Mass--Too much change?

[buffalo]

palmas85:

Hi Carole, to answer your questions simply, yes. I have read quite a few, not all, but then no one probably has, documents that came out of Vatican II . Unfortunately, as you WELL KNOW most of the changes that were thriust upon the faithful did not come in decrees from that council. No it was instead the desire for change on the part of certain groups within the Church that took the freedom to experiment in the way that Vatican II encouraged The council itself actually gets a pass on this one Carole.

The examples that I gave have happened. I was at the one with the plastic bucket, in occured in South Texas, in if I remember correctly 1991 or 1992. We had a charming group of Sisters, I use the term loosely, who ran things in our area due to a shortage of Priests, another of the fruits of Vatican II I guess. The rationale behind the bucket was that Jesus was poor, and worked with the poor and the Poor would not have had access to Chalices and that if Christ was walking the earth today he would use the simplest containers possible, for example, plastic cups, buckets and plates

Raisin bread was confected by a group of school children during CCIC, I believe that is what it is called these days, Catechism, as I recall it, in Milwaukee Wisconsin in 2002. Their instructor allegedly said that all of Gods gifts should and could be used in the Celebration of the Mass. Why limit the host to plain flour and water? This has happened in many locations, and no not just raisin bread, but all different types of bread.

Tampering with the matter for the host is a serious and ongoing problem, would you not agree Carole? After all the Church has specific guidelines on what can and cannot be used to make the bread. But then again, maybe that too will be changed. Plain unleavened bread can be quite tasteless you know and even deadly to some people The beer was used rather extensively in masses in Europe throughout the 80’s and 90’s, and in various “Polka Masses” here in the U.S. Of course, they might not be doing it anymore, but rest assured they did. And I plead guilty to using the brand name Budweiser. I don’t know for a fact if Bud was used or not :crying: But if you’re going to use beer I say Bud is the way to go!!!

As far as everyone being a saint, well, just look around. Ten people at confession, 1,000 people receive communion. We must be in the company of Saints. But then again most saints did confess and regularly too I might add, so maybe we’re not all saints. But tell you what, I won’t tell anybody if you don"t. Wouldn’t want to show a lack of charity by pointing out the truth would we?

I’m not an expert in the Israelites passage to the promised land, but as I recall,. they began to worship Idols at some point. Maybe that had more to do with their problems then their grumbling. Who knows. As I recall the first commandment had something to do with not worshiping other Gods or something like that. You know, something old that probably needed changing and modernization. After all, their needs were probably not being met out there in the desert. And experimentation is all right, isn’t it Carole? Oh and by the way, they did not fail to reach the Promised Land. Moses did not make it there, but the Israelites did. If they didn’t make it there, there is a good posssibility that the entire Christian faith never would have been born, As you may or may not know, Christ Jesus, Mary and Joseph were all Jews and Christ was born in Bethlehem, which is in Israel, which is the Promised Land. Had the Israelites not reached it, Christ would not have been born there.

Oh and Carole your condescending tone, is as so many have used the words on this forum, lacking in Charity.

The way I see it - the Mass changes are really corrections of intended and unintended abuses that were not authorized by VII.

The attitutude of Let us see where the Spirit blows - well we can see where it blew and where it is blowing now. It is redirecting us toward othodoxy much to the chagrine of many.

 

[palmas85]

buffalo:

The way I see it - the Mass changes are really corrections of intended and unintended abuses that were not authorized by VII.

The attitutude of Let us see where the Spirit blows - well we can see where it blew and where it is blowing now. It is redirecting us toward othodoxy much to the chagrine of many.

You know Buffalo. I truly hope so. In fact I’ve prayed so for years.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Palmas,

First of all, I am truly sorry my post appeared to you as condescending and lacking charity, but if you read it a second time, you may reconsider, I hope.

Carole:

It sometimes happens that those who dissent are simply not understanding sufficiently the reasons for change. Maybe if you used some true examples that were not overstated, we might be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the problems — and maybe not.

We had a good dialog elsewhere and I thought you knew how much I hoped to diffuse misunderstandings — I said as much in the above quote, that maybe we can help with problems, maybe not. I asked for more specific examples since the very ones you gave seemed to be an example of hyperbole, rather than reality.

