N
netmilsmom
Guest
Got some documentation on that?
That a Bishop can change the litugy?
- Status
That a Bishop can change the litugy?
N
ncjohn
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Unfortunately, much of the discussion here is specifically insulting. Commenting about grabbing private parts or picking noses, making ridiculous statements about people being punched and assaulted for not participating, referring to people as “whacky liberals” because they see a legitimate devotion, etc, are all condescending and insulting and lend nothing but “heat” to the discussion. Implying that people are out to destroy the Church because they reach out in love goes beyond being insulting.
Discussion for the sake of improving how we deal with each other and prevent legitimate abuses is fine. Discussion for the sake of dividing or deriding the devotion of our brothers and sisters has no place in a Catholic forum in my humble opinion.
Maybe you really don’t want unity; I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong to keep trying to promote charity. Everything I read in the gospels from Jesus himself though says to me that those were high goals for Him. Maybe you see me as “the enemy” for wanting us to be able to get along; if so, I don’t know what else to say. I’ll welcome you at my parish anyway if you show up…and I promise not to take your hand if you don’t want me to, although I will wish you peace and pray for you whether you want me to or not.
Peace be with you all,
I have no problem with discussion. I do have a problem with people using insult, derogation, and division, and what I am addressing is acting like grown-ups in the way we address this. That includes recognizing that at least at this time it legitimately exists and figuring out how to charitably live together in light of that. Whether one personally approves of it or not, or whether one personally wants to participate, getting “superior” or casting aspersions on anyone else’s piety or devotion for their choice in the matter is neither “grown up” nor Christian.
Unfortunately, much of the discussion here is specifically insulting. Commenting about grabbing private parts or picking noses, making ridiculous statements about people being punched and assaulted for not participating, referring to people as “whacky liberals” because they see a legitimate devotion, etc, are all condescending and insulting and lend nothing but “heat” to the discussion. Implying that people are out to destroy the Church because they reach out in love goes beyond being insulting.
Discussion for the sake of improving how we deal with each other and prevent legitimate abuses is fine. Discussion for the sake of dividing or deriding the devotion of our brothers and sisters has no place in a Catholic forum in my humble opinion.
Maybe you really don’t want unity; I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong to keep trying to promote charity. Everything I read in the gospels from Jesus himself though says to me that those were high goals for Him. Maybe you see me as “the enemy” for wanting us to be able to get along; if so, I don’t know what else to say. I’ll welcome you at my parish anyway if you show up…and I promise not to take your hand if you don’t want me to, although I will wish you peace and pray for you whether you want me to or not.
Peace be with you all,
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
As you said in an earlier post regarding the use of orans, “it is up to the bishop to give permission.” I assume you were alluding to some measure of authority on the bishop’s part to give such permission.
I don’t mean that they change the text of the liturgy. However, there are a number of adaptations they can make. I don’t have any documentation at the moment, but I will find some. In the meantime, I should point out that the intensified statement from the section in Sacrosanctum Concilium which you quoted is “not even a priest”, yet a priest is certainly not the highest authority. This implies to me that perhaps a bishop can do so at some level, since the bishop of a diocese is over the priest.
As you said in an earlier post regarding the use of orans, “it is up to the bishop to give permission.” I assume you were alluding to some measure of authority on the bishop’s part to give such permission.
T
thistle
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
That wasn’t sarcasm. It was simply a disgusting remark which is on public view for the younger members of the forum who should not be exposed to this kind of talk.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
But stating that I am more Christian than you is also insulting. Just as stating that traditional Catholics need help in to be “socially charitable” is insulting.
Sugar coating an insult does not make it easier to swallow. Insulting with a smile is still an insult.
Neither group of people here are on the moral high ground, but those who are openly sarcastic at least admit to it.
I’ve stated many times here that if we were given a liturgy that meet our expectations of being Historically Catholic, we will be less agressive about stating how much we dislike the innovations and presenting the documentation to prove it.
