D
Dlee
Guest
Regarding fasting: Jesus did retreat to the desert to pray and fast for 40 days.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Jesus essentially went on a traditional practice we might call a retreat or a vision quest. Physically, we can’t all fast like Jesus. Jesus also was not driving a car, taking care of children, or working when he fasted.
If I had my way I’d stop eating entirely because it’s a pain in the neck and always has been, but I get sick if I do that. Just like I used to faint when I went to 7 am Mass without breakfast and almost keeled over at a TLM when I’d been fasting during the day before it. Churches are stuffy, kneeling and having to get up and down makes one lightheaded.
If I had my way I’d stop eating entirely because it’s a pain in the neck and always has been, but I get sick if I do that. Just like I used to faint when I went to 7 am Mass without breakfast and almost keeled over at a TLM when I’d been fasting during the day before it. Churches are stuffy, kneeling and having to get up and down makes one lightheaded.
O
otjm
Guest
As noted, the fast from midnight was to extend until one had received Communion; and Masses had to be said in the morning.
However, it was of no particular hidden fact that the later in the morning the Mass was said, the fewer people who would receive Communion. It was hard on families, particularly those with younger children to hold that fast and be able to receive, as younger children in particular were more sensitive to low blood sugar. While the fast legally was from midnight, in almost all practical circumstances, it was from the end of the evening meal (and any later snacks) which could easily be from 8 p.m. the night before. Pope Pius XII changed that in the 1950’s to 3 hours before; in 1964 Pope Paul VI reduced it to 1 hour before. So it is not like this was just recently changed.
Head covering arguably could be described as a cultural issue; the Church began in the Middle East and among a number of cultures there today, it is still a cultural rule. In the 1970’s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said in Inter Insigniores “It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
I suspect there was more to it than just that statement. Vatican 2 was the first Council which focused (in part) on the fact that the Church was clearly universal. And it occurred at a time where a number of countries (especially in Africa) were overthrowing colonialism and all that it represented to them. The Church was seen as Eurocentric in at least some of the chaos which followed. It would not surprise me in the least that some of the thinking behind the rule change had to do in part with countries other than Europe and North America, both of which were also going through cultural change within society itself (as note in posts above).
Nothing prevents one from following either fasting or head covering. It simply is not universally required.
One last note: the rule did not require mantillas. In the 1950’s and early 1960’s, the majority of women (at least in my parish) wore some sort of hat (and Lord preserve us from the fashion show on Easter Sunday!).
However, it was of no particular hidden fact that the later in the morning the Mass was said, the fewer people who would receive Communion. It was hard on families, particularly those with younger children to hold that fast and be able to receive, as younger children in particular were more sensitive to low blood sugar. While the fast legally was from midnight, in almost all practical circumstances, it was from the end of the evening meal (and any later snacks) which could easily be from 8 p.m. the night before. Pope Pius XII changed that in the 1950’s to 3 hours before; in 1964 Pope Paul VI reduced it to 1 hour before. So it is not like this was just recently changed.
Head covering arguably could be described as a cultural issue; the Church began in the Middle East and among a number of cultures there today, it is still a cultural rule. In the 1970’s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said in Inter Insigniores “It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
I suspect there was more to it than just that statement. Vatican 2 was the first Council which focused (in part) on the fact that the Church was clearly universal. And it occurred at a time where a number of countries (especially in Africa) were overthrowing colonialism and all that it represented to them. The Church was seen as Eurocentric in at least some of the chaos which followed. It would not surprise me in the least that some of the thinking behind the rule change had to do in part with countries other than Europe and North America, both of which were also going through cultural change within society itself (as note in posts above).
Nothing prevents one from following either fasting or head covering. It simply is not universally required.
One last note: the rule did not require mantillas. In the 1950’s and early 1960’s, the majority of women (at least in my parish) wore some sort of hat (and Lord preserve us from the fashion show on Easter Sunday!).
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Ah, altar girls; a slow death knell to the young men who otherwise would rush off to seminary…
I don’t mean to be offensive, as that somewhat overstates the position often touted for boys only.
For starters, I fail to see, if Mary was able to carry Christ in her womb, that a female child should not be able to carry a candle or the processional crucifix, or bring water over for the lavabo, or assist in receiving the gifts of bread and wine, or ring the bells at the appropriate time.
