"At the conclusion of their spring general meeting, held in Chicago June 18-19, the Catholic bishops of the United States voted to petition the Vatican for permission to change the days on which three prominent liturgical events are celebrated.
"If Rome approves the request, beginning in 2006 Ash Wednesday will be transferred to the following Sunday, and Holy Thursday and Good Friday will be combined and will be observed on the Saturday before Easter.
"'This will streamline the liturgical process and will help those with sensitive consciences,' said Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"'Many American Catholics are confused about which days of the week Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, and Good Friday fall on,' he said. 'The bishops do not want lay people to worry about missing out on these important liturgical celebrations.'
"'Besides, nowadays important secular events, such as sales at malls, occur on weekdays, and we do not want to undercut the Church's preferential option for the poor by inducing our people to skip sales just to attend liturgical functions.'"
"The bishops tabled a proposal to transfer the celebration of Christmas to the nearest Sunday, if the feast otherwise would fall on a weekday or Saturday.
"'We will revisit that at our November meeting,' said Skylstad. 'Many bishops expressed concern that the present arrangement interferes with wintertime vacation plans. Besides, such a change would reduce the workload on priests and therefore would foster vocations.'"
BOGUS BUT BELIEVABLE
Now let me make this clear:
There was no such vote at this month's USCCB meeting, and Bishop Skylstad made no such comments. The bishops did not vote to move Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, and Good Friday, and there was no discussion about changing the date of Christmas.
This news release is fake. I made it up. But, given changes in the liturgical calendar over the last few decades, such a news release seems distressingly plausible.
Consider what has happened to holy days of obligation.
Many of them no longer are obligatory at all, though that may depend on where you live. In some regions of the country Catholics are dispensed from having to show up at Mass on certain holy days, while in other regions the traditional obligation still applies.
Alternately, sometimes holy days that would fall on a weekday or Saturday are transferred to the nearest Sunday, making that Sunday's Mass a twofer.
REASONS AND EXCUSES
What has been the rationale for such manipulations of the liturgical calendar? Proponents of the changes have made several arguments:
1. Turnout for weekday holy days is low. Holy days are established by the Church because they are important; they tell us something about what we believe. If people fail to show up for Mass on holy days, they miss out on that element of their faith.
2. If a holy day is transferred to Sunday, more people can be instructed about the day's meaning.
3. Many Catholics miss Mass on holy days, either because they forget to go or because they can't get off work. Some of them feel unnecessarily guilty for having done so, and they bring this false sense of guilt into the confessional.
These reasons are said to be "pastoral," in the sense that word so often is used nowadays. A more accurate word might be "accommodating."
Changing the days on which holy days are observed takes into account what many Catholics really do (which is to say: they stay home if they can) and tries to make participation in the Church's liturgical life as convenient for them as possible.
This is bad psychology. What is easy is not valued. When the Church makes a weekday holy day not obligatory or moves it to a Sunday, what message is sent to the laity? Aren't the folks in the pews told, though not in so many words, that the belief or event behind the holy day isn't important?
FAST FASTS
Consider a parallel: the fast before Communion. I wonder whether it is possible to reduce it much further and still call it a fast.
The present rule is that you must fast for one hour before reception of Communion (not for one hour before the start of Mass). If Communion comes about 45 minutes after the beginning of Mass, then you must fast for 15 minutes before entering the church door.
For many that means the fast needs to begin when they get into the car to go to church. In other words, if you don't snack on the drive to Mass, you have fulfilled the fasting obligation.
This empties the fast of its meaning because no real effort is needed to observe it. If the fast were made any shorter--say, 45 minutes--it would be impossible to violate it unless you brought munchies right into the pew.
The previous regimen was a three hours' fast, and before that the fast was from midnight. Has the "dumbing down" of the requirement heightened Catholic sensibilities? Do Catholics nowadays see more value in mortification than did their grandparents? Can the mini-fast be shown to have increased reverence for the Eucharist? Has Catholic esprit de corps gone up now that receiving Communion has been made easier?
