It’s not your mother’s Catholic Church

Catholic Chronicle ^ | July 4, 2003 | PAT TODAK

[NYer]

  “On more than one occasion I recall having worn toilet paper, Kleenex, a paper towel, and even a waist-long stocking cap when I’d forgotten my chapel cap,” recalls Anne Kwiatkowski of Perrysburg. She remembers fasting before Masses and how her brothers would pack both breakfast and lunch to eat at school after Mass on the days they were serving.
  “I think today’s Catholic Church is much more user-friendly,” says Mrs. Kwiatkowski. “The shortage of priests mandates more involvement from lay people, especially women.” She finds that being more involved makes her want to be at Mass more. And she sees that in her daughters as well. “I don’t know that I’ve ever heard them say, ‘Do we have to go to church today?’ When they were younger they loved the children’s liturgies. Now they enjoy being able to serve — something I wasn’t allowed to do.”
  
  At a recent bridge game, Anne’s mom, Barb Vanderkelen, and some of her friends reflected on the many changes they have witnessed in the church through the years. They remembered 40-Hour Devotions; praying when the Angelus Bells rang at noon and 6; and an endless stream of processions. “It seemed like we wore out our First Communion dresses with all the processions we were in,” says Mrs. Vanderkelen.
  The women also recalled Rogation Day, which was one of the three days of prayer preceding Ascension Day, and Ember Days, which were days reserved for prayer and fasting.
  Mrs. Vanderkelen also remembers her grandparents paying pew rental. “I think it was 25 cents,” she says adding, “They always sat in the same pew.”
  Although Mrs. Vanderkelen believes the Catholic Church is better since Vatican II, she misses some of the processions and other ceremonies that filled the church year. “I think 40-Hours was a nice thing,” she says. “It seems like we’ve cut back on a lot of meaningful services.”
  
  Ann Studer thinks her children miss out by not having sisters teach at their Catholic school. “Our school had Franciscan nuns,” she says. “They were so nice — so kind. I wish my kids could have the opportunity to have nuns for teachers.”
  Mrs. Studer remembers her mom telling how she had to go to confession every Saturday before Mass the next day. As a student at Alter School in Rossford, she and her classmates attended Mass twice during the school week and never missed a Sunday. “It’s too bad, but it seems like less and less time is devoted to church in many families’ schedules today.”
  On the plus side she believes that she and her children have a greater opportunity to learn more about their faith than her mom’s generation did. “My mom said she never studied the Bible in school, but I did and my children do now. It’s more of a two-way street now — learning process rather than just memorization. My kids understand more about what happened in the Bible and why.”
  
  When reflecting on how the church has changed since her mother’s day, Jan Nicholas of Sylvania recalled a conversation she had with her mom shortly before she passed away. “I remember talking with her about how differently people dressed for Mass,” she says. “When I was younger I would not go to church without a dress or skirt on. Today, you see so many jeans.”
  Although Mrs. Nicholas enjoys the relaxed attire, she says she wouldn’t mind going back to the more formal ways of the past, even wearing hats. “I remember how nice it was wearing chapel veils,” she says. Unlike Mrs. Kwiatkowski, Mrs. Nicholas never had to put a Kleenex on her head. “Oh some of my friends did,” she laughed, noting that she frequently carried extra chapel veils in her pocket to loan to friends.
  There are many parts of the Mass that Mrs. Nicholas really enjoys today. “I love the Sign of Peace and holding hands during the Our Father,” she says. “It gives the Mass more meaning for me.”
  
  You would never find Carol Stoll’s mom whistling a happy tune. “My mother told me she was never allowed to whistle because it would make the Blessed Virgin Mary cry.”
  Ms. Stoll recalls that the Fatima experience occurred when her mom was young and made a profound impact on her mom’s life. “It was fairly common for the first-born girl to be named after the Blessed Virgin,” she says. “My mom was the oldest of five. Her name was Anna Maria.”
  “Girls were encouraged to be Mary-like and wear blue,” says Ms. Stoll. “After all, the best girls got chosen to be Mary in the Christmas pageant and to crown the Blessed Virgin Mary (statue) in May.”
  Nuns were a big part of both her and her mom’s church history. “The sisters staffed the Catholic schools and along with parents were the primary teachers of Catholicism,” she recalls. She remembers nuns wearing the signature habit with a large dangling rosary and usually a crucifix. “They lived next to the church in convents, didn’t drive, and seemed to be in abundance,” she says.
  Although her mother attended a public school in Glandorf, Ms. Stoll says that sisters comprised the entire teaching staff.
  She remembers when communion was received from the priest’s hand to your tongue while kneeling at the altar rail. “You never touched the host. Oh, the things that could happen to you if you did!”
  As a young Catholic, Ms. Stoll abstained from meat every Friday and fasted every day of Lent. “We would fast from midnight before receiving Communion. The nuns would often cover the drinking fountains to help in this endeavor.”
  She remembers adult Catholics being encouraged to carry a card with them that said, “In case of an accident, please call a priest.” She also remembers how families were encouraged to have holy water fonts on the wall of each bedroom in the home.
  And, as a youngster, she was frequently reminded that she was always surrounded by both a guardian angel and the devil.
  “I am a product of both pre- and post-Vatican II,” Ms. Stoll says. “Pondering this makes me realize that I have witnessed tremendous changes in the Church over time. I have seen the Church evolve from the serious, less accepting, fire and brimstone institution of my mother’s era to the embracing, forgiving, gentler, more lay-involved and inclusive environment of today. There is no question that I am very happy to be worshipping at this point on the Church’s timeline. I enjoyed hearing about the Church of the past at my mother’s knee, but much prefer worshipping in the Church of the present.
  “Truthfully, I’m certain my mother would too. To live her religion meant to nurture, guide, support, serve, forgive, and love unconditionally. These all describe the Catholic Church today. I’ll bet like her daughter, Mom would enjoy being a current member.”

