Why are people so against life teen mass?

[Matt33]

Allright CC4 its on.

I find that those who do not favor Life Teen Mass, for whatever reason are somewhat misguided in their thinking.That is a pretty arrogant thing to say. Remember - It’s not all about you!Exactly, it is about God, who isn’t confined to the body of a teen. Some of you sit back, at a Life Teen mass looking through your eyes of perfection and judgment pointing out any little fault of the Life Teen mass (or any mass that does not meet with your full approval).Who is sitting back in judgement now and lumping people together? You then get on your soap boxCan’t… that box is currently being occupied by you. behind the secrecy of your sign-in name and whine, complain, criticize, point out, and yes – even judge those who dare attend a Life Teen Mass.It is a good thing you don’t hide behind your name Again, it’s not all about you. Do you look through your same critical eyes of judgment when you go to your “mass of preference”, the Latin Mass, etc.?Yup, most do. But the difference is most other masses are time tested, they have been aroun d long enough that “abuses” have been identified. Do you honestly and critically evaluate every step of the priest and every word he says, every response of the congregation, the ringing of the bells (oh my gosh), etc., at yoru Mass of preference? I submit that it is very likely that most critics don’t. I think they do. And I think that there isn’t as much abuse at other masses becuase of it.Therefore, those who find every error really aren’t at mass for the true reason, to worship Christ;While “worship” may be a reason to attend, it is not the sole reason. To recieve the Eucharist would be up there, as would honoring, or even out of an obligation to our Lord and His Church. “Worship” can be done any time and anywhere. they are there to observe and criticize. They are there because they make the Mass all about them and believe that they have received some sacred authority to right every error observed.The only people making the Mass about them that I see are those who argue that we need different Masses for diferent people, if the Mass were truely about God then would there be a need for “personal preference?” This is truly sad and contrary to building community and most importantly, worshipping our King. I love the Catholic faith and the mass, whether the Mass I attend is a LT Mass or not.

It is possible that you are also misguided in your thinking. I enjoy, “worship” a lot. That is why I listen to Christian music and go to the concerts. I feel called to minister to teens, that is why I am involved with the Youth Mass. But many of the critisisms are valid. Try to be more objective about this, even thought we are talking about very heated and personal things.

 

[Charles_22]

cradlecatholic4: I had a lengthy response to your accusations, point for point. however, it was too long so I abandoned it (or, rather, the software made me abandon it).

I found particularly amusing was your use of casting stones from the glass house of your ambiguous logonid, something you derided. I have no problem with ambiguous logonids, but then I’m in that glass house. You might want to think out your rants a little better, and then such contradiction may come to the forefront.

Unlike Matt33, I wouldn’t say the majority of conservative catholics (if that’s where your problem really lays) are into Latin Mass. I, for one, can’t stand it, as I see no point in hearing something unintelligible to me, however, most of the other things of that Mass should make us envious compared to the things of today. I have been in Masses, where not only has the tabernacle been moved to a side, but it’s totally hidden from view. What’s to worship then? I guess they’re ashamed of God’s House or find things more important to confront us with, like space for the drum player.

We probably do need to quarantine the oldsters from the LT Masses, as that’s probably where a good number of the abuses creep into regular Mass from. Everybody doing their own thing, represents no unity at all, and we know what letting everybody doing their own thing results in (or at least us oldsters know this). Maybe you should look at it that way? That some of us are more concerned with the Mass following submission to the Holy See, than in everybody doing whatever pleases them, where one Mass here hides the tabernacle, another Mass there holds hands like protestants, and another Mass over there sings and claps like at a rock concert. You shouldn’t feel like an alien when you walk into another catholic church because of so many doing whatever pleases them; there is a standard and it’s supposed to be followed. I even have seen widespread differences within the same diocese.

So, since you’ve already proved to have cast stones about what you did yourself, is it not also possibly true that when you accuse us of thinking the Mass is about US, that it may in fact be you who are thinking the Mass is about YOU? Many oldsters ask this question in all seriousness about those getting their own special Mass already and what damage it may do to them. When I grew up, we had Masses during schoool hours, but we certainly didn’t get our own special Mass with our age bracket described as the type of Mass it was.

