Ask a Catholic what you've been wanting to ask

[Newsy]

Calgar, you did seem a little insincere, so I’m going to help you out.

What I think Calgar wants to ask is: Protestants have been given the impression by ill-behaved, yet a large minority of Catholics that Catholics can sin all they want as long tell a priest and spritz with a little holy water. Can you elaborate on the reasons for this phenomenon while explaining actual Church teachings on the subject?

This is the simple pattern we are in, we commit sins and then we go to confession to receive absolution. The problem only arises if the person going to confession is not sorry for their sins and sincerely tries to mend their ways. We all sin and fall short of virtue, we obtain absolution from the sacrament of reconciliation. We can only obtain absolution if we intend to try to change our ways and submit to the Church teaching on sin. From the example, if someone was having an extra-marital affair, they could go to confession. The only way it would be a valid confession and absolve them of their sins is if they intend to mend their ways. If they see nothing wrong with having an affair, and don’t intend to change their lifestyle, then they would not be absolved of their sins. Repentance is a major factor in this sacrament, no one knows the heart of another, except God.

From the CCC, “1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).”

Also from the CCC, "1450 “Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.”
Contrition
1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

So, it would be possible for someone to go to confession without being repentant, in which case they would hear the words of absolution, but they would not be absolved. Normally, if someone is not repentant, they would not bother going to confession.

We all fall into sin, that is what the sacrament is for. We are not expected to never sin again, after we confess. We are expected to rely on God’s grace and conform our will to His. As long as we are trying to live rightly, we should take advantage of this sacrament. If our hearts are hardened, then we would need repentance before confession.

Hope this helps!

 

[Stephen_W]

Who are these people?
Cause I’ve never met them. It’s a typical stereotype (normally foistered by fundamentalists) that “Catholics can raise hell on Saturday and go to confesson on Sunday”.
In the fifty years I have spent on Planet Earth I have never met anyone like the above discribed.
It’s like asking are you still beating your wife?
It’s a childish question. Thats why nobody wants to answer it.

I would love to travel in the same circles you do!

Simular charges have been made against most other church groups and people, and are usually dismissed by saying whoever is making the charge does not understand the (insert your church group of choice)'s teaching! Would it not stand to reason that man has a propensity towards sin, no matter what religious affiliation, or lack there of? The heart of the issue is practice.

The majority of Catholics I’ve met, atleast prior to any serious investigation of the RCC, seem to hold to a Catholicism that lacks any real understanding, or involvement. Or committment. The question is, why? Why do so many within the walls of the Church fail to understand or practice it’s teaching? Is it so easy to be in communion with the RCC, yet live like the world? As a father, how can I bring my children into the Church and tell them not to follow the examples of those sitting in the pew next to them? Perhaps it is a childish question, but even children can be directed in understanding.

 

[JustaServant]

The majority of Catholics I’ve met, atleast prior to any serious investigation of the RCC, seem to hold to a Catholicism that lacks any real understanding, or involvement. Or committment.

You know this how?

 

[Newsy]

The majority of Catholics I’ve met, atleast prior to any serious investigation of the RCC, seem to hold to a Catholicism that lacks any real understanding, or involvement. Or committment. The question is, why? Why do so many within the walls of the Church fail to understand or practice it’s teaching? Is it so easy to be in communion with the RCC, yet live like the world? As a father, how can I bring my children into the Church and tell them not to follow the examples of those sitting in the pew next to them? Perhaps it is a childish question, but even children can be directed in understanding.

There are some who misunderstand the teaching of the Church b/c they were poorly taught. I am told that, in the years following Vatican II, that there were major changes happening. I am told there was an entire generation who were poorly taught. The Catholic studies have made great strides in the last few years, again I am told that these resources just didn’t exist in a useful form before.

Many do not appear to take their faith seriously. Much of this can be attributed to failure on the part of men in our society. In most churches I have attended, Catholic and protestant, men are seriously out numbered. In our current society, men tend to leave the religious work to the women in the family. I know that I certainly went through a phase, about 12 years, where I let my wife take the control of the family faith life. Not all men have fallen into this trap, but a large number have fallen short of being the spiritual leader that God calls us to be. Why would kids keep growing in their faith, when they are seeing one of their parents completely ignore their faith?