According to your reply, you have observed one example about 13 or 14 years ago, and another about 3 years ago. As for beer being used in the 1980’s in Europe, what can I say except to ask you why an alleged abuse in another country 25 years ago has any bearing on the Mass as we celebrate it today in our country? One might get the idea from your post that these examples are prevalent, going on all the time, and driving you nuts! That is why I asked for clarification. As it now stands, it does appear like a gripe having no current foundation.

I posted somewhere in the Liturgy section an example of how the VII documents can be misunderstood if all one does is go to the Web and read them, without examining the full text of instructions that clarified the documents. These wrong ideas due to insufficient information are often the very basis for controversy and division, and my hope is always aimed toward unity through understanding.
If not through understanding, at least for acceptance and tolerance of one another’s choice of worship.

There is an old saying that goes, “That which is received, is received according to the mode of the receiver.” There were a lot of people in Jesus’s day who thought he had a devil, because of deficiencies in their own hearts, and they were incapable of attributing charity to His words. You might want to rethink how you received my words.

I would greatly welcome further dialog with you if you are able to receive from me without misunderstanding my motives.

Carole

 

[the_phoenix]

pira114:

Is it just my Church? Is it just me? I go to Mass now, and my wife and I don’t know what’s going on half the time. My Church has now started telling people to stand after Communion even though the Tabernacle is still inside the Church. I still kneel and I get weird looks from people.

If you visit the Vatican website that I’m going to furnish you with below, you’ll find a real eye-opener revealed in a handful of words, a mere unfinished sentence. Sister Lucia, one of the three visionaries who saw Mary appear at Fátima, records the following in her memoirs: **"In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc. …”. **

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Father Robert J. Fox, who was in charge of the youth group I travelled with to visit Fátima, spoke these words to us back in 1980. He added, “There’s no guarantee that the dogma of the faith will be preserved in America as Our Lady promised it will be in Portugal.”

His tone of voice seemed to indicate that we who had come to Portugal were his hope for the future, and that he trusted us to do as much as we each personally could to protect and preserve the dogma of the Church in union with the Pope, while we were pilgrims on this earth making our way towards heaven. During the beautiful sunny summer weather of Portugal, Father Robert J. Fox led us downstairs into the basement of the Domus Pacis building and gave us talks on grace, on hell, on the errors of modernism, on what to do if you are faced with a priest who is disobedient to a bishop, or a bishop who is disobedient to the Pope.

And how were we to be Father Fox’s hope for the future … what did he want from us? The same things Our Lady of Fátima requested: a daily Rosary, wearing the scapular, offering up each day in reparation for sin and for the conversion of sinners. To the extent I have done these things, some benefit has been brought to the Church, and to the extent I have neglected to do these things, some decline has come to the Church.

As for how we are now being encouraged to stand rather than kneel after receiving Communion, in the parish I just left, I once had to arm-wrestle someone in order to get the kneeler down. I am perfectly happy to respect someone’s right to stand … that person in turn ought to have the decency to respect my right to kneel. In my new parish, many people stand but at least I’ve been able to kneel without any problems. If I want to make a longer drive downtown, I can attend an indult Latin Mass where it still feels like Portugal, you might say, because the dogma of the faith is still being preserved in the most awesome way.

~~ the phoenix

 

[palmas85]

Joysong:

Dear Palmas,

First of all, I am truly sorry my post appeared to you as condescending and lacking charity, but if you read it a second time, you may reconsider, I hope.

We had a good dialog elsewhere and I thought you knew how much I hoped to diffuse misunderstandings — I said as much in the above quote, that maybe we can help with problems, maybe not. I asked for more specific examples since the very ones you gave seemed to be an example of hyperbole, rather than reality.

According to your reply, you have observed one example about 13 or 14 years ago, and another about 3 years ago. As for beer being used in the 1980’s in Europe, what can I say except to ask you why an alleged abuse in another country 25 years ago has any bearing on the Mass as we celebrate it today in our country? One might get the idea from your post that these examples are prevalent, going on all the time, and driving you nuts! That is why I asked for clarification. As it now stands, it does appear like a gripe having no current foundation.

I posted somewhere in the Liturgy section an example of how the VII documents can be misunderstood if all one does is go to the Web and read them, without examining the full text of instructions that clarified the documents. These wrong ideas due to insufficient information are often the very basis for controversy and division, and my hope is always aimed toward unity through understanding.
If not through understanding, at least for acceptance and tolerance of one another’s choice of worship.