 

[agapewolf]

Unlike Matt33, I wouldn’t say the majority of conservative catholics (if that’s where your problem really lays) are into Latin Mass. I, for one, can’t stand it, as I see no point in hearing something unintelligible to me, however, most of the other things of that Mass should make us envious compared to the things of today. I have been in Masses, where not only has the tabernacle been moved to a side, but it’s totally hidden from view. What’s to worship then? I guess they’re ashamed of God’s House or find things more important to confront us with, like space for the drum player.

Actually, the focus of the mass is on the action of the change, not the eucharist already present. The Mass is a higher prayer than adoration. Moving the tabernacle to the side was a misguided attempt at trying to get people to realize that. (part of a document that never got the recognition from Rome). What’s to worship? God, in the Eucharist made present at the mass. Many many churches did this, not just ones with a drum set.

So, since you’ve already proved to have cast stones about what you did yourself, is it not also possibly true that when you accuse us of thinking the Mass is about US, that it may in fact be you who are thinking the Mass is about YOU? Many oldsters ask this question in all seriousness about those getting their own special Mass already and what damage it may do to them. When I grew up, we had Masses during schoool hours, but we certainly didn’t get our own special Mass with our age bracket described as the type of Mass it was.

Actually, the bishops have a lectionary and eucharistic prayers (etc) for Children’s mass. This IS from Rome. I’m not arguing thats a point for Lifeteen (trying to stay out of this), but let’s be accurate when making points.

 

[Charles_22]

Actually, the bishops have a lectionary and eucharistic prayers (etc) for Children’s mass. This IS from Rome. I’m not arguing thats a point for Lifeteen (trying to stay out of this), but let’s be accurate when making points.

No, my point was, until there is the Consecration, what can you worship when the tabernacle is not in view? How do you even know some consecrated hosts are there, when there’s not even a visible tabernacle? I only described the side movement to show how the tabernacle became more and more deviant from it’s original intent of placement (therefore less and less the focus). A great deal of the Mass goes by before the Consecration, so, what’s to worship? True, I don’t have consecrated hosts at my home, and still worship, but yet I’m always thinking I’m supposed to be able to worship God physically in the place where He most directly resides, which of course Mass, even pre-consecration, should be able to oblige. How can I believe there are consecrated hosts, when they’re ashamed of having it in public view at all, much less in the center of things?

 

[agapewolf]

No, my point was, until there is the Consecration, what can you worship when the tabernacle is not in view? How do you even know some consecrated hosts are there, when there’s not even a visible tabernacle? I only described the side movement to show how the tabernacle became more and more deviant from it’s original intent of placement (therefore less and less the focus). A great deal of the Mass goes by before the Consecration, so, what’s to worship? True, I don’t have consecrated hosts at my home, and still worship, but yet I’m always thinking I’m supposed to be able to worship God physically in the place where He most directly resides, which of course Mass, even pre-consecration, should be able to oblige. How can I believe there are consecrated hosts, when they’re ashamed of having it in public view at all, much less in the center of things?

Stop using charged words. Again, moving the tabernacle was not out of “shame”.

The worship is in the proclamation of the Liturgy of the Word.The worship is in the participation in the mass. Not being near the Eucharist does not mean you can’t worship.

And being near the EUcharist is not a physical aspect, it is sacramental.

 

[Charles_22]

Stop using charged words. Again, moving the tabernacle was not out of “shame”.

The worship is in the proclamation of the Liturgy of the Word.The worship is in the participation in the mass. Not being near the Eucharist does not mean you can’t worship.

And being near the EUcharist is not a physical aspect, it is sacramental.

So if it’s not out of shame, what was it moved for? Something really important like the drummer or to center on people worship? I’m glad most churches aren’t this nutty however. How do you even know they don’t keep the Hosts, if there are any, in some cheap box somewhere? Do you consider such a radical movement, a norm of the Church? If so, where can I find documentation on that, and why haven’t more done it then? Seems like another private local interpretation of doing what people want with things essential to the Church.

