not have a definitive teaching about every* minute *detail of our lives (although it may seem to get close to that) so we often have to ask our fellow parishioners (or forum friends here) how and why they feel or act the way they do. This helps me, being new to the faith, as some things are subtle and some things are strongly- held traditions.

I still tend to side with those who find every moment of the Mass to be so awe- inspiring as to preclude what some might call a “relaxed” comportment, but again, that is just my feeling. Here might be a corollary: As someone who has spoken before school children and college students in quite diverse communities, I find that those classrooms filled with people sitting up, eager and attentive, to be easier to communicate with than those groups in which many are are looking around, whispering, laughing, talking to each other, their eyes anywhere but on the speaker and the instruction.

I once was speaking at a community college and in the front row center was a young man wearing a ball cap. He was leaning back in his chair with a look of boredom on his face that said it all. “I’m not here to experience anything new from you!” I asked the professor to speak to him. He took off his cap, sat up straight and it really was easier to give my little talk. This shows that I’m from the “Old School,” so I hope others won’t fault me for that. If we give other humans a certain respect, then it just seems to me that the Mass is a time for our very best attitudes and posture whenever possible, so as not to distract others. We may personally feel comfortable with something, but that doesn’t mean it helps others towards a grace-filled experience, so I just want to be charitable and think of others.

And to the one poster who said he or she didn’t care what others think about their choices, I feel, as someone who replied to that comment, that this is quite uncharitable.

Like all here, I simply find the Mass to be the center of my life. And whether a person’s husband/boyfriend, relative, etc. is next to them, why not give our complete focus, our best, for that one hour, to the One who makes all the love possible?

One note to those talking of hand holding during Mass: I have never really found that all that distracting, since I can’t usually even see a dear old couple, (or newly weds) before or behind me doing that. If they are beside me, I find that not anything that would distract me at all unless they’re talking or whispering/cooing to each other.

It’s those things I mentioned in the original post that seemed more than the usual “relaxing” that I wondered about. We all do our best, I know, not to distract others. We all want to be looking up front and to listen attentively. I had just not seen the kind of “relaxing” modes I posted since I had been in a fundamental church years ago and since I had not noticed it much until recently, and because it had not come up much at all, it seemed to be something new occurring, a trend that I really wondered about.

Peace to you and all here.

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[JimG]

. . . .
I still tend to side with those who find every moment of the Mass to be so awe- inspiring as to preclude what some might call a “relaxed” comportment, but again, that is just my feeling. Here might be a corollary: As someone who has spoken before school children and college students in quite diverse communities, I find that those classrooms filled with people sitting up, eager and attentive, to be easier to communicate with than those groups in which many are are looking around, whispering, laughing, talking to each other, their eyes anywhere but on the speaker and the instruction.

I once was speaking at a community college and in the front row center was a young man wearing a ball cap. He was leaning back in his chair with a look of boredom on his face that said it all. “I’m not here to experience anything new from you!” I asked the professor to speak to him. He took off his cap, sat up straight and it really was easier to give my little talk. This shows that I’m from the “Old School,” so I hope others won’t fault me for that. If we give other humans a certain respect, then it just seems to me that the Mass is a time for our very best attitudes and posture whenever possible, so as not to distract others. We may personally feel comfortable with something, but that doesn’t mean it helps others towards a grace-filled experience, so I just want to be charitable and think of others. . . . .
Peace to you and all here.

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

There is nothing in itself wrong with anyone being casual. But having grown up in my formative years with the Tridentine Mass, I understand the impulse towards formality.

The old Mass, in its formal language (even as translated into English in the missal) and in its liturgical structure seemed directed toward an evocation of the transcendence of God and the making present of the sacrifice of Christ. I was taught (not as doctrine, of course) that as the consecration drew near, invisible choirs of angels approached the altar in awe and reverence and adoration.

I’m not saying we should go back to that attitude of complete formality. People were easily distracted back then too, and not everyone followed along in the missal. The changes did make the Mass more understandable but also made people more casual. I remember a friend saying once “Hey, I can daydream as easily while they’re speaking English as while they’re speaking Latin.”

