Last-minute Communion question
#11
Have you had any luck getting your children to go with you to the TLM? Out of me and my 3 siblings, 2 of us still go to church, and I didn't for years. Your story is so common, in fact it's really the default outcome of the NO if we're going by the statistics...  :(
Reply
#12
(11-10-2019, 10:33 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Have you had any luck getting your children to go with you to the TLM? Out of me and my 3 siblings, 2 of us still go to church, and I didn't for years. Your story is so common, in fact it's really the default outcome of the NO if we're going by the statistics...  :(

My youngest came with me for several weeks — went to Confessions and everything, after being away from the Church for about 3 years — and seemed happy with it; however, he is on the Autism spectrum and one of his characteristics is that he rarely sticks with anything that requires him to leave the house, put in a prolonged effort, or cope with certain ongoing challenges — so he has stopped coming with me. 

My 31-y.o. is a “none,” (someone with no religion, though not actually against religion) who listens respectfully to whatever i share about it and has expressed a certain amount of interest in experiencing the TLM — but he lives a distance away, so we’ve yet to arrange this. 

My daughter has gone astray in so many ways... she lives across the country from me now, so I try to keep a loving connection going with her. She surprises me from time to time by giving me Catholic gifts and stopping into Churches, all of which gives me hope. 

Yes, I really see the whole modern mass approach as being a recipe for repelling young people.

ETA: I pray a series of prayers for each of their conversions/reversions every day, asking the intercession of a list of Saints and holy angels and the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Holy Souls, plus offer every Mass for their conversions/reversions, so there’s a lot of reason to hope.

PS if you don’t mind my asking, what was it that brought you back?
Reply
#13
(11-10-2019, 10:52 PM)Margaret-Mary Wrote: PS if you don’t mind my asking, what was it that brought you back?

That's a question I haven't reflected on in a while. I'll respond to this a little later when I have some time so I'm not shortchanging you on the response
Reply
#14
Anyone else remember the little old people saying their rosary during Mass?
.
I don't know if they didn't speak English, if they had been to Mass earlier in the morning or if they just disliked the new fangled Norvus Ordo. 
.
Maybe they were trying to get a two-fer.
Reply
#15
I've said my Rosary through many an NO Mass, and I wasn't particularly 'old' when I did it (late 30's on). I did it in an effort to not become sinfully angry at what was going on in the sanctuary. I once went to Confession before Mass and was so angry at Communion time that I couldn't receive. I went back to Confession after Mass (same Priest) and confessed to anger such that I couldn't receive. He absolved me again, but it didn't seem to put a dent in his ridiculous liturgical abuses.

And I'd do it now if I'm at a Mass that begins to upset me.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#16
(11-10-2019, 09:13 PM)Margaret-Mary Wrote: Personally, it is no danger to my faith at this point to go to an NO Mass, but as Jovan implied, it’s a danger to my mood. I try to go to ones that i know to be the more reverent options, but like you said, the NO, itself has problems, regardless of how “well” it’s done. There are so many ironies inherent in it...  [/b]

Then according to your conscience, because there is no danger to your faith, or your state of soul, you would be obliged to go to this Mass.
Reply
#17
Yeah I feel obliged to even go to painful NOs. I've learned to appreciate going to church strictly out of duty.
Reply
#18
(11-10-2019, 10:52 PM)Margaret-Mary Wrote: PS if you don’t mind my asking, what was it that brought you back?

I think it was the experience of failure, pain, loss, and humiliation that accompanies the transition from adolescence/early adulthood to adulthood that first softened me.  During my experiences of the stages of grief, I would pray during my bargaining phases; after the circumstances of the grief had passed and my arrogance/pride returned, I was left with the fact that I did in fact pray at the end of the day.  This was an important first step.  In grappling with what belief in God might mean, I made general prayers very intermittently and without much commitment.  This state began to feel very intellectually dishonest, but my interest in becoming part of a church had to do more with a desire to be a part of a community and have a meaning outside of the pathways presented to millennials, namely consumption and liberal politics.  It wasn't that I didn't have a social life or a "full" life, but the idea that something was missing was definitely there.  I connected first with a church and a young adult group, and only then began to really make an attempt to believe what I was being told about the Catholic faith.  This part was very challenging and involved a lot of reading and thinking.  Edward Feser and NT Wright were two very important apologists at this stage.  By the time I was deeply involved in apologetics and early Christian history, the times I would find a persuasive argument against Christianity made me feel existential terror.  This showed me that I had already bought into the faith more than I realized.