I think I described quite adequately how one can worship without having a physical Eucharist “when one has to”, such as at home, but a church isn’t supposed to be like home, it is supposed to have Christ “physically” present, does it not? Big difference. And though you may had answered this earlier, what’s the point in moving the tabernacle completely out of view, since you do have Christ physically present? Don’t even consider whether you can worship without it there. Simply tell me, what is the appropriate place for Christ physically, sacramentally, or whatever else you want to call it, present, when Christ is literally there in the form of Hosts before and after Consecration? You give Christ to the faithful, and then go hide Him behind a wall somewhere? There’s nothing ‘charged’ (though you said ‘shame’ was charged) about calling it hidden, because not only can I not see it, I literally have no idea what they did with it. In my church, I see them open a tabernacle and close it, therefore I know not only how Hosts are treated, but also that there are some there.

 

[agapewolf]

So if it’s not out of shame, what was it moved for? Something really important like the drummer or to center on people worship? I’m glad most churches aren’t this nutty however. How do you even know they don’t keep the Hosts, if there are any, in some cheap box somewhere? Do you consider such a radical movement, a norm of the Church? If so, where can I find documentation on that, and why haven’t more done it then? Seems like another private local interpretation of doing what people want with things essential to the Church.

I think I described quite adequately how one can worship without having a physical Eucharist “when one has to”, such as at home, but a church isn’t supposed to be like home, it is supposed to have Christ “physically” present, does it not? Big difference. And though you may had answered this earlier, what’s the point in moving the tabernacle completely out of view, since you do have Christ physically present? Don’t even consider whether you can worship without it there. Simply tell me, what is the appropriate place for Christ physically, sacramentally, or whatever else you want to call it, present, when Christ is literally there in the form of Hosts before and after Consecration? You give Christ to the faithful, and then go hide Him behind a wall somewhere? There’s nothing ‘charged’ (though you said ‘shame’ was charged) about calling it hidden, because not only can I not see it, I literally have no idea what they did with it. In my church, I see them open a tabernacle and close it, therefore I know not only how Hosts are treated, but also that there are some there.

You are grasping at straws here. You aren’t making any sense, nor are reading my previous posts that I have already talked about this

**It was in a document by the US bishops…to focus on the action of the mass. ** Misguided as it might be, THAT is why. Not shame. I already answered this question. Read my posts. It wasn’t approved by Rome which is why more haven’t done it. Read the posts.

It is not physical presence, it is sacramental presence That is a theological truth. I’m not trying to play games here, this is true Catholic teaching.

You have no idea what priests do with the Eucharist in a ciborium? really? You think because YOU can’t preside over the priests and watch them put it in the tabernacle that you can’t trust them? Really?

As I said before, stop using charged words. It has nothing to do with “making room for drums”. Many churches moved the tabernacle, and hardly any have drum sets. Your sarcasm doesn’t help the argument.

I will not answer these same comments again. I already have answered them at least once before. All you do is keep trolling here to instigate.

 

[Matt33]

While I don’t agree that moving it was out of shame… I think that is a little harsh. I think the reasons stated by agapewolf are EXTREMELY charitable… maybe too much so. While that may have been the vatican’s POV there have been many in the US who have well… to quote a preist I used to know who is a self described “hippie priest” It was to focus the attention of the Mass on the true body of Christ, the people. Now my freinds, that is misguided and foolish.

 

[agapewolf]

While I don’t agree that moving it was out of shame… I think that is a little harsh. I think the reasons stated by agapewolf are EXTREMELY charitable… maybe too much so. While that may have been the vatican’s POV there have been many in the US who have well… to quote a preist I used to know who is a self described “hippie priest” It was to focus the attention of the Mass on the true body of Christ, the people. Now my freinds, that is misguided and foolish.

People aren’t reading what I wrote. This was a US bishops document. That is what they wrote the reason was.

I’m not arguing the fact that there’s a lot of problems and priests like that, but this isn’t a matter of being charitable, this is reading the document

 

[Charles_22]

You are grasping at straws here. You aren’t making any sense, nor are reading my previous posts that I have already talked about this

**It was in a document by the US bishops…to focus on the action of the mass. ** Misguided as it might be, THAT is why. Not shame. I already answered this question. Read my posts. It wasn’t approved by Rome which is why more haven’t done it. Read the posts.

It is not physical presence, it is sacramental presence That is a theological truth. I’m not trying to play games here, this is true Catholic teaching.

You have no idea what priests do with the Eucharist in a ciborium? really? You think because YOU can’t preside over the priests and watch them put it in the tabernacle that you can’t trust them? Really?

As I said before, stop using charged words. It has nothing to do with “making room for drums”. Many churches moved the tabernacle, and hardly any have drum sets. Your sarcasm doesn’t help the argument.