As I said before, my home parish did just that. The traditional mass at 9, the innovative mass at 10:30. Everyone was happy. We are not offered that, just the innovations in many areas.
You can feel that I am your enemy, that I am divisive and that is your right but until both sides give, we will be divided. Halfway is halfway, not three-quarters. While we have liturgical committees and DREs promoting innovations as correct and frowning on those things historically Catholic, it’s three-quarters.
Maybe I’m just not as Christian as you, or maybe I’m historically Catholic enough to fight for those traditions.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
The Pope is our Pope and our Bishop is our Bishop. If we don’t respect them in the changes they make, the changes they don’t make, and the timeframe they take, we don’t respect them. And when respect is gone, you might as well be Protestant.
And maybe those of us who are “traditional” should take comfort that we have a Pope who has expressed many times that some reforms have gone to far and need to be corrected rather than “coming out” with statements that appear to be gloating and have a tone of “we have put up w/ this **** for years and now you are going to get yours. If you don’t like, it leave.”
The Pope is our Pope and our Bishop is our Bishop. If we don’t respect them in the changes they make, the changes they don’t make, and the timeframe they take, we don’t respect them. And when respect is gone, you might as well be Protestant.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
I agree with you.
I have stated that we have put up with this for years and I will admit that I have also stated that things appear to me to be changing toward the more traditional because of B16, but I think that it is rude to tell someone to leave if they don’t like it, to leave.
THAT is what I lived through at my old “Catholic Community”. The sweet smile from the DRE as she stated that she, “Didn’t understand people like me.” or hurried out in disgust when a friend of mine started doing the Rosary for Vocations after mass. Talk about dividing!
Like I stated, 50/50. Have the innovative mass but make sure that we have an Historically Catholic one two. At least SOMEWHERE in the Vicariate.
N
ncjohn
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
As to having insulted anyone, when you asked the question about what I meant I explained exactly what I meant and apologized for any misunderstanding. As you have correctly noted several times, my statement was to the effect that in general, from my experience at MY parish and from the Traditionalist literature that I have read, that the V2 Catholics needed to HELP the Traditionalists toward more peace and justice involvement, just as the Traditionalists need to help some V2 Catholics toward a better prayer life. I commend you and your parish on what you’ve done, and acknowledged that there are probably many parishes like that. However, according to what I’m reading from the Traditionalist side, the trend is toward a pre-V2 personal piety that believed that peace and justice work was the job of the religious and the missionary. I also see posted in these forums numerous times how “peace and justice work” is just a code word for liberals to change the Church, which reinforces the idea. I meant no insult, as I clearly stated, and seek only to bring all of the Body of Christ together to bring about the kingdom. For that I will not apologize.
I don’t mind if you want to disapprove of me for what I believe, but please attack me for what I actually believe, not some straw man that is contrary to everything I’ve posted, or the beliefs of some other person or group.
I personally consider no one here “the enemy” which is why I continue to try to bring peace and an ability to love each other for the devotion and gifts we bring to the Body. I too have many other things I could be doing, but in my idealistic way consider Catholic unity worth working for. In spite of all this back and forth, I still think that deep down you look for the same thing. Our worship style preferences don’t need to be identical, but we do need to be able to accomodate the legitimate differences charitably, which is what I read you to say above, and with which I totally agree.
Peace,
And I think I have agreed with you pretty much across the board here, which is why I don’t understand why I get treated like I’m the enemy and I’m out to destroy the Church.
As to having insulted anyone, when you asked the question about what I meant I explained exactly what I meant and apologized for any misunderstanding. As you have correctly noted several times, my statement was to the effect that in general, from my experience at MY parish and from the Traditionalist literature that I have read, that the V2 Catholics needed to HELP the Traditionalists toward more peace and justice involvement, just as the Traditionalists need to help some V2 Catholics toward a better prayer life. I commend you and your parish on what you’ve done, and acknowledged that there are probably many parishes like that. However, according to what I’m reading from the Traditionalist side, the trend is toward a pre-V2 personal piety that believed that peace and justice work was the job of the religious and the missionary. I also see posted in these forums numerous times how “peace and justice work” is just a code word for liberals to change the Church, which reinforces the idea. I meant no insult, as I clearly stated, and seek only to bring all of the Body of Christ together to bring about the kingdom. For that I will not apologize.