There is an old saying that goes, “That which is received, is received according to the mode of the receiver.” There were a lot of people in Jesus’s day who thought he had a devil, because of deficiencies in their own hearts, and they were incapable of attributing charity to His words. You might want to rethink how you received my words.

I would greatly welcome further dialog with you if you are able to receive from me without misunderstanding my motives.

Carole

Hi Carole, maybe I misread your statement about Vatican II documents. I will accept that maybe I did anyway While the abuses I stated did not occur yesterday, similar abuses do occur today. I am not going to post anything that I personally have not researched, or seen with my own eyes. The ones I stated were far from the only ones I have seen or know about. I don’t take anyones word on these things. While I do frequent Traditio :bigyikes: as well as other sites I also consult the Vatican Web site Novus Ordo Supporter sites, the sites of various religious orders and I have a subscription to Le Osservatore Romano, English version, sorry. I look at at both sides of the issue. And in all honesty, you know that abuses did happen, still happen and will continue to happen as long as certain people in the Church want to impose their own interpretation on the Vatican II … Even though the Church has repeatedly said the era for experimentation is over, it hasn’t stopped, nor in all likelihood will it. I think the simple fact that the Vatican is trying to mandate new things, more Latin, different postures in the Mass, elimination of certain parts, new translations etc shows that they know abuses have crept in, vital concepts have changed and something needs to be done.

The Council of Trent, and I have read the documents from that one too brought the Traditional Mass into being for one major reason. To stop the abuses and individualizations that had occurred in the varying masses of the time. Thats why they created it. Not because it was intrinsically holier or better, but it gave a solid frame for the Mass so that everyone was on the same page.

The Novus Ordo Mass was never intended to be set in stone, it was designed to allow diversity, change, new things and ideas. It was meant to be warm, communal, flowing, spontaneous. It was a true product of the sixties. Scrap the old, bring in the new and everything will be well in the world. The lessons learned and problems corrected by Trent were forgotten in the headlong rush into the modern age. The problem with that concept is that not everyone is as, is devout too strong a word? as they should be and see the Mass as their personal plaything. Until we have managed somehow to correct those things we will always have problems. I actually have a book named “look What They’ve Done to My Church”. It was published in 1978 I believe, and offers a staunch defense and rationale of the Novus Ordo Mass. Great reading. I think you would enjoy it.

As you may know by now, I do attend both types of masses, regularly. I am faithful to the Holy Father, and have never for a second doubted his authority. BUT I AM NOT BLIND, and if I see something wrong, I will bring it up. Does that make me evil or less committed to the Church?

I hope the dialogue can continue as well.

 

[Joysong]

Hi Palmas,

I knew your heart was good! . . . and I’m glad we can talk once again. Guess what, though, it’s time for me to bed down. After reading all of these threads today, my head is whirling, so when I am clear tomorrow, I’ll see what seems good to share with you.

Blessings,
Carole

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

And yes, John Paul the Great. The Church never bestows this appelation, it comes from common usage and thru history. I use it, hoping others will do so, and that it will become as common as Leo the Great, Gregory the Great. He deserves it.

He’s earned it twice over and since it is “granted” as an accolade from the “faithful” – it was made plain in the square that day that it is his –

 

[palmas85]

HagiaSophia:

He’s earned it twice over and since it is “granted” as an accolade from the “faithful” – it was made plain in the square that day that it is his –

I admired and still do admire the Holy Father. He blazed new paths, new trails and tried things that no Pope had ever done before. He was truly a great and holy man. He reached out to Muslims, entering their mosques, and honoring their Koran, calling it holy and inspired by God. He reached out to Jews, reminding them that Christ himself was Jewish To Protestants telling them that Martin Luther was a seeker of divine truth and wisdom. He sat down with the Voodoo Priests of Haiti and told them the Catholic Church was interested in and accepted their religion. He participated in Hindu rituals and received the mark of Kali on his forehead. He apologized to all for the sins of the Catholic Church Almost singlehandedly he tore down many of the barriers that had been in place for eons. A true ecumenical icon indeed.

And not only that, he lived with his illnesses publically, showing the world his suffering and his patience and acceptance of his cross so to speak and thus inspired millions. He revealed the third secret of Fatima and put to rest the rumors that it concerned something more than the attempted assasination of the Pope. He travelled the world and connected with people young and old and put the best face of Catholicism possible in the public eye. He will in all liklihood never be equaled as a world leader.