I will not answer these same comments again. I already have answered them at least once before. All you do is keep trolling here to instigate.

Ohhhh, so it wasn’t passed, which makes it absolutely useless. IOW, some jumped the gun. Now really, for those who did such things, and I know one which did this within the last three years, WHY would I trust somebody who jumps before something is ratified, and even AFTER it has been rejected, they go ahead with it anyway? I also didn’t say that I cannot trust a priest because I can’t see the tabernacle, but more like they are not observing the Holy See in the matter, and even you now admit they do not, who especially as late as the one case I bring before you, they have done this. As well, if they were follish enough to jump the gun, and went through all the trouble of moving it, then when it did not pass, they logically would move it back; but alas.

Your last post seems to indicate that we should believe the reason they even thought about moving the tabernacle entirely, because they put the reason on paper? To believe your paraphrased reason they did, well, you can believe that all you want; I do not, but it basically don’t matter if it didn’t pass. There’s any number of bad results, in this case very obvious, as to why they shouldn’t even had thought up such nonsense in the first place. And then you have these parishes who are going along the lines of something which you said didn’t pass. Now, could you trust a parish like that? All this apparently did was give some parishes an excuse to do it. Whether they would had done it ‘without’ the document ever beign made is anyone’s guess. If Vatican II is any teacher, and that was something that did pass, dissident priests/bishops will do whatever they want to follow their own pathes to reinterpet what even it said.

I gave drums as a reason to move the tabernacle, or to more clarify, put in a LT band, because it was something of a practical reason why a dissident priest might want to move the tabernacle. I also spoke of drums because that is PRECISELY what I have seen at LT Masses, particularly at the LT Masses I had no choice but to attend, due to my then poor work situation. Drums, generally speasking, are the most obnoxious of instruments used in an LT Mass, at least it was the case with that one, though if you count solo singers, the girl they had was a very close second (worst singer I have ever heard. Even my sister when she was teenage couldn’t had been worse), but then singers are more easily spacially accomodated than are drum sets.

As far as I’m concerned, documents which didn’t pass, have no bearing, so it’s unimportant what their stated reason was, even if it was a cover for the real reason. So the issue with those who have done it, and in some cases, years afterwards, has little to do with that document, as more to do with them just going off and making themselves the Holy See in the matter. So, you would trust such people would you? I do admit, I don’t have to ‘see’ what they’re doing and they could be just as respectful (that is if you consider having it out of view not disrespectful, which I do not) with the Hosts and whatever (a tabernacle perhaps?) is behind those walls, but there’s the fundamental problem being dim enough to go ahead and go against the grain and not think of how making Christ the center of things, or at least, in view, isn’t a really stupid action and that alarms me. Again, stated reasons matter little. If the document were accepted, then that would be the reason it passed, true or not, but if as things are, it was rejected, what could be the reason for those who still did it, especially after the fact? I seen enough of the one parish in question, to know they couldn’t be trusted and as much of a fuss as I have brought up about this, it was something that for some lame reason didn’t concern me as much as some of the other things I saw, which I won’t bother getting into. Of course, LT Mass is only a small portion of any parish, unless they should carry some disproportionate amount of weight within the governing body.

You have a previous post where you have talked about tabernacle moves? Care to even give me a clue on what that thread might had been called? I sure haven’t seen it in this one. I have no problem with you not knowing this, if that is the case, simply because I couldn’t begin to tell you where all my comments may had been on various subjects. I would ask for the document link, which I typically wouldn’t know if I were in your spot either, but since it has been rejected, there’s no point. If it had passed the Holy See, then it would matter, but those who went ahead with it anyway, cast an entirely different problem on the whole matter.

 

[agapewolf]

Charles,

Please do some research… the document probably didn’t even get enough votes in US to go to Rome, I don’t know the history of this particular document, but that is the process. So, your going on 5 paragraphs about rome rejecting it doesn’t make any sense, and therefore all your sarcasm dies with that too.

2nd, it was in my conversation with you here that I have already stated, twice now about this. If you would actually take time to read the posts, you would see that, instead of saying things over and over that I have already answered.

The first one was #159.

Please, this is getting old. We both agree we like the tabernacle in the center. We disagree on the motivations of how it isn’t there, and I am not going to judge the hearts of those that moved. it.