[Sneer]

You are right. The new code in 1983 did not remove the prior code proclaiming it a mortal sin to knowingly and willingly disobey the church teaching on abstaining from eating meat on Friday. It did however include some new substitutes mentioned in the "binding" canon law 1249 thru 1253. Having not removed the binding law as a mortal sin leaves it in effect doesn't it?

[sinkspur]

Having not removed the binding law as a mortal sin leaves it in effect doesn't it?

No. It would have to restate the stricture, which it did not do.

Creating penances and tying eternal fire to their observance isn't exactly what "seperation from God" means to me.

[narses]

I believe most of us here are "fighting on the side of Christ". There are many ways to Serve Our Lord.

[narses]

So eating meat during Lent is not a sin?

[sinkspur]

So eating meat during Lent is not a sin?

Maybe, but not one worthy of the fires of hell.

Wouldn't you agree?

[narses]

I don't know, that's why I asked. I will also ask my confessor, no disrespect intended. For me, when I fail to abstain when I should have, I confess.

[sinkspur]

For me, when I fail to abstain when I should have, I confess.

If you forget, it's not sinful, at all.

And even if you didn't forget, pick another day to fast on.

Is Friday more special to God than Tuesday?

[Maximilian]

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays

The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed.

The code of canon law left it up to the bishops' conference of each country. The US bishops decided to require NO fasting or abstinence on any days of the year except Ash Wednesday and Fridays of Lent. In the United States, as determined by the USCCB, in accord with the leeway in the canon law, there is no penance that is REQUIRED on any Friday not in Lent.

[ultima ratio]

A true Catholic would be someone who practices the true Catholic faith.

[Land of the Irish]

Is Friday more special to God than Tuesday?

Absolutely; it's the day Christ died for our salvation.

[sinkspur]

Absolutely; it's the day Christ died for our salvation.

Which gives Friday symbolic significance.

If someone forgets fast or abstain on Friday, do it on Tuesday or Monday. It's not a sin.

Besides, the fish markets need business EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK to stay open.

Abstaining from meat is no chore to me; I much prefer an ahi Tuna to Angus Beef any day of the week.

[B Knotts]

I wish this were true

...but it is! From the Canon Law of 1983:

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday

In the United States, the Episcopal Conference (the NCCB/USCCB) has allowed (per Can. 1253) the substitution of some other form of penance. Nevertheless, the requirement of some penance remains.

[Sneer]

Thanks for the correction. I went to a USCCB site and read their entire definition including the last paragraphs which states:

"Finally, if a Catholic's decision against Friday abstinence is defiant in nature, a rebellion against divine law, it may well meet the criteria for sin, possibly even the criteria for mortal sin. By contrast, a Catholic who would willingly do penance if the Church required it, and declines only because his national bishops' conference says is not required, does not incur sin."

"All that said, Holy Mother Church strongly recommends the practice of abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year."

I will continue to follow Holy Mother Church's strong recommendation as stated by the USCCB in abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year.

[Maximilian]

I will continue to follow Holy Mother Church's strong recommendation as stated by the USCCB in abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year.

Sure I agree with you. Our family doesn't eat meat on Friday. The point is that we're not doing it because of any requirement of the American bishops. They have copped out of requiring ANYTHING of American Catholics.

[Maximilian]

the Episcopal Conference (the NCCB/USCCB) has allowed (per Can. 1253) the substitution of some other form of penance. Nevertheless, the requirement of some penance remains.

There is no requirement. See Sneer's post #53. Sneer if you have a link to the USCCB webpage where you found the info, it would be appreciated.

[Sneer]

The link I found is http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/fridayabstinence.html

I sent this privately as I am new to this and don't know how to include your request in italics as all of you are doing. If you could give me an explanation on how to do that it would be appreciated. I am still having problems with the "authority" of the USCCB in completely removing the discipline of our Holy Church as to the requirement of penance on Friday. The explanation as to it being purely ecclestical law and therefore allowing for the dispensation seems to open a Pandora's box for me. Is priestly celbacy for instance a purely ecclestical law? How many others have never been tested?

[NYer]

The problem is not with me and my not fighting alongside the Novus Ordo Church, the problem is with the Novus Ordo Church itself. Most of us can't do anything but run away from its putrefaction in order to protect our kids from the contagion.