Yes he was a great man. And that is what he was, a man. He was not a saint and is not a saint… Not yet anyway. I have no doubt that he will be, but I will withold my prayers, devotions and acclamations until he is in fact canonized. I hope that does not offend anyone, but he should have to wait like everyone else does.

 

[pira114]

As far as kneeling or standing after the Eucharist goes, my understanding is this:

If the Tabernacle is still INSIDE the Church, you must kneel until the Eucharist is back inside. Unless the Priest consumes the remaining amount, then you kneel until he is done.

If the Tabernacle is OUTSIDE of the Church (apparently this is common now) then permission is given to stand rather than kneel.

My problem with this is that at my Church, the Tabernacle is still inside, but people decided to stand anyway. I wish I knew how to get involved in making these decisions. Though, they may not want someone as bull headed as me there!

As for things like singing the Our Father, I guess it’s just hard to change the way I grew up. I also have to admit that I don’t like to sing. I admit that when I do sing, it’s usually under my breath. Believe me, everyone is better off not being able to hear my singing voice.

JNB, I really appreciate the info on the other Church in my area. However, I have been going to this Church since my Baptism as a baby. Plus, I now have children in the school there. Not only could I not get myself to leave my life long Church, but the school wants to see regular weekly donations to get the “in parish” tuition rate.

I guess the part that really kinda frustrates me is that all these things seem to depend on which Priest is there. In the “old days,” it never mattered which Priest was there, it was always the same. I guess I just like my traditions.

 

[Joysong]

Good morning, Palmas,

I see that there is a lot to respond to, so I guess it would be good to go back a few posts.

As far as everyone being a saint, well, just look around. Ten people at confession, 1,000 people receive communion.

Since I am a product of the olden days (shh!), I can understand the lessening of confession today, yet with large numbers of communicants. My parents usually took me to Mass at 11:30, and in those days, I was not able to fast from midnight until almost 1:00 PM when I arrived home to eat. That may have been true of the majority who went to Mass, for I rarely saw more than a dozen or so receive communion. Whether or not these folks went to confession often, I could not say, but they did not benefit from the graces and strengthening against sin that is gained by frequent weekly communion. Had it not been for the precept of the Church mandating reception of the sacraments once a year, I wonder how many would even go at all?

I remember reading in St. Teresa of Jesus’s Life that her spiritual director prescribed for her to receive holy communion at least once a fortnight. Now that’s every two weeks, which suggests to me that she did not previously receive that often at all.

Now that the fast is only one hour before receiving, the congregation at large is able to receive very often, which would be a tremendous spiritual help against mortal sin, and possibly the reason for reduction in confessions. Maybe we can help the faithful realize that a devotional confession provides many graces, even though there is no need to go and confess mortal sins.

I’m going to close this here, for I want to keep a separate post for your thoughts on the Israelites.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Me again, Palmas,

I’m not an expert in the Israelites passage to the promised land, but as I recall,. they began to worship Idols at some point. Maybe that had more to do with their problems then their grumbling. After all, their needs were probably not being met out there in the desert. Oh and by the way, they did not fail to reach the Promised Land. Moses did not make it there, but the Israelites did.

They grumbled constantly, and Moses had to intercede for them on a regular basis. But God was so merciful to them, even though he was deeply offended by their lack of faith in his providence. You can read a lot of this background beginning with Ex. 15, where the people quarreled with Moses over the bitter water. Again in Ex.16 when they preferred going back to Egypt with their fleshpots and bread. God responded at that point by giving them manna and quail from heaven. Even in the midst of supernatural manifestation and provision, they grumbled once again in Ex. 17 because they had no water! They were real good at it, testing the Lord constantly!

Scripture records the Lord’s sentence in Num. 14:11, “How long will this people spurn me? How long will they refuse to believe in me, despite all the signs I have performed among them? I will strike them with pestilence and wipe them out.” But Moses mediated in their behalf, and in vs. 20, we see that God pardoned them as Moses asked, but God replied in vs. 22, “Of all the men who have seen my glory and the signs I worked in Egypt and in the desert, and who nevertheless have put me to the test ten times already and have failed to heed my voice, not one shall see the land which I promised on oath to their fathers. None of these who have spurned me shall see it.”