As to the issue of fewer and fewer candidates to the priesthood, the Church needs to figure out why (according to CARA) only about 18% of those between 18 and about 29 attend Mass weekly. Therein, I submit, is the real problem; not who serves Mass.
Yes, I have heard the stories of boys somewhere around middle school refusing to be around girls. That is a matter of parenting. Although I raised girls and not boys, they were taught well before that age that we all contributed to the Church, not just in money, but also in time.
Further, there has been a gradual shift in society, reflected in response to vocations, that people are deciding these issues at a later time in life, and this goes both to vocations to the priesthood, and the religious life.
As to vocations, my parish has produced three or four priests, 3 deacons, and two women to professed life. I suspect that 25 years of Perpetual adoration had more to do with that than anything, but all served.
I don’t mean to be offensive, as that somewhat overstates the position often touted for boys only.
For starters, I fail to see, if Mary was able to carry Christ in her womb, that a female child should not be able to carry a candle or the processional crucifix, or bring water over for the lavabo, or assist in receiving the gifts of bread and wine, or ring the bells at the appropriate time.
As to the issue of fewer and fewer candidates to the priesthood, the Church needs to figure out why (according to CARA) only about 18% of those between 18 and about 29 attend Mass weekly. Therein, I submit, is the real problem; not who serves Mass.
Yes, I have heard the stories of boys somewhere around middle school refusing to be around girls. That is a matter of parenting. Although I raised girls and not boys, they were taught well before that age that we all contributed to the Church, not just in money, but also in time.
Further, there has been a gradual shift in society, reflected in response to vocations, that people are deciding these issues at a later time in life, and this goes both to vocations to the priesthood, and the religious life.
As to vocations, my parish has produced three or four priests, 3 deacons, and two women to professed life. I suspect that 25 years of Perpetual adoration had more to do with that than anything, but all served.
P
phil19034
Guest
Some canon laws / disciplines are based on societal norms only
Head coverings for women used to be similar (though not as strict) to Islamic head covering.
They were used by all people, regardless of religion.
However, when women helped out in the working world during World Wars I and II, the head coverings were not always practical. I think this lead women to stop using to head coverings in general society.
Therefore, since headcoverings were always based in societal norms and not Divine Revelation, the discipline was allowed to be dropped because it no longer carried any significance (other than being a pious, yet beautiful, tradition)
I hope this helps
God Bless
P
phil19034
Guest
Because it’s still considered ill mannered for a man to wear a hat indoors.
Yes, tons of men do it (esp baseball hats) but it’s still considered poor edict
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Pope Pius XII:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12FAST.HTM
About fast and abstinence is explained by St. Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini, 1966:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-...cuments/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini.html
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
There is so much that modern people mid-understand about that time.
The Jews had (and kosher Jews still do) have a major taboo against BLOOD.
Men with open, bloody wounds wouldn’t have been welcome among the Jews either.
Let’s also remember that back in those days, humans didn’t bathe like we do today. Women didn’t have feminine hygiene products to use.
If I were to place a bet, I’m sure that most of them were happy they didn’t have to go to mass or synagogue when they were having their period.
Let’s also remember that there are PLENTY of BLOOD BORN pathogens. Ancient people didn’t have medicines that exists today either.
So yes, people considered blood to be unclean.
And guess what… people still do today. If someone spills coffee on their shirt while at work, they might wear it all day (unless they have meetings that forces them to buy a new one). But if you get blood on your shirt… pretty much everyone is going to get a new shirt ASAP.
Finally, please ignore EVERYTHING that comes from womenpriests.org. They are a totally heretical website and organization on so many fronts.
God Bless
The Jews had (and kosher Jews still do) have a major taboo against BLOOD.
Men with open, bloody wounds wouldn’t have been welcome among the Jews either.
Let’s also remember that back in those days, humans didn’t bathe like we do today. Women didn’t have feminine hygiene products to use.
If I were to place a bet, I’m sure that most of them were happy they didn’t have to go to mass or synagogue when they were having their period.
Let’s also remember that there are PLENTY of BLOOD BORN pathogens. Ancient people didn’t have medicines that exists today either.
So yes, people considered blood to be unclean.
And guess what… people still do today. If someone spills coffee on their shirt while at work, they might wear it all day (unless they have meetings that forces them to buy a new one). But if you get blood on your shirt… pretty much everyone is going to get a new shirt ASAP.