I brought my wife and kids into the Catholic Church, and you are right, the people in the next pew don’t always set a good example. This is true in every church I have ever been in, Catholic or protestant. If our faith is based on the attitudes and actions of others, then we are missing the point. On the few occasions that my kids have pointed out others “aren’t doing it, why do we”, I have used this as a teaching moment. I simply showed them what the Church teaches, show them why it is better to follow the Church’s teaching, and then reinforce the need to pray for others. The truth doesn’t change just because some don’t practice it fully.

 

[jmcrae]

I brought my wife and kids into the Catholic Church, and you are right, the people in the next pew don’t always set a good example. This is true in every church I have ever been in, Catholic or protestant. If our faith is based on the attitudes and actions of others, then we are missing the point. On the few occasions that my kids have pointed out others “aren’t doing it, why do we”, I have used this as a teaching moment. I simply showed them what the Church teaches, show them why it is better to follow the Church’s teaching, and then reinforce the need to pray for others. The truth doesn’t change just because some don’t practice it fully.

Amen!

 

[Stephen_W]

You know this how?

In part, thier practice, or behavour. In part thier response to questions about thier faith. I once asked a man claiming to be a “good Catholic” a question regarding something I read in the Catechism. His response? “What is a Catechism?”

I can only speak to my experiences and perceptions, same as you. I know there are good, sincere, devout Catholics “out there”, I found many on this forum, but have only met 3 couples in my local area. And they all lament the lack of spirituality in the local parish. I do not understand, why is this? From what I’ve read this is not just a local problem.

My current church group places a strong emphasis on outward behaviour, because like it or not, we, and the group we affiliate with, are all judged by others by what we do, more than what we say we should do. If the members of the RCC, live and work and play like all those around them, what is the attraction for the onlooker? If orthodoxy does not lead to orthoproxy, what is the point?

 

[jmcrae]

In part, thier practice, or behavour. In part thier response to questions about thier faith. I once asked a man claiming to be a “good Catholic” a question regarding something I read in the Catechism. His response? “What is a Catechism?”

The Catechism came out in 1992 - if he was educated before that, then no, he wouldn’t necessarily know what it is, unless he were involved as a Catechist in his parish. To be a good Catholic means that he does the things that he is supposed to do, at the times when he is supposed to do them, and that he avoids committing sin as much as possible. It doesn’t mean that he is a theologian, or that he has memorized the Catechism, any more than a good Protestant has necessarily memorized (or even heard of) the Scots’ Confession, or the Book of Concord. Certainly, those who’ve made a serious study of their faith will at least know about these things, and probably will have studied them, but the ordinary parishioner in a Protestant church who does what he is supposed to do at the times he is supposed to do them doesn’t necessarily know the details or the theology behind these things.

 

[Red_in_205]

Honest question:

I noticed that there’s a forum for “Traditional Catholicism.” I was under the impression that Catholicism was “Traditional Catholicism.”

1. What’s the difference between the two?
2. What led to the need for such a distinction?

 

[jmcrae]

Honest question:

I noticed that there’s a forum for “Traditional Catholicism.” I was under the impression that Catholicism was “Traditional Catholicism.”

1. What’s the difference between the two?
2. What led to the need for such a distinction?

There are two different forms of the Mass; the Extraordinary Form is commonly considered the “Traditional” form, with Latin, and has a different Missal (ie: different readings for each Sunday - they are on a one-year cycle of readings, as well as a slightly different Order of Service - there is more kneeling and the Sign of the Cross is made more frequently).

There are also some cultural differences - they educate their children with an older version of the Catechism, they observer more days of fasting and abstinence (Ember Days), and other small differences. (The women typically veil themselves and refrain from wearing slacks, for instance - although not always.)

Those who prefer the Extraordinary Form are often called “Traditional Catholics.” The Traditional Catholic Forum is for them to discuss their issues.

The Ordinary Form is a more recent development that arose out of the Second Vatican Council during the early 1960s. This is the Mass that you see most often - it is normally prayed in the language of the people, sometimes with some prayers in Latin, but most often not, and follows a three-year cycle of readings. There is more standing in this Mass than in the Extraordinary Form. Culturally, there are fewer days of required fasting and abstinence, children are educated from the 1992 Catechism (actually, from age-appropriate materials derived from it), and both men and women dress in ordinary modern clothing.

