O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
(I wish these emoticons had size control that didn’t make them look bleery when enlarged.)
- Status
(I wish these emoticons had size control that didn’t make them look bleery when enlarged.)
T
THurifer2
Guest
The OP was comparing 40 years ago to today…Unless you think the world has less sin in it today then it is interesting and thought provoking as to why so many refrained in the past and no one refrains anymore. I go to confession weekly…I arrive at the begining of confession time and usually stay until Mass begins 99.9% of the time I am either alone or with the same familiar faces each week…I guess since its nobodys business…we can just assume that there is less Sin being committed now vs. 40 years ago. HUH?You haven’t seen all the posts about the horrors of the “Spirit of Vatican II” and all problems it caused? Or all the post on liturgical abuse? Maybe I spend too much time on hereJust browse through all the old threads and you will get your answers.
Everyone has an opinion on this topic.
T
THurifer2
Guest
The OP was comparing 40 years ago to today…Unless you think the world has less sin in it today then it is interesting and thought provoking as to why so many refrained in the past and no one refrains anymore. I go to confession weekly…I arrive at the begining of confession time and usually stay until Mass begins 99.9% of the time I am either alone or with the same familiar faces each week…I guess since its nobodys business…we can just assume that there is less Sin being committed now vs. 40 years ago. HUH?
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The OP here was simply an observation of how Catholic piety has changed in this area over the past 40 years. Do you remember when most faithful Catholics stayed in their pews at communion in most parishes?
Why do you think the custom has changed, and do you think its an improvement over the previous situation?
Personally, I don’t think its an improvement at all, for a couple of reasons. I believe there is less awareness of sin , and I think the current protocols have an effect of pressuring non-catholics and less observant Catholics to either receive when they ought not or absent themselves completely from the mass.
T
TMC
Guest
OK, I give up. You guys are right, everyone today is a sinner. That nice couple that sits behind me each and every Sunday with their kids only take the Eucharist because they don’t really believe in it at all. I know they SAY they do, but there pretty young so they are probably not holy like older folks.
Or maybe the emphasis on lay participation in the Mass after VII encourages more people to participate in Christ’s great gift. Maybe they don’t feel unworthy anymore because they better understand the great gift being offered. The better question may be, if all those people in the past really believed the Body of Christ was being offered, why didn’t they approach? Why did they regularly turn down this great gift. Do you think they all had mortal sins on their souls all the time?
Yes, I do think that today’s situation is better. And I will continue to assume my neighbor is free of mortal sin until such time as I am given to see men’s souls, and I fervently pray that day never comes.
A
Ankabaranka_87
Guest
did you ever try to mention to your friends when it is acceptable or not to receive communion? it’s impossible. you get all this opposing force against you. “well, i am not as conservative as you are”, etc etc. you try to help them and at least notify them what the Church teaches, and they attack. this is at least what my age group (i’m 20 years old) do.
i admit though, i was one of those types who would receive the eucharists needless of the sin… a few years ago. then i went to this ‘religious camp’ for one week…and boy, the people were conservative. it was very much like pre-Vatican II style.
one thing that i will not ever forget is when my good friend (somewhat religious ) asked me why i didnt go up to get the eucharist
uch: i was dumbfounded. what do you say to that?
i admit though, i was one of those types who would receive the eucharists needless of the sin… a few years ago. then i went to this ‘religious camp’ for one week…and boy, the people were conservative. it was very much like pre-Vatican II style.
one thing that i will not ever forget is when my good friend (somewhat religious ) asked me why i didnt go up to get the eucharist
uch: i was dumbfounded. what do you say to that?
H
Holland
Guest
I’m sorry the answers upset you so. The original question I posted was an honest observation from someone over 50. You asked some good questions. I can answer one of them. The nuns taught us, in my parish, that if it had been awhile since we had been to Confession and we had a lot of sins to confess and we felt unworthy to receive we could make that decision. We were also taught not to receive if we had committed a mortal sin. I have no idea if that was correct teaching for that period of time or not. The one thing you can’t deny is the fact that few people go to Confession anymore. I go about once a month and there might be a couple other people but that’s it. When I was young there was always a line at Confession. People felt a need for the Sacrement of Confession. Just as we see people flooding to the front of the Church to receive the Eucharist we should also find a way to ignite peoples need for the Sacrement of Confession.