Novus Ordo .... Church???

There is but one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church!! or has the SSPX eliminated the Nicene Creed from its chapel services?

"run away from its putrefaction" .... in so saying, you slander the faith of millions of catholics worldwide and deny the very church established by Christ. When Christ said:

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.", he set no time limits.

The Catholic Church is the community of believers founded by Jesus to enable his Work of Salvation to continue for all people in every age. Jesus gave the care of his Teaching, his Sacraments and his Authority to St Peter and the Apostles who would pass these to their successors, the Pope and the Bishops of the Church in every age.

The Church cannot err on matters of Faith or Morals because she is constantly guided by the Holy Spirit. This is called ‘infallibility’. Likewise the Bishops of the Church, when gathered with the Pope in an ecumenical council, teach infallibly on matters of Faith or Morals. The Pope himself, as Vicar of Christ, may also make infallible pronouncements on matters of Faith or Morals.

Our response to these teachings should be one of obedience. Even when a teaching is not defined ‘infallibly’, we should still obey that teaching.

Better to retreat to a remnant of true Catholics practicing the true faith.

Your insults never stop.

"The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:20; Rev 19:9.]  The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, [Gal 3:27 .] above all at the Last Supper. [Cf. Mt 26:26 ; 1 Cor 11:24 .] It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection, [Cf. Lk 24:13-35.] and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; [Cf. Acts 2:42, 46 ; Acts 20:7, 11.] by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him. [Cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17.]  The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34 .]" Catechism of the Catholic Church #1329

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." - Luke 22:19-20

When He broke the bread, did He have his back to His disciples? The organic growth of the ritual of the Mass had achieved its ultimate development in the fifteenth century, up until that time, and thus was frozen (i.e. preserved), by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 with the Missal he published preserving the definitive form of the Roman Rite Mass for all ages.

The essence of the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father being made present by the power of the Holy Spirit through the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the consecration of the Mass. The essence of the Mass as the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father is expressed by the various rituals that surround this essential fact. The Eucharist, that is, the presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is the reality of the Mass.

As much as we can find fault with the origin, implementation, and the interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass, we may never call into question its validity.

Why should anybody want to defend such a debacle?

Catholics may not question the power of the Holy Father to implement another Rite. And, as a catholic, I have the right, according to Canon law, to a "valid liturgy". That is what separates me from the sheeples who are ignorant of the GIRM. As a Confirmed catholic, I have the obligation to address any and all abuses wherever I find them ... and there are many. Nothing is accomplished by those who separate themselves from the church.

[ultima ratio]

You need not attend an SSPX chapel to be a true Catholic since it represents only about 20% of the traditionalist movement. Modernism, however, which preaches a new gospel and which aggressively militates against the authentic faith is a false Catholicism. Nothing even a pope might say can make it other than what it actually is--a rebellion against Catholic Tradition. And the Novus Ordo is an essential part of this revolution, contravening even Trent itself.

As St. Paul told the Galatians: "If anyone, if we ourselves or an angel come down from Heaven should preach a gospel at variance with the gospel we have preached to you, let him be anathema. I now repeat what I have said before: if anyone preaches a gospel at variance with the gospel which you received, let him be anathema." This new thing is not Catholicism, it is a falsehood that first suppresses the faith and then destroys it.

[ultima ratio]

First, I am not the one who is making the distinction between what is going on now and all that went before. Rome itself does this, calling itself "the conciliar" Church--a thing unknown before, a Holy See cutting itself off from its own past and its own preconciliar Catholic tradition. It does this deliberately, almost never at all referring to preconciliar documents or papal pronouncements, but acting as if it were starting completely from scratch. This is why it attempted to destroy the old traditions and the old Mass--it wishes to invent and impose something altogether new, a quasi-Protestant faith which is unCatholic.

Second, I do not slander Catholics, nor do I tell lies when I speak of the current putrefaction. There is only one word for what is going on today from the Vatican on down: that word is CORRUPTION. It is absurd to believe I slander fellow Catholics by saying this. They are not the agents of the present putrefaction--this is the role Novus Ordo church leaders themselves play. These men resemble the Pharisees Christ himself had castigated as hypocrites who are whited sepulchres, outwardly impressive, but inwardly full of dead men's bones. So you are wrong to think I demean fellow Catholics. I do not. They are only the victims of the present corruption, not the causes of it.

Finally, if you mean by the Church the popes and bishops who run the show, then OF COURSE the Church can make mistakes. It is as subject to abuse and corruption as any other human institution and to believe otherwise is sheer superstition. Yes, under very constrained circumstances, the Holy Spirit guarantees His protection from error. But the First Vatican Council made it very clear this is a narrowly circumscribed guarantee. NOVEL DOCTRINES are NOT granted such divine protection. It spelled it out very specifically: the Holy Spirit protects only the revelation HANDED-DOWN BY SACRED TRADITION. Yet it is this very tradition which the Novus Ordo Church is doing all it can to suppress and undermine.