 

[Red_in_205]

There are two different forms of the Mass; the Extraordinary Form is commonly considered the “Traditional” form, with Latin, and has a different Missal (ie: different readings for each Sunday - they are on a one-year cycle of readings, as well as a slightly different Order of Service - there is more kneeling and the Sign of the Cross is made more frequently).

There are also some cultural differences - they educate their children with an older version of the Catechism, they observer more days of fasting and abstinence (Ember Days), and other small differences. (The women typically veil themselves and refrain from wearing slacks, for instance - although not always.)

Those who prefer the Extraordinary Form are often called “Traditional Catholics.” The Traditional Catholic Forum is for them to discuss their issues.

The Ordinary Form is a more recent development that arose out of the Second Vatican Council during the early 1960s. This is the Mass that you see most often - it is normally prayed in the language of the people, sometimes with some prayers in Latin, but most often not, and follows a three-year cycle of readings. There is more standing in this Mass than in the Extraordinary Form. Culturally, there are fewer days of required fasting and abstinence, children are educated from the 1992 Catechism (actually, from age-appropriate materials derived from it), and both men and women dress in ordinary modern clothing.

OK. My follow-up question is “Why did the Church decide that the Mass, the missal and the days of fasting needed to be changed?”

 

[jmcrae]

OK. My follow-up question is “Why did the Church decide that the Mass, the missal and the days of fasting needed to be changed?”

The 20th century was a time of great upheaval. Every institution in the world was being strongly tested. Some of them simply ceased to exist.

The idea of people simply obeying authority without question was completely gone - the Nuremberg trials put an end to that - they set the precedent that you can be put on trial and sentenced to death if you obey any command that you do not fully and entirely understand. Before taking any action whatsoever, it is required, on pain of death, that you must know what you are doing, and why you are doing it. “Because I said so” is no longer a valid reason.

This is both good and bad - on the one hand, it’s good to be educated and know what you are being asked to do before doing it - on the other hand, it is exhausting to have to explain your every move before anyone will do what you tell them to do. Creating a simpler Mass and putting it into the language of the people seemed like a necessary step in educating them about what they were being asked to do.

 

[Red_in_205]

The 20th century was a time of great upheaval. Every institution in the world was being strongly tested. Some of them simply ceased to exist.

The idea of people simply obeying authority without question was completely gone - the Nuremberg trials put an end to that - they set the precedent that you can be put on trial and sentenced to death if you obey any command that you do not fully and entirely understand. Before taking any action whatsoever, it is required, on pain of death, that you must know what you are doing, and why you are doing it. “Because I said so” is no longer a valid reason.

This is both good and bad - on the one hand, it’s good to be educated and know what you are being asked to do before doing it - on the other hand, it is exhausting to have to explain your every move before anyone will do what you tell them to do. Creating a simpler Mass and putting it into the language of the people seemed like a necessary step in educating them about what they were being asked to do.

What parts of the Mass were conducted in Latin before the change? Were the homily, prayers, and songs all in Latin?

 

[TarkanAttila]

What parts of the Mass were conducted in Latin before the change? Were the homily, prayers, and songs all in Latin?

Never having been in a Latin Mass, I do not know.

But from what I have heard, everything, though the Gospel and the readings could be read in [the vernacular] so people could understand it. I also don’t know, but I think the homilies were also in [the vernacular].

 

[jmcrae]

What parts of the Mass were conducted in Latin before the change? Were the homily, prayers, and songs all in Latin?

Everything is in Latin except for the homily and the prayers after the Dismissal. Another feature of the Latin Mass is that no microphones are used, and the priest says the prayers of the Mass in a very soft voice, facing the Tabernacle (that is, with his back to the people) - so, even if they understood Latin, they would not be able to hear the prayers in any case.

The responses are said by the Altar servers; the congregation remains quiet, in most cases. (In some places there is the custom of having the congregation do the responses, but this is considered “innovative” in many Traditional circles.)