T
TMC
Guest
No, I apologize. My remarks were intemperate and uncharitable. I get annoyed because I see so many comments here that seem to me to be declaring the commenter a better Catholic than his neighbors. This week’s Gospel reminded me of this. But I also know that by reacting to my perception of others’ attitude with annoyance I am taking on the role of the hypocritical Pharisee looking down on others with my own standards.
I would submit that one the lesson of this week’s Gospel is that no one is entitled to look down upon the sanctity of others. I am trying to observe that lesson better.
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
You are a very astute and eloquent Gen Xer.As a cynical Gen Xer…I place the blame squarely on the Boomers
Juuuust kidding…sorta
B
blessedtoo
Guest
What I find interesting in your knee-jerk response to this thread is that you immediately assumed the posters were judging others. For myself, this was most certainly not the case. When I returned to the Church after 30 years, I was not worried or concerned about the state of other’s souls. But through natural observation of my surroundings, and trying to get a sense of what the Catholic Church was like in the 21st century, it became painfully obvious that I was either the biggest sinner in the Church or the biggest fool. I wasn’t thinking about the others, but rather thinking about what I might be doing wrong that I was refraining from receiving the Eucharist. After realizing the Church teaching had not changed and that I was, in fact, not properly disposed to receive, I naturally wondered how it was possible that every one else in the Church has managed to remain free of sin while I could not. When I started going to Confession regularly and noticing how few were there with me, I again questioned what I might be doing wrong, that I was such a great sinner that I couldn’t manage to go a few weeks without a fall while for everyone else it appeared effortless.
So the question remains: were we all just bigger sinners 45 years ago? Considering how our culture has eroded and how sin is hardly ever mentioned even in our own Churches, it seems only natural that we should have questions like this.
P
palmas85
Guest
No we weren’t bigger sinners, we were just more conscious of sin as a personal thing and a personal choice… Many these days see sin as primarily societal not personal in nature. Therefore if we gather as a community and communally ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven as a community. Strange concept but one that many people have these days. Another aspect is the increasing belief that one is just not responsible for their own actions. I’ve been roundly criticized on this forum for suggesting that people make their own choices whether to sin or not. The prevailing view seems to be that outside circumstances and events in ones life determine whether or not our behavior is sinful or not. It(sin) can be explained away and even nullified by outside events. The aspect of choosing to sin is pretty much ignored and dismissed by many of our more progressive thinkers.
And I think that is just plain wrong.
D
davy39
Guest
A very good post and very true. Our priest mentioned a few weeks ago, that people don’t believe they need to confess their sins, or else he has a parish full of saints on his hands. He then finished his homily on how important frequent confession is. I, too remember the old days when not everybody received Holy Communion. I think there are a lot of people that do not believe that Holy Communion is really the Body and Blood of Jesus. Very sad!
B
brianwalden
Guest
I think different people respond differently to this post based on their experiences.
When I read the OP’s remark, I got the feeling that they had been in a position where there conscience was telling them that they should not receive communion but the actions of everyone around them told them that they should.
If you’ve never been in the position of not receiving communion at Mass, try it at a big Sunday Mass. No matter what method you try to let people by you it’s awkward. The occurrence of someone not going up for communion is so rare that the people around you don’t know how to react. If you stay seated they pause uneasily to see if you just weren’t paying attention and hadn’t realized it was your turn yet before reluctantly climbing over you. If you step out of the pew they think you’re just being polite in letting them go first so they motion for you to go and you have to explain that you’re letting them out because you aren’t going up. Then as you’re the only one sitting there surrounded by empty rows of pews you feel like the whole church is watching you. I know that objectively there’s no reason to feel that way, but it’s basic human nature when you’re standing out in that large of a group. There’s just a lot of cognitive dissonance between your conscience and what all your senses are telling you to do.