 

[Matt33]

Charles,

Please do some research… the document probably didn’t even get enough votes in US to go to Rome, I don’t know the history of this particular document, but that is the process. So, your going on 5 paragraphs about rome rejecting it doesn’t make any sense, and therefore all your sarcasm dies with that too.

2nd, it was in my conversation with you here that I have already stated, twice now about this. If you would actually take time to read the posts, you would see that, instead of saying things over and over that I have already answered.

The first one was #159.

Please, this is getting old. We both agree we like the tabernacle in the center. We disagree on the motivations of how it isn’t there, and I am not going to judge the hearts of those that moved. it.

Just because someone doesn’t see the world in your special way does not mean that they aren’t reading what you say. Just as you can say you are “not going to judge the hearts of the people.” Others are free to think otherwise. In my life experiences I have seen the US Bishops constantly test thier fences so I can be a little cynacle about it. You have done an excellent job expressing yourself. But I don’t see it your way. But fear not you get to take the high road of “not judging” which should give you some solace that you are in the right.

 

[Charles_22]

I had not addressed agapewolf’s red paragraph because I was mulling it over and trying to apply it circa my catechism, or what I got out of it anyway, that is, what I was taught in the years surrounding Vatican II. I suppose agapewolf’s insistence that he was repaeting himself, without telling me what he was repeating, was his way of telling me that I had not replied to that paragraph (which makes little sense to me). As he had not replied to the vast majority of what I wrote, and brushed off the rest of it as not making sense, I wonder how much sense it made for him not to ask my direct comments on his red paragraph instead.

I have done some research and found his red paragraph ringing truer than I thought, however, if I can possibly make any sense, I would like to ask why is it then that post-Vatican II, it is not illicit for the priest to conduct Mass facing the tabernacle (at least I believe that to be so), and yet, the process of the Mass itself is regarded as the focus instead? I needn’t emphasize that the current general approach to the Mass, whereas the tabernacle is to the side and isn’t faced by the priest, would indicate a focus not being on the tabernacle, in those Masses anyway, but in those which do conduct it in that manner. And I’m not just talking physical focus of the celebrant either, so if your taberncale is in the center, and the celebrant faces it, how can it not be the focus?

Also, I was correct in saying the tabernacle should not be hidden, as this documentation showed. I was thinking that it going to the side was something of an indication of a general decline, but I also in my heart realized that I never really had a problem with it, as it is easily accessible in my parish though at a side-front placement, though I wasn’t entirely sure whether that met with Rome’s approval. If, however, I were forced to sit on the completely opposite side of the church, I would more quickly have a problem with that; but at least some people would have and easy time viewing it nonetheless. Clearly, in my mind, the tabernacle being hidden, such as the church I briefly described, could not and never has been allowed, and yet they persist. So, with something, even instinctually obvious in that it shouldn’t be hidden, can anyone tell me just why I would trust such people? Understanding, whoever made that bonehead decision may no longer be there, but I can’t imagine anything stopping it’s correction if that is not the case.

At some point, there was a movement, which succeeded, in the general movement of taking the tabernacle off primary altars in churches, but it was only to be done if there wasn’t some undo hardship such as ruining a good deal of the architecture. Having said that, I wonder what would be the attitude of Rome towards those who had previously placed the tabernacle in a VERY hidden place, and then moving it from there to it’s rightful prominent place somewhere, if so doing it would cause some hardship to things?

 

[agapewolf]

Ok, to be clear here:

first…I am female.

2nd, Charles Made a comment, I answered the “Why” question. he made the exact same comment, and I stated I had already answered it. Period. Thats all…no hidden motivation, no sarcasm on my part. No drama on my end. Just irritated that it wasn’t read and I had to repeat myself. I dont’ care if you reply to it, I care if the same question is posed and it isn’t read in the first place, when it was clearly answered.

I dont’ care if someone doesnt’ agree with me, but it was clear that the point wasn’t read in the first place because the exact same thing was stated again. It’s clear it wasn’t read, its not about wanting someone to agree with me.

I can’t believe this conversation is still happening…this has really nothing to do with the OP, and only because someone made some uninformed, inaccurate and sarcastic comments that have nothing to do with each other.

I’ve made my point.

 

[Charles_22]

Ok, to be clear here:

first…I am female.