 

[Telstar]

The Catechism came out in 1992 - if he was educated before that, then no, he wouldn’t necessarily know what it is, unless he were involved as a Catechist in his parish. To be a good Catholic means that he does the things that he is supposed to do, at the times when he is supposed to do them, and that he avoids committing sin as much as possible. It doesn’t mean that he is a theologian, or that he has memorized the Catechism, any more than a good Protestant has necessarily memorized (or even heard of) the Scots’ Confession, or the Book of Concord. Certainly, those who’ve made a serious study of their faith will at least know about these things, and probably will have studied them, but the ordinary parishioner in a Protestant church who does what he is supposed to do at the times he is supposed to do them doesn’t necessarily know the details or the theology behind these things.

Actually, in the Americas there was always a Catechism for the education of children in Catholic schools, called the Baltimore Catechism, that was originally published in 1885 (as well as several others that were used in different parts of the world). Most books used in my own catechism classes (in our local parish) in the 60’s were all derived from that one. They were specifically created for educational purposes in Catholic schools.

In the late 60’s, it was no longer used in most parishes or schools, when the religious education of children was ‘modernized’ with less focus placed on learning about the Catholic Faith, itself. IMHO, that’s when the religious education of an entire generation of Catholics took a decidedly downward turn, and is the main reason why so many Catholics these days have such a poor knowledge of their own Faith. But, the Baltimore Catechisms (I think there are 4 levels) are still available for anyone to buy at most Catholic book stores, as well as being available to read, online. But, it has not been updated since the 60’s, so some of it is out of date with the official 1992 Catholic Catechism.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, in the Americas there was always a Catechism for the education of children in Catholic schools, called the Baltimore Catechism, that was originally published in 1885 (as well as several others that were used in different parts of the world). Most books used in my own catechism classes (in our local parish) in the 60’s were all derived from that one. They were specifically created for educational purposes in Catholic schools.

In the late 60’s, it was no longer used in most parishes or schools, when the religious education of children was ‘modernized’ with less focus placed on learning about the Catholic Faith, itself. IMHO, that’s when the religious education of an entire generation of Catholics took a decidedly downward turn, and is the main reason why so many Catholics these days have such a poor knowledge of their own Faith. But, the Baltimore Catechisms (I think there are 4 levels) are still available for anyone to buy at most Catholic book stores, as well as being available to read, online. But, it has not been updated since the 60’s, so some of it is out of date with the official 1992 Catholic Catechism.

Right. And, by definition, the Baltimore Catechism was intended to be used in Baltimore - not elsewhere. I don’t think it was used in Canada very much.

 

[Trebor135]

I thought she was Marounite. My mistake.

From what I could tell, Wikipedia isn’t clear on what her religion was before converting to Greek Orthodoxy; interestingly, Fairouz had a Syrian Orthodox father.

Good Friday Lamentations
(youtube.com/watch?v=xdTm8JD1LV8)

Yaa Oum Alla
(youtube.com/watch?v=SrKPP4FU8fE&feature=related)

Thanks for these links. The music is inspiring and beautiful.

Yes, she’s certainly amazing. Who else do you listen to?

Please see post #3 of this thread; I hope you’ll be able to contribute artist names and song titles there as well.

 

[JustaServant]

Everything is in Latin except for the homily and the prayers after the Dismissal. Another feature of the Latin Mass is that no microphones are used, and the priest says the prayers of the Mass in a very soft voice, facing the Tabernacle (that is, with his back to the people) - so, even if they understood Latin, they would not be able to hear the prayers in any case.

The responses are said by the Altar servers; the congregation remains quiet, in most cases. (In some places there is the custom of having the congregation do the responses, but this is considered “innovative” in many Traditional circles.)

At St. Boniface in PIttsburgh they have a Latin Mass with participitory responses. I liked it as did my wife. The Latin is learned very quickly. I can’t imagine why anyone would object to that.

 

[jmcrae]

At St. Boniface in PIttsburgh they have a Latin Mass with participitory responses. I liked it as did my wife. The Latin is learned very quickly. I can’t imagine why anyone would object to that.

No one is objecting to learning Latin - only to the idea of lay people (particularly women and girls) speaking at all during Mass, even to say the responses in Latin.

 

[Stephen_W]

Here my friends in an opportunity to ask that question you’ve “alway’s” wnated to ask

God Bless,
Pat

Okay, several times durring Mass, a bell is rung. What does that signify?

Thanks…