And while the Mass has become more casual, so has the whole of the culture. I can hardly think of any event, at least in the U.S., at which people would now be inclined to be formal rather than casual. So it’s not just that we’re more casual at Mass. We’re more casual everywhere. But I do think it’s a good idea at Mass to try to place ourselves in the presence of God and remember where we are and what we are doing.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

There is nothing in itself wrong with anyone being casual. But having grown up in my formative years with the Tridentine Mass, I understand the impulse towards formality.

The old Mass, in its formal language (even as translated into English in the missal) and in its liturgical structure seemed directed toward an evocation of the transcendence of God and the making present of the sacrifice of Christ. I was taught (not as doctrine, of course) that as the consecration drew near, invisible choirs of angels approached the altar in awe and reverence and adoration.

I’m not saying we should go back to that attitude of complete formality. People were easily distracted back then too, and not everyone followed along in the missal. The changes did make the Mass more understandable but also made people more casual. I remember a friend saying once “Hey, I can daydream as easily while they’re speaking English as while they’re speaking Latin.”

And while the Mass has become more casual, so has the whole of the culture. I can hardly think of any event, at least in the U.S., at which people would now be inclined to be formal rather than casual. So it’s not just that we’re more casual at Mass. We’re more casual everywhere. But I do think it’s a good idea at Mass to try to place ourselves in the presence of God and remember where we are and what we are doing.

I so agree with your general viewpoint. People who are new to the Church post Vatican II, as I am, may not have the same frame of reference, yet still wonder about the changes that came about. I wonder about one thing though, that word “formal.” Do you think, or do others here think, that there is possibly a big difference between being “formal” and being reverential?

I like the fact that you brought up the changes in the overall culture. Many tend to think of any kind of reverence or as you say, formality in dress or attitude as being suspect.

I wonder in general if all this casualness is a good thing or not. You are right, we need to remember where we are, ( to Whom we are being attentive) and I might add, being charitable towards others so as not to distract if at all possible.

Many blessings to you and all here
Kathryn Ann

 

[JimG]

I so agree with your general viewpoint. People who are new to the Church post Vatican II, as I am, may not have the same frame of reference, yet still wonder about the changes that came about. I wonder about one thing though, that word “formal.” Do you think, or do others here think, that there is possibly a big difference between being “formal” and being reverential?

I like the fact that you brought up the changes in the overall culture. Many tend to think of any kind of reverence or as you say, formality in dress or attitude as being suspect.

I wonder in general if all this casualness is a good thing or not. You are right, we need to remember where we are, ( to Whom we are being attentive) and I might add, being charitable towards others so as not to distract if at all possible.

Many blessings to you and all here
Kathryn Ann

Yes, you are right, reverential is a better word than formal, at least with reference to Mass; one can have reverence regardless of dress. I’ve seen some youth groups dressed ‘casually’ in jeans who are quite reverential.

 

[onmyknees]

There is nothing in itself wrong with anyone being casual. But having grown up in my formative years with the Tridentine Mass, I understand the impulse towards formality.

The old Mass, in its formal language (even as translated into English in the missal) and in its liturgical structure seemed directed toward an evocation of the transcendence of God and the making present of the sacrifice of Christ. I was taught (not as doctrine, of course) that as the consecration drew near, invisible choirs of angels approached the altar in awe and reverence and adoration.

I’m not saying we should go back to that attitude of complete formality. People were easily distracted back then too, and not everyone followed along in the missal. The changes did make the Mass more understandable but also made people more casual. I remember a friend saying once “Hey, I can daydream as easily while they’re speaking English as while they’re speaking Latin.”

And while the Mass has become more casual, so has the whole of the culture. I can hardly think of any event, at least in the U.S., at which people would now be inclined to be formal rather than casual. So it’s not just that we’re more casual at Mass. We’re more casual everywhere. But I do think it’s a good idea at Mass to try to place ourselves in the presence of God and remember where we are and what we are doing.

Jim, I enjoyed your post and just wanted to let you know that indeed all the angels and saints do come down from heaven to participate in the mass.