2nd, Charles Made a comment, I answered the “Why” question. he made the exact same comment, and I stated I had already answered it. Period. Thats all…no hidden motivation, no sarcasm on my part. No drama on my end. Just irritated that it wasn’t read and I had to repeat myself. I dont’ care if you reply to it, I care if the same question is posed and it isn’t read in the first place, when it was clearly answered.

I dont’ care if someone doesnt’ agree with me, but it was clear that the point wasn’t read in the first place because the exact same thing was stated again. It’s clear it wasn’t read, its not about wanting someone to agree with me.

I can’t believe this conversation is still happening…this has really nothing to do with the OP, and only because someone made some uninformed, inaccurate and sarcastic comments that have nothing to do with each other.

I’ve made my point.

You are jumping to conclusions. I read every single thing you said, and have read them multiple times, and yet here you are still saying I didn’t read them. What do you have a crystal ball? I don’t think it’s a leap in logic on my part to conclude that you didn’t use a crystal ball (it wasn’t telling you the truth if you did use one) and that instead you made the much more reasonable “he didn’t respond, so he didn’t read it” conclusion. So not only were you wrong in thinking I didn’t read it, but think for some reason that repeating it will see me reading it. And now you say you don’t care if I didn’t respond? Sheesh, you have a strange way of coming up with finding how I didn’t read them, because I assure you there is nothing you have stated that is more inaccurate than that and if you don’t care that I respond, why does my alleged not reading it bother you so and what other way would you know that? I was mulling the red paragraph over (despite my saying so on the last post, oh, but you must had cast that into your “he doesn’t make any sense” category and ignored it) as the last post stated. No, you assumed the worst apparently. Thanks a lot! I didn’t write as much as I did, unlike yourself, only to ultimately not read your points, Why if I didn’t read them I sure would like to know how I responded to you at all, including NOW. You mentioned at some point about doing research, and yet you act as though you’re expecting immediate answers and I’m not allowed to pursue my angle as I was. Research takes time, as does pursuing my point, which you all so rudely cast into me not making any sense. frankly, with what you have stated here, I’m none too surprised you have little understanding of what I said.

You’re just as OT as I am, so don’t go casting stones in my direction again. I sure hope you treat others on this board better than you’ve treated me.

 

[agapewolf]

You are jumping to conclusions. I read every single thing you said, and have read them multiple times, and yet here you are still saying I didn’t read them. What do you have a crystal ball? I don’t think it’s a leap in logic on my part to conclude that you didn’t use a crystal ball (it wasn’t telling you the truth if you did use one) and that instead you made the much more reasonable “he didn’t respond, so he didn’t read it” conclusion. So not only were you wrong in thinking I didn’t read it, but think for some reason that repeating it will see me reading it. And now you say you don’t care if I didn’t respond? Sheesh, you have a strange way of coming up with finding how I didn’t read them, because I assure you there is nothing you have stated that is more inaccurate than that and if you don’t care that I respond, why does my alleged not reading it bother you so and what other way would you know that? I was mulling the red paragraph over (despite my saying so on the last post, oh, but you must had cast that into your “he doesn’t make any sense” category and ignored it) as the last post stated. No, you assumed the worst apparently. Thanks a lot! I didn’t write as much as I did, unlike yourself, only to ultimately not read your points, Why if I didn’t read them I sure would like to know how I responded to you at all, including NOW. You mentioned at some point about doing research, and yet you act as though you’re expecting immediate answers and I’m not allowed to pursue my angle as I was. Research takes time, as does pursuing my point, which you all so rudely cast into me not making any sense. frankly, with what you have stated here, I’m none too surprised you have little understanding of what I said.

You’re just as OT as I am, so don’t go casting stones in my direction again. I sure hope you treat others on this board better than you’ve treated me.

Oh for goodness sake. I haven’t cast stones, nor treated you badly. Yet you have been sarcastic and assuming. You repeated a question that I already answered. Simple. And here we are again, with you not reading something I said…

I did not say you didn’t read it because you didn’t respond. i am repeating myself yet again. I am saying it because I had to answer the exact point I said before. This is so simple. You are proving my point, again, that you dont’ read what I say.

I am done now, as I’m sure the mods will not appreciate this argument taking over a thread.
this is getting ridiculous.