So basically the components of conversion were 1) recourse to God through grief/bargaining, 2) acceptance of this fact, 3) a desire for community and purpose, 4) recognition of the failure of consumerism, social media, and liberal politics to satisfy said desires, 5) actual interaction with peers in a faith community, 6) engaging the challenging aspects of faith through rigorous reading of apologetics, history, philosophy, theology, etc., 7) acceptance of the grace of faith that I now had.

There are a lot of pitfalls here.  Pride not allowing one to acknowledge a reliance on God in hard times.  Failing to see how empty secular life's answers to big questions are.  Falling for spurious, faux-rigorous "rebuttals" to the faith instead of digging deeper.  

Even with that conversion I still was about to fall away from the faith anyway until I discovered traditionalism and the SSPX/FSSP.  This site called Fisheaters.com is a compelling resource, but only once you've gotten to certain point, or at least aren't a raging liberal.  There's more to the story but those are the basics.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply
#19
(11-11-2019, 03:58 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 10:52 PM)Margaret-Mary Wrote: PS if you don’t mind my asking, what was it that brought you back?

I think it was the experience of failure, pain, loss, and humiliation that accompanies the transition from adolescence/early adulthood to adulthood that first softened me.  During my experiences of the stages of grief, I would pray during my bargaining phases; after the circumstances of the grief had passed and my arrogance/pride returned, I was left with the fact that I did in fact pray at the end of the day.  This was an important first step.  In grappling with what belief in God might mean, I made general prayers very intermittently and without much commitment.  This state began to feel very intellectually dishonest, but my interest in becoming part of a church had to do more with a desire to be a part of a community and have a meaning outside of the pathways presented to millennials, namely consumption and liberal politics.  It wasn't that I didn't have a social life or a "full" life, but the idea that something was missing was definitely there.  I connected first with a church and a young adult group, and only then began to really make an attempt to believe what I was being told about the Catholic faith.  This part was very challenging and involved a lot of reading and thinking.  Edward Feser and NT Wright were two very important apologists at this stage.  By the time I was deeply involved in apologetics and early Christian history, the times I would find a persuasive argument against Christianity made me feel existential terror.  This showed me that I had already bought into the faith more than I realized.

So basically the components of conversion were 1) recourse to God through grief/bargaining, 2) acceptance of this fact, 3) a desire for community and purpose, 4) recognition of the failure of consumerism, social media, and liberal politics to satisfy said desires, 5) actual interaction with peers in a faith community, 6) engaging the challenging aspects of faith through rigorous reading of apologetics, history, philosophy, theology, etc., 7) acceptance of the grace of faith that I now had.

There are a lot of pitfalls here.  Pride not allowing one to acknowledge a reliance on God in hard times.  Failing to see how empty secular life's answers to big questions are.  Falling for spurious, faux-rigorous "rebuttals" to the faith instead of digging deeper.  

Even with that conversion I still was about to fall away from the faith anyway until I discovered traditionalism and the SSPX/FSSP.  This site called Fisheaters.com is a compelling resource, but only once you've gotten to certain point, or at least aren't a raging liberal.  There's more to the story but those are the basics.

ICT, thank you so much for writing all of that! I will respond to some of what you said, but another time. I’m dead meat after 9 hours on my feet at work today & gotta get up at 5 a.m. to do it all over again tomorrow, but will come back when i can.
Reply
#20
(11-10-2019, 07:19 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That personal opinion. I make the case against the NO from an objective deficit that allows things which can harm our Faith. There are inherent problems with the rite itself, and so it is objectively lacking. That said, some priests add sufficiently back to the NO liturgy some elements and context which might remedy this, but that's a case-by-case situation. There are principles, but they have to be applied to every concrete situation. It is hard, therefore, to make any general judgement.

The question in my book is whether there is a danger to one's Faith by attending. If there is, one must omit it under pain of grave sin. If there is not, one must go under pain of grave sin. It is a decision every person has to take after a reflection on their own informed conscience (because this is what will determine which option must be chosen). That conscience needs to be truly informed, however, so when the question arises, study needs to be done and advice taken from various camps.

Too many priests (and laity) fall too far to the extremes, trying to over-generalize the cases.

This position makes no sense. The malformation of one's conscience cannot dispense one from adhering to the precepts of the Church.

I'm not saying one's conscience is malformed because he is upset at liturgical abuse. The malformation is evident because of his taking scandal. The threat of one sin (scandal) does not excuse a person from his spiritual duties such as attending Mass. It's a sin caused by another sin (or occasion of sin).

MM I'm usually with you, but I don't understand why you hold this particular opinion.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)