“But my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me unreservedly. I will bring him into the land where he has just been and his descendants whall possess it.”

So, my friend, we are both right — some never arrived due to grumbling, but many others crossed over the Jordan with Josue and Caleb.

I meant to say a bit more, but something just interrupted me, so I’ll come back later.

Blessings,
Carole

 

[Joysong]

Hi Palmas,

As you may know by now, I do attend both types of masses, regularly. I am faithful to the Holy Father, and have never for a second doubted his authority. BUT I AM NOT BLIND, and if I see something wrong, I will bring it up. Does that make me evil or less committed to the Church?

Not at all, Palmas, and many share your sentiments, but some have the grumbling spirit I spoke about, when things appear to be wrong to them. It is always good to question and try to understand, for that is often the springboard to growth in peace and unity.

One point I especially wanted to bring out is God’s words to Moses in Ex. 19:6, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.” My footnote on this verse says:

“Inasmuch as the whole Israelite nation was consecrated to God in a special way, it formed a race of royal priests who participated in the liturgical sacrifices, even though the actual offering of the sacrifices was the exclusive prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood. The same condition exists in the New Dispensation as regards the whole Christian people and the Christian priesthood in the strict sense.”

I believe it is very important for all of us to recall that God is the author of liturgy, not Moses. Reading in Ex. 25:8, He proclaimed, “They shall make a sanctuary for me that I may dwell in their midst. This dwelling and all its furnishings you shall make exactly according to the pattern that I will now show you.” Every detail was set in place and ordered by God.

Once again, we find that in the very first Council of Jerusalem, the apostles made an important proclamation, using these words: “For the Holy Spirit and we have decided to lay no further burden upon you but this indispensable one …” (Acts 15:28)

When the Vatican Council was called and decisions made regarding the new liturgy with the body of the Pope and Bishops, it could again be said that **the Holy Spirit and we **have decided, etc. That seems to be the point of contention, that those who wanted to retain the original Mass did not have sufficient faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the true author of liturgy, who wanted to lead the People of God into a higher manner of unified collective worship, rather than the more individualistic manner of the past. They perceived it, possibly, as a product of man’s innovation designed to interfere with what they considered true worship, to which they were accustomed. Hence the SSPX and the like.

I posted twice elsewhere Pope Paul IV’s commentary, so although he states the new liturgy is “necessary, obligatory, and providential” we see the compassionate heart of the Church in his words (in part):

Our recommendation us this: devote the greatest care to knowing, explaining, and applying the new norms that the Church intends to use from now on in celebrating divine worship. This is not an easy thing to do, it is a delicate thing. It demands direct and systematic interest. It calls for your personal, patient, loving, truly pastoral help. It means changing many, many habits that are from many points of view, respectable and dear. It means upsetting good and devout faithful, to offer them new forms of prayer that they will not understand right away. It means winning over many, many people, who pray or do not pray in church as they please, to a personal and collective expression of prayer.

The grumblers will always find an axe to grind, but those who are truly struggling, who love the Lord and His church, will have their indult mass. But I doubt that this accomodation permitting separate worship was the intent of our Divine Author of Liturgy, the Holy Spirit, who permits this in order to save the smouldering wicks and the bruised reeds that desire this structure. To be sure there are abuses on either side, but that does not invalidate the liturgy or give us license to remove ourselves from it. We need to continue to pray for that more perfect sacrifice where all are united in spirit, (Rev. 7:9-10) while we express it differently in the accidentals which may vary from nation to nation.

I actually have a book named “look What They’ve Done to My Church”. It was published in 1978 I believe, and offers a staunch defense and rationale of the Novus Ordo Mass. Great reading. I think you would enjoy it.

Yes, I think I would, Palmas — maybe I’ll put it on my wish list for Christmas. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Carole

 

[mosher]

pira114:

As far as kneeling or standing after the Eucharist goes, my understanding is this:

If the Tabernacle is still INSIDE the Church, you must kneel until the Eucharist is back inside. Unless the Priest consumes the remaining amount, then you kneel until he is done.

If the Tabernacle is OUTSIDE of the Church (apparently this is common now) then permission is given to stand rather than kneel.

My problem with this is that at my Church, the Tabernacle is still inside, but people decided to stand anyway. I wish I knew how to get involved in making these decisions. Though, they may not want someone as bull headed as me there!

