Posted on 04/07/2003 10:40:50 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
I think that you and I and Dave all agree on this. I said so in my post. What I was objecting to was the idea that we all teach our kids whatever we feel like. Dave said that he didn't support that anymore than I did. As to parents as the "primordial and inalienable teachers" of children, that is something that cannot be stressed enough. Thanks for the reference. Especially today with the Catholic schools likely to destroy the faith of any child sent to them.
Yes, you fulfill your Sunday obligation. You do not commit the mortal sin of willfully failing to assist at Mass.
Here is just one example -- I chose an issue unrelated to the liturgy, but one which affects every aspect of your life as a family. Have you ever been taught the primary purpose of marriage? Many popes have dogmatically stated that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Pope Pius XII said:
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.This sounds very much like an infallible teaching, not because of an ex cathedra statement, but because he demonstrates the repeated concurrence of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Yet this teaching is not only ignored today, it is actively attacked and derided, even by the Vatican. I know of no statement from the last 3 pontificates which unambiguously expresses this foundational teaching. Even the canon law was changed to be ambiguous.
Any Catholic who is not active in the traditional movement will be unaware of such fundamental matters. There are hundreds more. How can someone build a solid family life when the hierarchy is actively working to suppress and distort the necessary information?
Here is the site I got my information from, it is really quite interesting.
As expressed by other posters, to some extent it is a personal preference of High Mass versus Low Mass. But to some extent there is a larger issue of what is meant by "active participation." Since Vatican II the term "active participation" has come to mean physical activities: singing, holding hands, moving back and forth between postures, lay people undertaking "ministries," etc. But true "active participation" occurs on the spiritual level. It means participating spiritually in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Our model at Mass should be the Blessed Mother and the way she behaved at the original sacrifice on Calvary. Her participation was supremely active, and yet it was silent and interior.
Some traditionalists like the dialogue Mass, congregational singing, etc., and they may find that it aids their "active participation," while remembering the concept that these things in themselves do not constitute active participation, and in fact they could possibly impede true active participation. Other traditionalists prefer the silence of the Low Mass where there is nothing to distract their focus from the essential action of the sacrifice.
In either case, we must remember that spiritual activity cannot be sensed by any of our 5 senses, nor does it involve even our emotions. We don't "feel" anything when grace is active. Emotions of any kind, even those which we associate with religion such as sorrow or uplift do not necessarily correspond to any interior reality of grace.
I don't know the Latin Mass very well, but I do know it is more orthodox than the NO Mass said in most parishes. Sadly, our Pope and bishops still forbid the tradional Mass in most dioceses. One can only conclude they see it as a threat to the liberal agenda.
Conservatives, open your eyes. The reverently said NO is almost as rare a the Indult. Conservatives and Traditionalists must join in protest against the liberal, sex-scandalous Pope and bishops.
Great point -- I've noticed the same thing. At our old New Mass parish, I called them the "flock of starlings." As soon as the priest said "Mass is ended, go in peace," they broke out into conversation like a flock of birds. We also noticed that the Saturday afternoon Mass was attended almost exclusively by those old enough to have lived before Vatican II. My theory is that this group feels like they are getting away with something by going to Mass on Saturday. Sort of like kids getting let out of school early.
Some of the Pope's appointments are openly heretical like Cardinal Kasper. However, most are smooth-talking "moderate conservatives" that surround themselves with an aura of orthodoxy while continueing the policies of their more honestly liberal predecessors.
The Pope is definately tainted by the still-going, world-wide sex scandal. That should undermine any credibility that would otherwise remain.
I have to disagree. What if the Episcopalians were more reverent -- would it make their Mass valid? What about the Lutherans and the Methodists -- is reverence going to change the nature of their services? What really matters is the reality of what is taking place. Reverence is the response to that reality and it tends to occur spontaneously in the presence of the divinity. Of course some people will be irreverent anywhere. But most people know when they are in a sacred place.
In a New Mass church they act appropriately for that venue. A horizontal service calls out a horizontal reaction. People interact with each other. In a church for the traditional Catholic Mass they act appropriately for a different venue where a different reality is taking place. They are interacting with God, at least we hope they are.
Do you mean people of Baby-Boomer age? That would make sense to me. According to a book that I read titled "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll, the Baby-Boomers trend to be less orthodox, and those of my generation, born in late 1960s until the early 1980s, have many more orthodox worshippers who seek the more traditional devotions like Eucharistic adoration. It's a good book.
Just a tidbit related to your FR name, you obviously know that Desdemona is a Shakepearean name, but did you know there is a moon of Uranus named Desdemona? It was dicovered by the Voyager 2 space probe in 1986.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.