Maybe in Pre-Vatican II days the problem was the opposite and too many people refrained from receiving the Eucharist when they did not need to. If that was the case it needed to be fixed. But statistics alone (such as the number of Catholics who do not follow “controversial” teachings vs. the number of people in line for confession on Saturday) suggest that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Making such an argument doesn’t mean we’re judging the individuals at Mass with us. Indeed it would be wrong to do so. But it also would be wrong to ignore a problem if it exists. I think the problem here isn’t so much with individuals as it is with education. Catholics aren’t properly catechized; I would bet that most people who receive when they shouldn’t do so out of ignorance rather than obstinacy.
When I read the OP’s remark, I got the feeling that they had been in a position where there conscience was telling them that they should not receive communion but the actions of everyone around them told them that they should.
If you’ve never been in the position of not receiving communion at Mass, try it at a big Sunday Mass. No matter what method you try to let people by you it’s awkward. The occurrence of someone not going up for communion is so rare that the people around you don’t know how to react. If you stay seated they pause uneasily to see if you just weren’t paying attention and hadn’t realized it was your turn yet before reluctantly climbing over you. If you step out of the pew they think you’re just being polite in letting them go first so they motion for you to go and you have to explain that you’re letting them out because you aren’t going up. Then as you’re the only one sitting there surrounded by empty rows of pews you feel like the whole church is watching you. I know that objectively there’s no reason to feel that way, but it’s basic human nature when you’re standing out in that large of a group. There’s just a lot of cognitive dissonance between your conscience and what all your senses are telling you to do.
Maybe in Pre-Vatican II days the problem was the opposite and too many people refrained from receiving the Eucharist when they did not need to. If that was the case it needed to be fixed. But statistics alone (such as the number of Catholics who do not follow “controversial” teachings vs. the number of people in line for confession on Saturday) suggest that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Making such an argument doesn’t mean we’re judging the individuals at Mass with us. Indeed it would be wrong to do so. But it also would be wrong to ignore a problem if it exists. I think the problem here isn’t so much with individuals as it is with education. Catholics aren’t properly catechized; I would bet that most people who receive when they shouldn’t do so out of ignorance rather than obstinacy.
F
Fergal
Guest
I suggest a good slow read of the following excellent document.
A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS
by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.
It can be found at jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS
by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.
It can be found at jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
H
Holland
Guest
B
brianwalden
Guest
Umm… What does this article have to do with this discussion?
By the way, I’m a supporter of the Novus Ordo when it’s celebrated as the Fathers of Vatican II intended but I can’t even go along with this article. It says it is heretical to translate “pro multis” as “for many.” “For all” refers to the way that Christ’s sacrifice is for all of humanity; “for many” refers to the fact that while many will be saved not all will accept the salvation which Jesus offers. At most the decision over which translation to use at Mass is a political one (or you could just use Latin and not have to make a decision), but it’s certainly not a moral question involving heresy. This article basically says that Cardinal Arinze has heretical beliefs concerning the translation of pro multis. I’m not buying it.
F
Fergal
Guest
Part of my above post was missing so here it is again! It was in response to ‘Dauphin’ in post #2 He said
I suggest a good slow read of the following excellent document.
A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS
by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.
It can be found at jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
Sorry for the confusion!
I reply…
I suggest a good slow read of the following excellent document.
A DEFENCE OF THE PAULINE MASS
by John N. Lupia, Ph. D.
It can be found at jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
Sorry for the confusion!
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
B
brianwalden
Guest
I don’t see why people are objecting to this statement. Mass must be understood as both a sacrifice and a meal. Dauphin is exactly right that this emphasis on the meal with the community over the sacrifice of Calvary is a cause of abuse at Mass. I don’t deny that there are people who emphasize the sacrifice at the expense of the meal - which is also wrong - but we’re Catholic we must hold firmly to both. The meaning of Mass is in this mystery.
- Status