The priest says," And so we join the angels and saints in proclaiming your glory"

 

[Dominique1234]

Perhaps we should all be focused more on the Mass rather than what other parishioners are doing…

That would be the ideal thing to do. Unfortunately, these are legitimate distractions in which people cannot focus on the sacrifice of the Mass due to the seriousness of these issues. It’s important to rectify these issues before they become too apparent, such as ‘short shorts’ on a Eucharistic Minister. It’s sad to see this happen and no one, even the priests, says anything to change this inappropriate behavior.

Let’s all just keep our mouths shut and let cafeteria catholics run our Churches then is another way of putting it.

 

[jwinch2]

That would be the ideal thing to do. Unfortunately, these are legitimate distractions in which people cannot focus on the sacrifice of the Mass due to the seriousness of these issues. It’s important to rectify these issues before they become too apparent, such as ‘short shorts’ on a Eucharistic Minister. It’s sad to see this happen and no one, even the priests, says anything to change this inappropriate behavior.

Let’s all just keep our mouths shut and let cafeteria catholics run our Churches then is another way of putting it.

So you are calling everyone in this thread and elsewhere that believes that there is nothing wrong with putting one’s arm around their spouse a cafeteria Catholic?

Of course, you can support this claim by citing Magesterial teaching which supports your position.

If you cannot cite such teaching, you had better start being careful to whom you assign that label.

 

[chevalier]

Hi fellow forum posters.

Just curious: Should gentlemen put one of their arms around their spouse/ or girl friend (arm hanging casually around the back of the pew) during most of the Mass, whispering, nuzzling ears, patting heads? I don’t see it often but I’ve told my husband to please leave that behavior for the home or movie theatre. It doesn’t happen often, so I’m wondering what you think? It’s certainly nice to see married couples with children and all couples still in love, and I’m happy to see them relaxed but is this going overboard or too casual? Is this unusual in your own experience? I was in an evangelical church for many years and it was very common there, but I just recently noticed this a few times at Mass and wondered about it. Opinions?

Holding hands would be okay in my book, holding arms not something I’d dare scrutinise for fear of turning into an old crooked pharisee (let’s not lose the distinction between respect and stiff prudery, let alone siding with people who dislike hugging but don’t mind scoffing). But as far as talking or making advances goes, there are other places and times for that.

As for sign of peace, I prefer no physical contact but don’t mind handshakes and I think shaking hands is healthier than avoiding touching one’s neighbour (pride!). Could probably get over kiss of peace (which is how it was originally done) but only cheek.

 

[MissRose73]

I’ve never encountered anyone being overly affectionate at Mass, but then again I make sure I am paying attention to what is happening in front of me not beside me or in the worship area to the best of my ability.

I do think its very nice when I see older couples help keep each other steady when going for Communion especially if one part of the couple has problems walking. Same with older women who do the same if one has more issues walking like my late grandmother & her best friend did - they held hands going for Communion or walked arm in arm. That is showing love and charity, and they have no age limits.

 

[pnewton]

I really do not pay much attention to affection at Mass, myself or others. I rarely am able to sit with my wife, but when I do, I guess I put my arm around her or hold her hand. It’s just what we do together. Yes, the Mass is about community, but the unity of the couple doesn’t cease at the ringing of the chimes for Mass. We are still one. It would be unnatural for us not to ever touch in Mass. Same thing applies to the sign of peace. Sorry Michelle, but I do not ever, ever shake hands with my wife. That is weird beyond comprehension for me and is definitely not a societal norm.

 

[Dominique1234]

So you are calling everyone in this thread and elsewhere that believes that there is nothing wrong with putting one’s arm around their spouse a cafeteria Catholic?

Of course, you can support this claim by citing Magesterial teaching which supports your position.

If you cannot cite such teaching, you had better start being careful to whom you assign that label.

I made no such claim, and I’m sorry for giving you that impression. It was not my intent.

I am saying that there is a time and a place for such gesture, whether they be innocent in one’s mind, it may not be in another man’s mind. E.g. someone suffering with their sexuality in one form or another can see someone’s arm around another and view that in a sexual manner.

I’m aware of others during Mass and I care about them enough to know that there are people who suffer tremendously in this area. … “do not lead us into temptation…”

If we are to be an example to others during Mass, people’s attention should be on Christ, unless I’m mistaken. Not on fondling my wife’s shoulder because I feel love for her. Love is a decision, not a feeling. And I decide to refrain from ‘holding’ my wife during Mass because my focus is on God, scripture, the Eucharist, and wish to not be distracted by people who do so. I am united spiritually with my wife, NOT physically, through the sense of touch. Unnecessary during Mass.

