Clothes at Mass

[catharina]

Sorry, but if you think the Holy Mass is a “meal” you are poorly catechized.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

• the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
• the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.
  the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.173

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."174

Again:

""The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form “one single act of worship”;172 the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.173

…

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples?

Do you use a different Catechism?

 

[catharina]

The new code of canon law is not entirely in conformity with what has always and everywhere been taught by all Catholics. If laws do not express Catholic doctrine, or express something contrary to it (ecumenism for example), then for serious reasons of Faith we may and should question and refuse them.

Please refrain from using uncharitable phrases such as “holier than Rome” when referring to those who refuse to be spoon fed error and novelty.

Some people feel free to break with the teachings of the Church if they decide that the Church 's teachings are not up to their standards - even though they have never and will never have the grace of office given to the Pontiff alone. I’ve chosen to console myself over these ruptures with the idea that such people must truly believe they are, in fact, holier than the Pope. If that is not so, then so be it. Few other motives exist for such blatant disagreement and disobedience: mental illness, confusion, misunderstanding, pride are some. Perhaps one of those?

 

[catharina]

Also form the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.“225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.”

“Eucharistic meal.” You can read that.

 

[LilyM]

How about this?

I am most comfortable in shorts and tee shirts. This is what is comfort for me and what I prefer. But when in God’s house my comfort and desire is not my first priority. It is what is modest, clean and respectful to the situation.

A FORMAL MEAL WITH MY LORD AND SAVIOR is worth the time and effort to dress like I respect the people I am eating with.

If I was dressing to impress others I would shop at the Mall fro my skirts, dresses and blouses. I shop the thrift stores and though I look nice no one can ever say I dress flashy.

Formal? I’d like to know where Jesus said it was formal. He said ‘take and eat’, not ‘dress code applies’

 

[laudamus_te]

Some people feel free to break with the teachings of the Church if they decide that the Church 's teachings are not up to their standards - even though they have never and will never have the grace of office given to the Pontiff alone. I’ve chosen to console myself over these ruptures with the idea that such people must truly believe they are, in fact, holier than the Pope. If that is not so, then so be it. Few other motives exist for such blatant disagreement and disobedience: mental illness, confusion, misunderstanding, pride are some. Perhaps one of those?

You are way out of line here. First of all, you are being mighty presumptious in accusing someone of being in “rupture” with the Church from a few posts on a forum. “Mental Illness?” Wow. You do have some nerve! Maybe that makes up for your lack of a clue about TRUE obedience to Holy Church.

 

[piouswoman]

I’m with you and piouswoman on this, too. I believe the tendency to fall back on the “God sees my interior disposition” is often an excuse to be lazy with one’s exterior disposition. And I think the exterior disposition is very important. We are to present ourselves to God, especially in His House, in our best possible outward appearance out of respect for Him, for we would certainly do so for exalted humans. It has been put forward here several times that one would put on his/her finest to visit a president or king, or more likely a pop star, but that seems to fly over the heads of some.

Yes, an excuse to be lazy with one’s exterior disposition, but more importantly, it is a result of being unaware of how deeply immersed in modernism one is, and an ignorance of the danger *of *that modernism. Traditional Catholicism is a totally different world of thought and action than what our society is about today. For one thing, it demands detachment from worldliness.
Traditional Catholicism and liberal modernism do not mix.

 

[piouswoman]

Some people feel free to break with the teachings of the Church if they decide that the Church 's teachings are not up to their standards - even though they have never and will never have the grace of office given to the Pontiff alone. I’ve chosen to console myself over these ruptures with the idea that such people must truly believe they are, in fact, holier than the Pope. If that is not so, then so be it. Few other motives exist for such blatant disagreement and disobedience: mental illness, confusion, misunderstanding, pride are some. Perhaps one of those?

This post should be noted by the moderators…this is truly vicious and uncalled for.

 

[laudamus_te]

Yes, an excuse to be lazy with one’s exterior disposition, but more importantly, it is a result of being unaware of how deeply immersed in modernism one is, and an ignorance of the danger of that modernism. Traditional Catholicism is a totally different world of thought and action than what our society is about today. For one thing, it demands detachment from worldliness.
Traditional Catholicism and liberal modernism do not mix.

Absolutely.

 

[catharina]

You are way out of line here. First of all, you are being mighty presumptious in accusing someone of being in “rupture” with the Church from a few posts on a forum. “Mental Illness?” Wow. You do have some nerve! Maybe that makes up for your lack of a clue about TRUE obedience to Holy Church.

Excuse me but when someone claims that he/she knows that “There are those that will argue, and rightfully so, that the error filled new Code of Canon Law, should never of replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law to begin with,” then yes, of course they are experinecing a rupture with Rome and Church teaching. Either one supports Church Teaching or one does not. It’s that simple.

When in addition one says “The new code of canon law is not entirely in conformity with what has always and everywhere been taught by all Catholics. If laws do not express Catholic doctrine, or express something contrary to it (ecumenism for example), then for serious reasons of Faith we may and should question and refuse them,” then it’s no surprise that one sounds exactly like a screaming liberal who puts personal conscience as an personal excuse for all things related to personal preference.

If you have just accused me of “presumption” and you seem to have done so, you might want to consiider examining your conscience regarding that accusation.