I don’t mind if you want to disapprove of me for what I believe, but please attack me for what I actually believe, not some straw man that is contrary to everything I’ve posted, or the beliefs of some other person or group.
I personally consider no one here “the enemy” which is why I continue to try to bring peace and an ability to love each other for the devotion and gifts we bring to the Body. I too have many other things I could be doing, but in my idealistic way consider Catholic unity worth working for. In spite of all this back and forth, I still think that deep down you look for the same thing. Our worship style preferences don’t need to be identical, but we do need to be able to accomodate the legitimate differences charitably, which is what I read you to say above, and with which I totally agree.
Peace,
N
netmilsmom
Guest
John please look at what I wrote…
“But stating that I am more Christian than you is also insulting. Just as stating that traditional Catholics need help in to be “socially charitable” is insulting.
Sugar coating an insult does not make it easier to swallow. Insulting with a smile is still an insult.
Neither group of people here are on the moral high ground, but those who are openly sarcastic at least admit to it.”
Note how it says either group, not “you” or “me”.
In some ways we are exactly the same and I could see us meeting for coffee and donuts as I left the traditional mass and you came to the innovative one. That is what we should be working for, the idea of educating those in power to the needs of all Catholics. That the Orans and Handholding are innovations. They may be allowed but should not be encouraged at EVERY mass. It’s not hard to accomodate us all.
When we get our needs met, I will champion yours. And you know how militant I can be.
M
MrS
Guest
**Holding Hands at the Our Father?
**ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? – T.P., Milford, Maine
A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.
The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.
The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.
**Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
**
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended – **so they at least should not hold hands.
**
One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.
The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.
The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.
For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.
A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.
In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.
Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
**ROME, NOV. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Many say we should not be holding hands in the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer because it is not a community prayer but a prayer to “Our Father.” Local priests say that since the Vatican has not specifically addressed it, then we are free to do as we please: either hold hands or not. What is the true Roman Catholic way in which to recite the Lord’s Prayer during Mass? – T.P., Milford, Maine
A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.
The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.
The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.
**Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.
**
While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended – **so they at least should not hold hands.
**
One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element.
The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.
The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer’s God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning.
For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.
A different case is the practice in which some people adopt the “orantes” posture during the Our Father, praying like the priest, with hands extended.
In some countries, Italy, for example, the Holy See has granted the bishops’ request to allow anyone who wishes to adopt this posture during the Our Father. Usually about a third to one-half of the assembled faithful choose to do so.
Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
N
ncjohn
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Peace,
You have referenced my statements and my specific post on several occasions in quotes, with direct statements that I was being condescending and insulting, even if not by name. The direct statement may not have been made here, but it is in addition to all the other references. I would join in your dismay if I had actually said what you have been referencing, but like I said, I prefer to be disapproved of for what I actually said. I forgive you though fully understanding that you took my words that way even if I didn’t mean them that way.
I fully agree and can’t think of anything I would enjoy more. I’ve told you before how much I admire your persistence. I just want us to work together for the common good instead of sniping at each other. I have too much respect for you to do that, and would hope over time that I can earn that kind of respect from you and those who seek the more Traditional style. I have no axe to grind with Traditionalism as long as we can recognize that there are other ways too. For the last time (at least in this post, hehehe) I’ll say that we just need to charitably learn how to allow each other space and not need to force our preferences on each other.
Peace,
N
ncjohn
Guest
MrS said:
I think those are mostly valid points, especially the danger of it being considered obligatory. I have often in these many threads stated that I believe that priests need to make clear to the assembly that it is not obligatory, even if it is the norm within that parish.