As for things like singing the Our Father, I guess it’s just hard to change the way I grew up. I also have to admit that I don’t like to sing. I admit that when I do sing, it’s usually under my breath. Believe me, everyone is better off not being able to hear my singing voice.

JNB, I really appreciate the info on the other Church in my area. However, I have been going to this Church since my Baptism as a baby. Plus, I now have children in the school there. Not only could I not get myself to leave my life long Church, but the school wants to see regular weekly donations to get the “in parish” tuition rate.

I guess the part that really kinda frustrates me is that all these things seem to depend on which Priest is there. In the “old days,” it never mattered which Priest was there, it was always the same. I guess I just like my traditions.

There is no strict determination about the posture after the reception of communion. Cardinal Arinze responded to the US Bishops question concerning posture after communion by stating in a dubium that Rome did not intend to stipulate any rule of the posture a person takes after they receive commuion and that they are free to stand sit or kneel whichever is more condusive to private prayer at that moment when the Lord has just been received.

 

[theMutant]

pira114:

I don’t know if this has been discussed before, but I’m getting tired of Mass being changed every couple of months. Or, even worse, changing from Priest to Priest. For example, singing the Our Father instead of saying it. Exchanging handshakes and saying Peace be with you AFTER the Eucharist instead of before. Changing the wording of prayers. And, in my opinion, singing way too much. My church has also started having a band that plays very modern Christian songs.

Is it just my Church? Is it just me? I go to Mass now, and my wife and I don’t know what’s going on half the time. My Church has now started telling people to stand after Communion even though the Tabernacle is still inside the Church. I still kneel and I get weird looks from people. I’m not old and stuck in my ways, but if you compared the Mass I attend now with the one I grew up with (same Church) they would look nothing alike.

What do all of you think? Is anyone else experiencing the same thing?

 

[theMutant]

Your experience reinforces what I have said on this forum before.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=870&page=1&pp=100

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4136

In regard to standing after Communion. Kneeling after the Agnus Dei to the end of Mass has not been part of the current rite since it was introduced in 1970. However, in some areas, including the United States, it remained the common practice. In the most recent General Instruction (2001), section 43 reaffirms that “a common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy…” Everyone in the local Church (diocese - not parish) is to use the same posture at Mass.

Section 43 states, "In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the *Sanctus/] until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer … The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan Bishop determines otherwise. (2002 English translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal)

Therefore, everyone in your parish should kneel after the Agnus Dei to the end of Mass unless your Bishop has given some other instruction.*

 

[theMutant]

palmas85:

Oh and Carole your condescending tone, is as so many have used the words on this forum, lacking in Charity.

As a strong critic of the post Vatican II changes to the Liturgy and one who prays fervently that we return to the Missal of 1962 until the Church can evaluate and make only those revisions that are in accordance with the teachings of that council, I feel the need to point out that it is you who are being condescending and who is showing a tremendous lack of charity. No wonder traditionalists like myself have such a hard time explaining the problems of the changes to those who don’t see them. How can you possibly justify a statement that “probably no one” has read all of the documents of Vatican II. I have done so several times; which is why I argue that the current Latin rite of mass does not follow the guidelines set out by that council.

 

[palmas85]

Joysong:

Good morning, Palmas,

I see that there is a lot to respond to, so I guess it would be good to go back a few posts.

Since I am a product of the olden days (shh!), I can understand the lessening of confession today, yet with large numbers of communicants. My parents usually took me to Mass at 11:30, and in those days, I was not able to fast from midnight until almost 1:00 PM when I arrived home to eat. That may have been true of the majority who went to Mass, for I rarely saw more than a dozen or so receive communion. Whether or not these folks went to confession often, I could not say, but they did not benefit from the graces and strengthening against sin that is gained by frequent weekly communion. Had it not been for the precept of the Church mandating reception of the sacraments once a year, I wonder how many would even go at all?

I remember reading in St. Teresa of Jesus’s Life that her spiritual director prescribed for her to receive holy communion at least once a fortnight. Now that’s every two weeks, which suggests to me that she did not previously receive that often at all.

Now that the fast is only one hour before receiving, the congregation at large is able to receive very often, which would be a tremendous spiritual help against mortal sin, and possibly the reason for reduction in confessions. Maybe we can help the faithful realize that a devotional confession provides many graces, even though there is no need to go and confess mortal sins.