 

[catharina]

Really, I’ll end this discussion. If people disagree with the Code of Canon Law and are as unsupportive of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for their notion of catechesis, then I’m certain I’ve nothing to discuss with them that could lead to agreement.

PW and L-T, God bless you in your journeys.

 

[laudamus_te]

Excuse me but when someone claims that he/she knows that “There are those that will argue, and rightfully so, that the error filled new Code of Canon Law, should never of replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law to begin with,” then yes, of course they are experinecing a rupture with Rome and Church teaching. Either one supports Church Teaching or one does not. It’s that simple.

When in addition one says “The new code of canon law is not entirely in conformity with what has always and everywhere been taught by all Catholics. If laws do not express Catholic doctrine, or express something contrary to it (ecumenism for example), then for serious reasons of Faith we may and should question and refuse them,” then it’s no surprise that one sounds exactly like a screaming liberal who puts personal conscience as an personal excuse for all things related to personal preference.

If you have just accused me of “presumption” and you seem to have done so, you might want to consiider examining your conscience regarding that accusation.

Excuse ME, but perhaps you can provide some shred of evidence that ecumenism is in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching. I think it is humorous that you are accusing piouswoman of being a “screaming liberal.” “Personal preference” has nothing to do with recognizing the assault of modernism on our Church, and the refusal to accept the errors and atrocities that have burgeoned since VII. It is the Novus Ordo crowd who “puts personal conscience as personal excuse for all things related to personal preference.”

 

[piouswoman]

Either one supports Church Teaching or one does not. It’s that simple.

Blind obedience anyone?

 

[piouswoman]

Really, I’ll end this discussion. If people disagree with the Code of Canon Law and are as unsupportive of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for their notion of catechesis, then I’m certain I’ve nothing to discuss with them that could lead to agreement.

PW and L-T, God bless you in your journeys.

Pick up a copy of the Baltimore Catechism and compare it with the one in your hand…and remember this: the Catholic Church did not begin with Vatican II.

 

[laudamus_te]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

• the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
• the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.
  the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.173

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."174

Again:

""The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form “one single act of worship”;172 the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.173

…

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples?

Do you use a different Catechism?

Personally, I use that good old Baltimore Catechism. On the Mass:

LESSON 27 – The Sacrifice of the Mass
357. What is the Mass?
The Mass is the sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.
For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation. (Malachi 1:11)
358. What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone, and the destruction of it in some way to acknowledge that He is the Creator of all things.

1. Who is the principal priest in every Mass?
   The principal priest in every Mass is Jesus Christ, who offers to His heavenly Father, through the ministry of His ordained priest, His body and blood which were sacrificed on the cross.
   And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)

1. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?
   The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

1. What are the purposes for which the Mass is offered?
   The purposes for which the Mass is offered are: first, to adore God as our Creator and Lord; second, to thank God for His many favors; third, to ask God to bestow His blessings on all men; fourth, to satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against Him.

1. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
   The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood and was physically slain, while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.
   For we know that Christ, having risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over him. (Romans 6:9)

1. How should we assist at Mass?
   We should assist at Mass with reverence, attention, and devotion.

1. What is the best method of assisting at Mass?
   The best method of assisting at Mass is to unite with the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice, and to receive Holy Communion.

364A. How can we best unite with the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice?
We can best unite with the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice by joining in mind and heart with Christ, the principal Priest and Victim, by following the Mass in a missal, and by reciting or chanting the responses.

1. Who said the first Mass?
   Our Divine Savior said the first Mass, at the Last Supper, the night before He died.

Nothing about a “meal” there.

 

[piouswoman]

Wonderful post laudamus te…that should help some.

 

[ac_claire]

Wonderful post laudamus te…that should help some.

Well it helps show that the word “meal” doesn’t appear in that section of the BC. If that was your point all along, well done!

A family meal is one of the things that the mass is. Not primarily, not definitively. But it is the Lord’s Supper.

 

[piouswoman]

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."174

Why are they asking the reader questions? Shouldn’t the catechism of the Catholic Church teach?

Big problem with the “New” Catechism.

 

[catharina]

I definitely agree, modesty is in order, especially at Mass.

So long as one is modest and clean, though, I don’t think that one must necessarily dress in their very best clothes… then one runs the risk of coveting another’s clothes, or causing someone else to covet. The focus is Mass, after all, not what the family in the next pew is (or isn’t) wearing.

Returning to Page One of this thread, see above (Post #4).

 

[catharina]

Well it helps show that the word “meal” doesn’t appear in that section of the BC. If that was your point all along, well done!

A family meal is one of the things that the mass is. Not primarily, not definitively. But it is the Lord’s Supper.

Thank you for the clarification. I studied the Baltimore Catechism in the 1940s and 1950s and if the word was not in the Catechism, it was most definitely used in the teaching that took place.

 

[piouswoman]

Well it helps show that the the word “meal” doesn’t appear in that section of the BC. If that was your point all along, well done!

Definition of meal from Webster’s New World Dictionary
Meal, n.

1. any of the times, especially the customary times, for eating; breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc.
2. the food served or eaten at one time.

After reading this it should become crystal clear why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood Our Lord Jesus Christ should not be referred to as a “meal”.