I don’t personally see any danger of holding hands encouraging a more horizontal meaning. The Mass itself, and certainly the Eucharist, is a vertical prayer, but they are done in communion so there unquestionably is a horizontal aspect to it. Emphasizing our communal prayer to Our Father to me is a very appropriate symbol. I certainly have no quarrel however with those who don’t agree and prefer it as a solitary prayer.
In the end, to me it’s kind of like the old question about which Bible is “the best.” The best Bible is the one that you’ll actually read instead of letting it sit on the shelf. Similarly, in this case, the best was is the way that you feel most connected to God.
Please understand though that even as I say that I’m only talking within these “established” bounds and not suggesting that we should be free to just start inventing more new ways. I tend to think that if this was a new phenomenon that hadn’t already come into common practice that it would be stopped, just as any new type probably would be now. The fact that it has been around so long though and is in common practice makes it much more difficult to just “kill” it since so many of us identify with it and find it so meaningful.
Thanks for that post! I also found the section on the Orans very informative since it makes more clear the Vatican’s position on that.
Peace,
N
ncjohn
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
You are a sneaky little temptress! http://bestsmileys.com/lol/17.gif
I just realized you’re trying to get me to break my fast on the way to Mass!
You are a sneaky little temptress! http://bestsmileys.com/lol/17.gif
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
At my church, you can eat almost up to the time of the beginning of mass and still not break the hour-fast rule, due both to our great enjoyment of singing and the pastor’s fondness for extensive sermons.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Ooooooo, guess we need 2 hours between those masses!
S
Servus_Pio_XII
Guest
This is where I pipe up:
Charitable is defined as making a point in a way which is not an insult to the person.
Charitable is NOT becoming a touchy-feely Protestantised, “let’s agree to disagree”, “Oh, well, at least we’re both Christian” person. It is simply meaning that one should be honest, patient, fair and keep their temper.
Now, unless “Hand Holding…eww!” is a direct affront to you (which it isn’t), it is not a matter of charitibility, but of his opinion.
In fact, your comment: “what happened to ‘love your neighbour’?” borders upon judgemental. Simply because he rejects a gesture, you immediately assume that he holds malice against the person next to him in Mass.
This ticks me off more than anything else:
When a liberal says something; anything, in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, it is acceptable, no matter what “it” happens to be. When a traditionalist retorts with two millenia of Church teaching behind him, but it is an affront to the liberalistic view of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, they label it-however distant-as a personal insult, call it “uncharitable” and leave their rebuttal at that.
F
Fidelis
Guest
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with this hand-holding nonsense. We have gone from a touchy-feely non-mandated act that started out somewhere as a local custom, and it has become something that if you don’t choose to join in, it’s an act of churlishness and uncharitableness!!
From the GIRM:
Frankly, I am astounded that people go to so much trouble to defend any un-mandated action that, effectively, forces other people, willing or not, to participate. If someone wants to individually whirl like a dervish or bounce on one foot, or pick their I-don’t-know-what and it makes them feel holier to do so during Mass, then go for it. But for goodness sakes, just because it makes you feel good, don’t insist on promoting an un-mandated practice that makes others feel like boors if they don’t feel the same way about it and decline to play along.
From the GIRM:
Aside from the fact that it is not called for in the rubrics, there are many reasons why people object to holding hands during the Our Father. For many people, hand-holding is a very personal action shared with those who are very close–spouses, lovers, parents and children. To be forced to participate or appear hopelessly churlish is unfair and embarrassing to them. A person who does not wish to hold hands in a congregation of people who have come to fully expect everyone to hold hands, is forced to take a perceptively negative action, i.e. actively declining to hold hands. This marks that person out as an unfriendly boor when, ironically, all they are doing is declining to participate in an act that is not even required! What about the objection “At Mass we are all supposed to be one big family anyway; we should be able to show the love we are supposed to feel.” Well, that is the express purpose of “the kiss of peace” before Holy Communion. In some cultures, a fraternal gesture is literally a kiss. In the Orient, it is a polite bow. In our culture, it is a friendly shaking of hands. To go from a more intimate expression of love (holding hands) to a less intimate (a handshake) does not make any sense. If someone wants to hold hands with their spouse or kids during the Our Father, more power to them. When the entire congregation automatically goes into the stretch across the pews mode at the invitation to pray, it becomes intrusive and presumptive.