I should not have to quote to explain the obvious. Thanks. Although if you will be patient, I’d be glad to introduce you to proper behavior and dress for Mass.

Give me some time. I’ll get it to you, I promise.

 

[jwinch2]

I should not have to quote to explain the obvious. Thanks.

If you are going to use your personal preferences as a measure of how someone else is supposed to behave, then yes, you do.

Although if you will be patient, I’d be glad to introduce you to proper behavior and dress for Mass.

Give me some time. I’ll get it to you, I promise.

If you have something authoritative then by all means share it. Otherwise, please don’t bother.

You might also go back and read the entire thread. All of your statements have been made earlier and discussed.

Also, please explain what you did mean by the “cafeteria Catholic” comment.

 

[Dominique1234]

So you are calling everyone in this thread and elsewhere that believes that there is nothing wrong with putting one’s arm around their spouse a cafeteria Catholic?

Of course, you can support this claim by citing Magesterial teaching which supports your position.

If you cannot cite such teaching, you had better start being careful to whom you assign that label.

Here are some on talking in Church.

**“Nothing so becomes a church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theatres, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose.” (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)

“Let all mortal flesh be silent, standing there…in fear and trembling; for the King of kings, the Lord of lords, Christ our God is about to be sacrificed and to be given as food to the faithful.” (St. James)

“Silence in the presence of the Lord GOD!” (Zeph. 1:7)

“But the LORD is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth!” (Hab. 2:20)

“When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.” (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)

“The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior… But the chief element of divine worship must be interior” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)
**

On dress:

**“Give to the LORD the glory due his name! Bring gifts, and enter his presence; worship the LORD in holy attire. Tremble before him, all the earth; he has made the world firm, not to be moved.” (1 Chron. 16:29-30)

“The dress of the body should not discredit the good of the soul.” (St. Cyprian)

“A person who is about to make a request to a secular prince takes pains to compose himself and his words by decent dress, becoming gesture, regulated speech and close attention of mind. How much more careful ought he to be in all these things when he is about to pray to almighty God in a sacred place!” (Council of Basel)

“One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit themselves on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the Churches to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty.” (Pope Benedict XV)

“Women must be decently dressed, especially when they go to church. The parish priest may, with due prudence, refuse them entrance to the church and access to the reception of the Sacraments, each and every time that they come to the church immodestly dressed.” (General Pastoral Directive, 20th Century A.D.)

“Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.” (St. Paul, 1 Tm. 2:9-10)

“A man’s attire, his hearty laughter and his gait, proclaim him for what he is.” (Sirach 19:26)
**

Just something simple to ponder on:
**
“When you hear Mass, do you come in the same frame of mind as the Blessed Virgin at Calvary? Because it is the same God, and the same Sacrifice.” (St. John Vianney)

“Now the exhortation of the Apostle, 'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” requires that all Christians should possess, as far as humanly possible, the same dispositions as those which the divine Redeemer had when He offered Himself in sacrifice: that is to say, they should in a humble attitude of mind, pay adoration, honor, praise and thanksgiving to the supreme majesty of God. Moreover, it means that they must assume to some extent the character of a victim, that they deny themselves as the Gospel commands, that freely and of their own accord they do penance and that each detests and satisfies for his sins. It means, in a word, that we must all undergo with Christ a mystical death on the cross so that we can apply to ourselves the words of St. Paul, ‘With Christ I am nailed to the cross.’" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)**

When I go to Church, I give it my all to nail myself to the Cross with Christ, not while holding my dear wife, whom I love tremendously. Time and a place.

(This may anger a few, but I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to speak the Truth.)

To be Catholic is to be true to our Faith, because we know it’s rules and traditions are from God, not from some pastor who started it 500 years ago.

Here is a link where I got the info.

mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/proper_church_conduct.htm

I’ll send you more if you want. I know there’s not much for ‘putting your arm’ around your spouse, but I think a LOT of it speaks for itself. Focus on CHRIST, not on putting your arm around your spouse, which IS a distraction, not just to me, but to many.