Finally, please ignore EVERYTHING that comes from womenpriests.org. They are a totally heretical website and organization on so many fronts.
God Bless
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Not sure what that would be. Perhaps when I said when people approached Jesus and asked how they could be saved, he never said “Fast.” If that’s wrong, feel free to quote a reference. Once again, I’m NOT saying Jesus never talked about fasting, fasted himself, etc. I’m saying that when someone approached him asking how to follow him or get to Heaven, the answer was never “Fast.” Fasting was simply not a major part of his message. People even asked why his disciples didn’t fast.
P
phil19034
Guest
Jesus didn’t talk about fasting much because the Jews were already doing it. Other than the hypocritical ruling class who would fast for outward appearances, fasting was something the everyday Jews had down pat.dochawk:
Not sure what that would be. Perhaps when I said when people approached Jesus and asked how they could be saved, he never said “Fast.” If that’s wrong, feel free to quote a reference. Once again, I’m NOT saying Jesus never talked about fasting, fasted himself, etc. I’m saying that when someone approached him asking how to follow him or get to Heaven, the answer was never “Fast.” Fasting was simply not a major part of his message. People even asked why his disciples didn’t fast.
Here is a website that list the Top 40 Bible verses regarding fasting.
40 Bible Verses About Fasting and Scripture Guidelines
The Bible has a lot of verses about fasting that offer guidance. If you are wondering how to fast, for how long what to pray, etc. these Scriptures about fasting will help guide you on your journey!
www.biblestudytools.com
God Bless
Last edited:
J
jesusmademe
Guest
Today we have a weird clericalism: if the laity dont do some of the works the Priests and Deacons do they are not having enough value/dignity. Some actually thnk that the laity bsck in the older days were not allowed from partaking in the Mass.
We live in a crazy Liturgical time.
I heard this in a talk by Father Z.
So, what is an altar server? How is chosen as to be an altar server?
It is really weird what I have seen in Churches at the OF. No Priest whatsoever takes the role of a Deacon at Mass if there are eg 3 Priests at Mass. Why are they not doing it? It looks weird. And then they say the Eucharistic prayer together. I ti is weird because it is still only one celebrant at Mass. The other Priests take up other roles.
It seem that we view people’s roles at Mass in a different way nowadays than before.
We live in a crazy Liturgical time.
I heard this in a talk by Father Z.
So, what is an altar server? How is chosen as to be an altar server?
It is really weird what I have seen in Churches at the OF. No Priest whatsoever takes the role of a Deacon at Mass if there are eg 3 Priests at Mass. Why are they not doing it? It looks weird. And then they say the Eucharistic prayer together. I ti is weird because it is still only one celebrant at Mass. The other Priests take up other roles.
It seem that we view people’s roles at Mass in a different way nowadays than before.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s only a subset, probably a small subset, of laypersons who think that.
Many if not most laity are fine with the priest having the role of a priest and the laity having the role of laity.
Unfortunately, the laity who complain about not getting to do what the priest does, including women who complain about not getting to be priests, tend to get all the press attention because conflict sells.
Altar servers are those who help the priest celebrate the Mass by doing certain functions like carrying the cross in procession, bringing items the priest needs to the altar at certain times, ringing the bells at the right moment, and holding the plate under people’s chin or hands when the priest is distributing Holy Communion.
When children or young people are selected as altar servers, often the parish church will recruit from its school if it has one and just ask for kids who are interested to sign up for a program, or certain students who seem particularly smart or holy might be encouraged to sign up. If there’s no school attached to the parish, then it might recruit through its Catholic education program where it prepares kids for First Communion and Confirmation. Some churches also have adult altar servers and they would put out the call for volunteers or approach people they wanted to help, or if religious sisters or brothers live on the premises they might be asked to help. At some parishes, I’ve seen one adult volunteer doing the job of lector, server, and EMHC for a daily Mass so it’s just the priest saying the Mass and this other adult person doing everything else.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but I do my best to be very charitable in all my replies. And I never said “you’re dead wrong.”
I say God Bless because I mean it.
Therefore, may God Bless you and all who read this post.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
The point of a forum is to discuss things.
Maybe you should just read the words and not put any motivation or inference into them and just take them at face value.
And, isn’t it a little ridiculous to compare someone disagreeing with you on an internet forum, to Joe Biden touching women with out their permission? I mean, really? @phil19034, in all my dealings with him on the forum, has never been anything but respectful, even when we disagree.