Frankly, I am astounded that people go to so much trouble to defend any un-mandated action that, effectively, forces other people, willing or not, to participate. If someone wants to individually whirl like a dervish or bounce on one foot, or pick their I-don’t-know-what and it makes them feel holier to do so during Mass, then go for it. But for goodness sakes, just because it makes you feel good, don’t insist on promoting an un-mandated practice that makes others feel like boors if they don’t feel the same way about it and decline to play along.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Wow! Well said.
S
spiritblows
Guest
A lot of this is a boundries issue, IMO. The general rule of thumb is don’t touch unless invited. Our legal system also acknowledges that unwanted touching is a no no. So, I think it’s always better to err on the side of not touching, unless you are absolutely certain that it is a wanted touch, which you can’t be unless you know the person or they tell you. You can’t just assume that other people are on the same wavelength as you regarding this.
Obviously, this is evidenced by the depth of feelings expressed on this thread. I’m afraid, though, the touchy feelies are the ones on shaky grounds on this issue.
I find it interesting that the touchy feely folk, who tend to consider themselves more ‘inclusive’ ‘tolerant’ and perhaps more liberal, are so adament about this being enjoyed by all. It’s the touchers that are imposing themselves and their preferences on others in many parishes, not the non touchers. Think about it.
Obviously, this is evidenced by the depth of feelings expressed on this thread. I’m afraid, though, the touchy feelies are the ones on shaky grounds on this issue.
I find it interesting that the touchy feely folk, who tend to consider themselves more ‘inclusive’ ‘tolerant’ and perhaps more liberal, are so adament about this being enjoyed by all. It’s the touchers that are imposing themselves and their preferences on others in many parishes, not the non touchers. Think about it.
M
Monica37
Guest
Sorry, just have to add my 2 cents. I have read a lot of the posts and I see both sides. I, personally am a traditionalist, but that doesn’t mean that I want to take away the NO from anyone who finds that fulfilling. My issue is that there is a severe lack of opportunity for those of us who are more comfortable (and would like to raise our children in the Latin Rite) with the traditional Mass. As I have said before, my family is stuck in KY (not exactly Catholic country) and cannot get to a TLM. I have talked to quite a few young families in my parrish who said they would love the opportunity to experience the TLM, but it is just not available here. Our pastor has expressed to me that he has no interest in the Latin Rite. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t see why there cannot not be more opportunity for all of us.
Now, mind you, this same pastor learned to say the Mass in Spanish. We also have several parrishes that have Korean, Viet Namese, etc. If we keep separating the congregation based on different languages doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a Universal church? I know that because I don’t go to the Masses in different languages, I miss out on opportunities to interact with my Catholic brothers and sisters in my own community. This is why when the Mass was said in Latin, everyone could attend the same Mass and have time together after Mass.
I also had a friend of mine go to China recently and said he did not attend Mass there (yes, he found a Catholic church there) because he would not have understood them. He said if it was in Latin, no problem. Sorry to ramble and I hope that I have not offended anyone. Please know that it was not my intent, only to state my opinion and frustration.
Now, mind you, this same pastor learned to say the Mass in Spanish. We also have several parrishes that have Korean, Viet Namese, etc. If we keep separating the congregation based on different languages doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a Universal church? I know that because I don’t go to the Masses in different languages, I miss out on opportunities to interact with my Catholic brothers and sisters in my own community. This is why when the Mass was said in Latin, everyone could attend the same Mass and have time together after Mass.
I also had a friend of mine go to China recently and said he did not attend Mass there (yes, he found a Catholic church there) because he would not have understood them. He said if it was in Latin, no problem. Sorry to ramble and I hope that I have not offended anyone. Please know that it was not my intent, only to state my opinion and frustration.
- Status