Why embrace change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConcernedConvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At your own personal parish, there are clowns and Mickey Mouse and rock music and dancing? Like, regularly?

Because I’m pretty sure a Clown Mass happened, like, once, unless it was literally a Mass being offered for professional clowns. And there are plenty of parishes that don’t employ those elements if you (understandably) don’t care for them.
 
Also, I would actually have little difficulty believing that there actually are many more merely putative marriages now than there were in 1929. Especially when you consider that, as with suicide and rejection of the Church, we give greater weight to psychological factors now instead of assuming that everyone’s conscious and deliberate will can be read from their outward actions.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
Why does it seem that Catholics, or the majority of the Catholics that are vocal, are so eager to make changes within the church?
Click to expand...
The Church has been in constant change for 2000 years. It is a false history to claim the Church had some sort of golden past where it did not change.

Why does it change? Because it is made up of people. And people change. Cultures change. Circumstances change.
ConcernedConvert said:
obviously the big ones, communion in the hand, liturgy, music
Click to expand...
Oh the horror. (note sarcasm).

These things are changeable. These things have changed over 2,000 years and will continue to do so. At one time, people railed against organ music as a horrible thing when the organ was a new instrument. Oh the horror of an organ in the liturgy. Now-- no big deal.
ConcernedConvert said:
additions in the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Again, not an actual issue. There have been MANY catechisms through the history of the Church. One of the first was the Didache. A catechism is a teaching document, meant to help instruct in the faith. Disciplines change, teachings become more clear or better explained, something gets defined dogmatically, new issues arise, and catechisms are updated.
ConcernedConvert said:
But really it could be any change that impacts the mass, changes the traditions.
Click to expand...
These have been changing for 2,000 years. To not change, that would be the novelty.
 
Not regular. But I did see such. The question was which changes do you feel should not have been made. I was giving some examples.


 
Usagi said:
, I would actually have little difficulty believing that there actually are many more merely putative marriages now than there were in 1929.
Click to expand...
That is odd that this only happened in the Roman Catholic Church and not in the Baptist Church or the Lutheran Church. Yes, perhaps the divorce rate is up since 1929. But it is only in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA that you see such a drastic increase from 10 annulments in 1929 to 60,000 in some recent years (although it has gone down a bit to 30,000 in some years)
 
AlNg said:
It is a great distraction for me to have to listen to this terrible rock music and to watch this dancing that takes place during the Mass. I don’t understand the fascination with clowns and Mickey Mouse at Mass. Yes, I don’t mind seeing clowns at a circus, but I don’t go to Mass for that reason.
Click to expand...
Right, because that happens all the time.

It has happened never in the 27 years I’ve been Catholic in any parish I’ve been in. And I travel extensively.
 
AlNg said:
BTW, how many Masses at college campuses have you attended?
Click to expand...
A bunch of them, in college, where i attended the Catholic Church before I was Catholic.

My nieces and nephews are currently in college and there are none of the above in the masses they attend either.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
I guess mostly style but both. Style cannot continuously change without impacting substance. This seems apparent in the practices that have ensued since Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
When was the first revision of the Tridentine mass promulgated in 1570? Answer: 1571.

When was the next revision, changing scripture translation, eliminating prayers, changing prayers, added some things, etc? Answer: 1604.

When was the next one? 1634.

There were minor changes in the intervening centuries but a major one in 1911.

Then in 1962, 1965, and 1967.

It is false to claim the mass of Trent is something unchanging.
 
“Nobody understands the nature of the Church, or the ringing note of the creed descending from antiquity, who does not realize that the whole world once very nearly died of broadmindedness and the brotherhood of all religions.”
  • G. K. Chesterton
 
1ke said:
My nieces and nephews are currently in college and there are none of the above in the masses they attend either.
Click to expand...
OK. I was only relating what I had seen. I also have seen women dancing up and down the aisles, accompanied by a huge projected music video at the same time. Further, in the local Catholic church, there was a Mass in honor of the Chinese New Year. During the Mass, a large dragon puppet was snaking throughout the church and we were told that if we touched the (puppet) dragon, we would get good luck.
A few of my posts have been flagged and deleted already, so I am reluctant to go into further detail. I don’t want to offend anyone. I am only trying to answer, at least partially, the question asked about what changes you don’t like.
Some people like these changes, which is OK. I am just giving my personal opinion and I hope that these answers are not annoying, but I can understand why you might not like them.
 
That really is good to hear about some of the evangelicals! Unfortunately I see that the majority of Protestants are further distancing themselves from the Catholic Church.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
That really is good to hear about some of the evangelicals! Unfortunately I see that the majority of Protestants are further distancing themselves from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you start reading Christianity Today. We’ve been reading it for years, and have been amazed and thrilled to see the gradual but certain acceptance of Catholic Christians and Catholicism by this magazine that, years ago, would have never printed anything positive about Catholics.

I think that it started with Saint Pope John Paul II. His beautiful life and pontificate broke down a lot of barriers, and helped many Evangelicals, including me and my husband, begin to see Catholicism as a genuine Christian Church.

But it was the battle against abortion in the U.S. that helped many Evangelicals to see that Catholics really DO love Jesus and serve Him. As Evangelicals and Catholics have worked side by side to battle legal abortion in the U.S. and to help women who are living through a crisis pregnancy, they are communicating more deeply and becoming friends. This has resulted in many Evangelicals taking a serious look at the Catholic Church and studying the writings of the early Church Fathers, and this has led to Evangelicals first accepting that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church, and then accepting the truth that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded, and then, making the decision to become Catholic.

I’m seriously suggesting that you try reading some Christianity Today issues. It’s really quite exciting to see how the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants are working together.

You can read it at most libraries, so you don’t have to spend your money on it.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
Is it a book or a magazine that is issued monthly?
Click to expand...
Magazine. I would not blame you for not wanting to spend money on an Evangelical Protestant publication (I’m serious here–I don’t give money to organizations that I disagree with!), since there are so many other needs that Catholics should support. But perhaps you could try calling one of the Evangelical Protestant churches in your area and asking if you could borrow or keep a few recent issues of Christianity Today.
 
AlNg said:
Some people like these changes, which is OK. I am just giving my personal opinion and I hope that these answers are not annoying, but I can understand why you might not like them.
Click to expand...
These are not “changes.” They are one offs.

Nothing in the catechism explains how to do a “clown” mass. Nothing in the GRIM tells the priest when to dance.

Oh, and I attend mass at a parish that serves a college. I’ve never seen anything like what you have posted. Were these recent things you have seen? Or are these gathered from the internet?
 
maryjk said:
These are not “changes.”
Click to expand...
Of course it is a change. A BIG change. In the past, before Vatican II, these things would not be allowed. Today, after Vatican II, we see them and they are allowed and no one is publicly sanctioned for it.
 
This is the other thing we see very little of… discipline. The only time I see a bishop usually step in to provide some sort of discipline, heck or even teaching with the priests is if some form of abuse allegation has been thrown.
Because of this, I have four or five parishes to choose from that are all very different from one another, each with its own problems and abuses of the mass.
 
They are not allowed today. Yes, that happen. But you are fooling yourself if you believe that every Mass was perfectly said within the rubrics before Vatican 2.

Priests are humna. They are human now, they were human back then. Human beings aren’t perfect. They aren’t now, they weren’t then.

Like so many here, I have never seen a clown mass, nor a Mickey mouse mass. I’ve never seen dancing 💃💃 or paper dragons.

I regularly attend at my home parish near a college campus. The parish is the parish for the campus. And I have traveled to numerous parishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top