God bless. I hope this helps.

 

[jwinch2]

Here are some on talking in Church.

**“Nothing so becomes a church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theatres, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose.” (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)

“Let all mortal flesh be silent, standing there…in fear and trembling; for the King of kings, the Lord of lords, Christ our God is about to be sacrificed and to be given as food to the faithful.” (St. James)

“Silence in the presence of the Lord GOD!” (Zeph. 1:7)

“But the LORD is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth!” (Hab. 2:20)

“When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.” (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church**)

“The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior… But the chief element of divine worship must be interior” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)

On dress:

**“Give to the LORD the glory due his name! Bring gifts, and enter his presence; worship the LORD in holy attire. Tremble before him, all the earth; he has made the world firm, not to be moved.” (1 Chron. 16:29-30)

“The dress of the body should not discredit the good of the soul.” (St. Cyprian)

“A person who is about to make a request to a secular prince takes pains to compose himself and his words by decent dress, becoming gesture, regulated speech and close attention of mind**. How much more careful ought he to be in all these things when he is about to pray to almighty God in a sacred place!” (Council of Basel)

“One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit themselves on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the Churches to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty.” (Pope Benedict XV)

“Women must be decently dressed, especially when they go to church. The parish priest may, with due prudence, refuse them entrance to the church and access to the reception of the Sacraments, each and every time that they come to the church immodestly dressed.” (General Pastoral Directive, 20th Century A.D.)

“Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.” (St. Paul, 1 Tm. 2:9-10)

“A man’s attire, his hearty laughter and his gait, proclaim him for what he is.” (Sirach 19:26)

Just something simple to ponder on:
**
“When you hear Mass, do you come in the same frame of mind as the Blessed Virgin at Calvary? Because it is the same God, and the same Sacrifice.” (St. John Vianney)

“Now the exhortation of the Apostle, 'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” requires that all Christians should possess, as far as humanly possible, the same dispositions as those which the divine Redeemer had when He offered Himself in sacrifice: that is to say, they should in a humble attitude of mind, pay adoration, honor, praise and thanksgiving to the supreme majesty of God. Moreover, it means that they must assume to some extent the character of a victim, that they deny themselves as the Gospel commands, that freely and of their own accord they do penance and that each detests and satisfies for his sins. It means, in a word, that we must all undergo with Christ a mystical death on the cross so that we can apply to ourselves the words of St. Paul, ‘With Christ I am nailed to the cross.’" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)**

When I go to Church, I give it my all to nail myself to the Cross with Christ, not while holding my dear wife, whom I love tremendously. Time and a place.

(This may anger a few, but I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to speak the Truth.)

To be Catholic is to be true to our Faith, because we know it’s rules and traditions are from God, not from some pastor who started it 500 years ago.

Here is a link where I got the info.

mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/proper_church_conduct.htm

I’ll send you more if you want. I know there’s not much for ‘putting your arm’ around your spouse, but I think a LOT of it speaks for itself. Focus on CHRIST, not on putting your arm around your spouse, which IS a distraction, not just to me, but to many.

God bless. I hope this helps.

If this thread was about talking or what to wear, that would be helpful, but it obviously isn’t. Please go back and read the thread in its entirety.

Again, please clarify your “cafeteria comment” from your earlier post.

 

[Dominique1234]

If you are going to use your personal preferences as a measure of how someone else is supposed to behave, then yes, you do.

If you have something authoritative then by all means share it. Otherwise, please don’t bother.

You might also go back and read the entire thread. All of your statements have been made earlier and discussed.

Also, please explain what you did mean by the “cafeteria Catholic” comment.

Cafeteria Catholics, those that don’t follow the rubrics of the Mass/Church while at Holy Mass. Those who choose to wear improper attire. Short shorts/Eucharistic Minister? REALLY!? I see it ALL the time. Being refused communion on the tongue because some lady thinks it’s faux pas, although IT IS the 1st choice of the Vatican/Magesterium on receiving communion.

I could go on and on and on and on… but I won’t. Because, and I’ll speak for myself, I refuse to submit to cafeteria catholics who run the joint… .literally. Shepherds being led by the flock. Sad and true. I’m so glad to be rid of the last parish I used to attend.