Maybe you should just read the words and not put any motivation or inference into them and just take them at face value.
And, isn’t it a little ridiculous to compare someone disagreeing with you on an internet forum, to Joe Biden touching women with out their permission? I mean, really? @phil19034, in all my dealings with him on the forum, has never been anything but respectful, even when we disagree.
The priests in the OF don’t take the role of the Deacon because that’s not their role. Their role is either celebrant or concelebrant.
D
dochawk
Guest
It was a given in his message. Thus the instructions for “when”, rather than “if”. We can quibble as to whether calling this “not major” is incorrect, or just missing the point.
J
jesusmademe
Guest
But there is still only one Mass.
Three Priests with two concelebrants is still one Mass. Concelebration doesnt seem to make any sense. It look a bit stuoid to me. It really does. The role if a Priest is to celebrate Mass but we can only have one celebrant at Mass so I am not sure what the other Priests are doing when concelebrating. What are they trying to do?
I only see it as: let’s be a big family and let’s say Mass together. Let none of the Priests be excluded from the Celebration…but it is still only one Jesus offering Himself on the Cross so only one person taking the role of a Priest makes sense. We even have concelebrating in the EF (at an Ordination I think).
Three Priests with two concelebrants is still one Mass. Concelebration doesnt seem to make any sense. It look a bit stuoid to me. It really does. The role if a Priest is to celebrate Mass but we can only have one celebrant at Mass so I am not sure what the other Priests are doing when concelebrating. What are they trying to do?
I only see it as: let’s be a big family and let’s say Mass together. Let none of the Priests be excluded from the Celebration…but it is still only one Jesus offering Himself on the Cross so only one person taking the role of a Priest makes sense. We even have concelebrating in the EF (at an Ordination I think).
O
OraLabora
Guest
Concelebration is the norm in post-Conciliar Benedictine monasteries. In the pre-Conciliar Mass, there is no concelebration in general, except at ordination Masses (so obviously it has always made theological “sense”).
It eliminates the practice that I find a bit over the top: in pre-Conciliar days, if a monastery had 20 priests, there were 20 individual Masses being said at side altars during the day; one would celebrate the Conventual Mass, the others private Mass. Obviously there wasn’t 20 altars but there were numerous side altars, so they’d have to pretty much have Masses going on all morning. Couple that to the Eucharistic fast, and then add the notion that monasteries don’t function all by themselves and you have a significant tying up of resources. Of course in those days they skirted the issue by having lay brothers to do the physical labour.
This was never in the Rule of Saint Benedict. The Rule did not call for mass ordination of priests, it was rather parsimonious with priests, and it meant for them to be treated equally to the non-ordained brother “except for their service at the altar” (the only indirect mention of Mass in the Rule). Moreover Mass was not daily then. So fewer priests were needed in St. Benedict’s day.
The Council required that communities return to the precepts of their founders, and for Benedictines this meant abolishing the category of “lay brothers” and accepting them as fully professed monks, into choir. Obviously a lot of other changes had to be implemented around this and it wasn’t done overnight. Concelebration is one of those changes.
It eliminates the practice that I find a bit over the top: in pre-Conciliar days, if a monastery had 20 priests, there were 20 individual Masses being said at side altars during the day; one would celebrate the Conventual Mass, the others private Mass. Obviously there wasn’t 20 altars but there were numerous side altars, so they’d have to pretty much have Masses going on all morning. Couple that to the Eucharistic fast, and then add the notion that monasteries don’t function all by themselves and you have a significant tying up of resources. Of course in those days they skirted the issue by having lay brothers to do the physical labour.
This was never in the Rule of Saint Benedict. The Rule did not call for mass ordination of priests, it was rather parsimonious with priests, and it meant for them to be treated equally to the non-ordained brother “except for their service at the altar” (the only indirect mention of Mass in the Rule). Moreover Mass was not daily then. So fewer priests were needed in St. Benedict’s day.
The Council required that communities return to the precepts of their founders, and for Benedictines this meant abolishing the category of “lay brothers” and accepting them as fully professed monks, into choir. Obviously a lot of other changes had to be implemented around this and it wasn’t done overnight. Concelebration is one of those changes.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
You’re at odds with the entire early church on this . . . the bishop and all of the presbyters, as well as the deacons in their part, participated.
The west took to non-concelebration for many centuries, but it remained the norm in the east.
- Status