I’m going to close this here, for I want to keep a separate post for your thoughts on the Israelites.

Carole

I agree that frequent reception is a wonderful thing. I too come from the olden days, and I recall that the sisters used to tell us that reception, if unworthy, was actually a sacrilige and was to be avoided . There were certain exceptions as I recall, but overall if you were in a state of grave sin you or had not complied with the proper fasting etc., you were not to receive.

I was unaware that we no longer had to confess moratl sins. Is that something new.

 

[Joysong]

Hi Palmas,

I was unaware that we no longer had to confess moratl sins. Is that something new.

Oh my, I see that my words were not very clear. Maybe we can help the faithful realize that a devotional confession provides many graces, even though there is no need to go and confess mortal sins.

What I meant to say is that if a person has no mortal sins to confess, we can still obtain many graces from confession, if all we have to confess are venial sins. I have heard it called a devotional confession and is very good to practice, to keep one’s examination of conscience frequent, and to obtain spiritual help against serious sin.

Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity!

Carole

 

[palmas85]

Joysong:

Hi Palmas,

The grumblers will always find an axe to grind, but those who are truly struggling, who love the Lord and His church, will have their indult mass. But I doubt that this accomodation permitting separate worship was the intent of our Divine Author of Liturgy, the Holy Spirit, who permits this in order to save the smouldering wicks and the bruised reeds that desire this structure. To be sure there are abuses on either side, but that does not invalidate the liturgy or give us license to remove ourselves from it. We need to continue to pray for that more perfect sacrifice where all are united in spirit, (Rev. 7:9-10) while we express it differently in the accidentals which may vary from nation to nation.

Carole

I do believe that the Vatican II council members had their hearts in the right places, and had their suggestions been carried out in the manner that they intended, I don’t think we would be having this conversation today. Unfortunately, their views and suggestions were not carried out in the manner they envisioned. It is obvious that massive destruction and harm came about as a result of the Council, not only in the Mass but in virtually every area of the faith. I have seen it written somewhere that had Vatican II occurred at any time other than the 60’s it would not have had anywhere near the inmpact that it did… I’m sure you remember the 60’s, as I do. Upheavel, change revolution in the air, repressed people straining to break fre and choose their own path, distrust of any establishment etc. the Church was no different.

I think that from the minor reforms to the Pauline Mass that the Vatican is mandating it is clear they realize that something went terribly wrong in those days and needs to be corrected. How far they will go who knows?

I was taught many years ago, that towards the end, the Catholic Church, being the body of Christ, would actually imitate Christ. It would live, be persecuted, convicted, crucified, in essence die and be resurrected in glory. It appears to me that we may be in those final stages or at least the beginning of them now., given the current state of the Church. Jesus said that the Church would prevail, but he never said what condition it would be in or what it would go through to get there. I also believe that Christ was referring to the mystical body of the Church and not so much the physical structure, that is run by man. God often allows horrible things to happen, I feel to test us, and to see how we react.What better way to test us and our faith than by allowing the church to apparently die, in the same way he allowed his son Christ Jesus to die?

I don’t really think that the outward trappings of the Mass are really that important. What is important is the reverence that we bring to it, the faith that we have and the devotion that we express in it.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Mutant,

I haven’t the faintest idea what you are getting at. My good friend Palmas misunderstood my meaning and the two of us are fine. He is a good person and has an open mind and heart.

But you, who should have noticed our coming together in the follow-up explanations, have apparently held some animosity.

No wonder traditionalists like myself have such a hard time explaining the problems of the changes to those who don’t see them. (I can see why you would, especially when the truth is only half known – now that would make it hard to maintain one’s position and gain support, right?) How can you possibly justify a statement that “probably no one” (These were never my words!) has read all of the documents of Vatican II.

I posted more than once in this section of the forum, that those who search out the documents on the Web because of not owning the actual book, will not find the complete supporting text to explain the documents. Those who are honestly searching are unknowingly deprived of the full truth, which often causes problems and misunderstanding. I actually gave another link for everyone to find the information themselves so they would have this information which is rightfully theirs. See post #78 in the Trad. Rite thread.

In no way was I being condescending, and if you read my words as carefully as you claim to have read the documents, you would know this.

Carole