Catholic Married? Pick two!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus_Power
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximus_Power

Guest
This is a hypothetical scenario to help me connect to what other Catholic families are doing and or thinking.

Say you live in a little two bedroom house and now youre expecting a second or third child. The time has come to move.

You can only choose two. What would they be?

Reverent parish with no liturgical abuse.

Large spacious home in a good neighborhood.

Good Catholic school that is serious about the faith.
 
I am single but if I could pick reverent parish would be high up there. I do wonder if there’d be a difference between what single people and those with families would choose in the hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
I’ve yet to encounter an irreverent parish with liturgical abuse. Even if I did, there’s generally 3 other parishes within a 15 to 20 minute drive. I presume if you’re going to have awesome Catholic school and spacious homes around, you’re living someplace with enough Catholics and thus enough parishes to have a selection.
 
Last edited:
I have no desire for a large spacious house. Too much upkeep.
Yes I’m married and a father.
 
A reverent parish (preferably Traditional) with no liturgical abuse. The Mass is the highest form of catechesis.
 
Ive grown up in the pacific northwest and have seen my fair share of ireverant parishs. I’m currently a parishoner of the Proto Cathedral of St James the Greater in downtown Vancouver and they are just terrific. Ad orientum, communion rales, centered tabernacle, Gregorian chant and pipeorgan music.
 
Yes, but parishes without those things are not irreverent. The parish nearest me has all of those elements—which is why I drive 20 extra minutes to a different parish.
 
My parish is determined by my address, as is everyone’s. We may attend a different parish, we might like Fr thus and such at St Other Parish for his homilies, however you are MEMBERS of the parish inside who’s boundaries you reside.

Parish schools tend to give parishioner discount to the active parish members, so, you pick the house based on the parish boundaries.
 
Luckily, my diocese requires schools with parishes to extend the ‘in parish’ discount to any student who lives in a parish without a school.
 
Debatable. Some parishs are obviously better than others. After all Catholics for choice and memebers of Dignity have to go somewhere that caters to them and thier tastes I however dont want this post to turn into a “Vatican two says this and 1960 liberal reformers did that,” kind of post.
 
It’s a pretty serious accusation to describe a parish as irreverent. A given parish may not be to your taste, but the things you described are not the defining characteristics of reverence.
 
Some people don’t like that kind of worship. Some prefer guitars, hymns, communion lines and EMHCs, etc.
 
It doesn’t matter what people prefer. It matters how God wants to be worshipped. Vatican two never called for tabernacle relocation, communion rail destruction, coom by yah music, ad orientum and Latin to be done away with.
 
Maximus_Power said:
Ive grown up in the pacific northwest and have seen my fair share of ireverant parishs. I’m currently a parishoner of the Proto Cathedral of St James the Greater in downtown Vancouver and they are just terrific. Ad orientum, communion rales, centered tabernacle, Gregorian chant and pipeorgan music.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing people drive there from a good distance away. I kind of doubt it affects real estate desirability except for parishioners who want to be able to walk to church.
 
The Church’s Ordinary Form of the Mass is validly celebrated with the priest facing the people and in English. The normative posture for receiving Communion in the US is standing, and in the hand.

That doesn’t mean people can’t attend Mass said in Latin, or receive on the tongue whilst kneeling—but it does mean people can attend a Mass that suits their individual preferences. And both are equally valid and should be presumed to be reverent.
 
And 50 years later, we are no longer singing Kumbaya (which is the actual spelling); as to the other issues, the Church has spoken to violations of the GIRM, and none of the issues of which you speak were addressed; nor is there any reason to presume they will be addressed any time soon, as none of them are violations.

Further, if you take the time to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, you will realize that the 2,147 bishops who voted in favor of it were not intending to, nor did they write a detailed item by item list of specific changes they wished to be made; it was an overview of directions they wanted the Church to take. And as noted, 4 Popes since then have not seen fit to address the issues you do not like. And God has not addressed those issues either; you might be surprised that a number of them, if not all, can be found world wide.

I am pleased that you have found a parish which you like, but your disdain for the vast majority of other parishes is transparent.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, OP, you have a lot of issues with Mass that the average Catholic doesn’t share. It seems like what you really want is a traditionalist parish. Would be better to express it that way, “traditionalist parish”, rather than “reverent parish with no liturgical abuse”. “Reverence” and “liturgical abuse” are highly subjective judgments and often, if not usually, just mean the person using the term doesn’t like the particular style of Mass, not that it is objectively irreverent or that it actually violates the GIRM.
 
Last edited:
I never said the churches ordinary form wasn’t validly celebrated. I’m not a donatist.

I’ll have disagree with you presumption of reverence for every single Catholic parish in the world. Will let God decide that one eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top