Only an airhead or a liturgical expert could answer "Yes" to these questions. (I hope that doesn't come across as rude. I don't mean to insult anyone by calling him a liturgical expert.)
I think the most one can say about the shortened fast is that it removed what a few considered to be a burden. I don't think anyone can claim that by shortening the fast anything more positive has been accomplished.
WHY THESE CHANGES?
Some disgruntled lay folks think they have found the real reason for the changes. In their eyes, the changes have not been for the benefit of the laity but for the benefit of the clergy.
When holy days are made non-obligatory or are moved to the nearest Sunday, priests have fewer Masses to celebrate. When fasts are made almost impossible to violate, fewer people complain to priests about not being able to receive Communion, and fewer show up for confessions.
I suppose there is something to such notions--I have run across priests who, I suspected, would have been happy not to be saddled with celebrating Masses or listening to parishioners' confessions or complaints. But I am unaware of any concerted action by priests to push for shorter fasts and transferred holy days.
The changes came from the top. They were instituted by well-intentioned bishops who, for whatever reason, had an odd understanding of human motivations and psychology. These kindly men thought they were doing their flocks a favor by rounding off hard edges. In fact, they were doing them a disservice.
"No pain, no gain," says the athlete. Much the same can be said for the faith. What is worth having is worth working for. What is not worth working for is understood to be not worth having.
CRUISIN'
As I mentioned in earlier E-Letters, this year we will have more people on the Catholic Answers apologetics cruise than ever before. Even so, it won't be a mob scene.
The way we organize the week at sea, it would make no sense to have 500 or 1,000 people in our group. With that many, it would not be possible to have small-group sessions, and these are a key to what we do.
On other cruises, guests listen to speakers at plenary sessions, and then the speakers disappear into their staterooms. We do things differently.
We do have big-group sessions, but we have even more small-group sessions where guests have a chance to talk on a more personal level with speakers. They also sit with them at dinner and can have private conversations with them just about any time.
We make our speakers earn their honoraria. Not only must they give talks at plenary sessions, but they also must participate in multiple small-group meetings. Beyond that, they are obligated to make themselves available throughout the day so guests can meet with them one-on-one.
No wonder people are signing up so quickly for this year's cruise to the Mexican Riviera! It looks as though we will have to turn people away. When we reach our limit, that's it.
If you're one of those who waits until a month or two before to plan your vacation, I wish you a happy time, wherever you may be going. It just won't be with us because if you wait until September or October to book our November 6-13 cruise, you'll discover that it has been sold out.
He's all perturbed and righteously indignant because our culture and community is watered down, yet he and those like him would be the first to excoriate those who complain about John Paul "the great's" decimation of tradition, including our fasting laws by removing all Fridays and ember days.
He's got a lot of nerve to moan over depleted tradition in the church and at the same time tradition on his neocat site is treated like poison. Many posters who've signed up on AQ have been run off from Catholic Answers.
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 2261 Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:41 am Post subject:
JMJ
Easy, now, Servitium. I don't have much regard for Keating, either, but the Catholic reaction is truth with charity. These are not mutually exclusive. I'm sorry neo-cons are wrong when they are wrong, but I'm glad neo-cons are right when they are right. Let's not call good evil. _________________ Now starring as Redbeard the Pirate, suitor of Rapunzel
He's got a lot of nerve to moan over depleted tradition in the church and at the same time tradition on his neocat site is treated like poison. Many posters who've signed up on AQ have been run off from Catholic Answers.
Can't have it both ways Karl, you hypocrite.
You can add Patrick Madrid and the Envoy forum to that list of those that ban traditional Catholic posters.
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 2261 Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:59 am Post subject:
murph wrote:
You can add Patrick Madrid and the Envoy forum to that list of those that ban traditional Catholic posters.
JMJ
And catholic.org, if you're too explicit. Michael dubruiel has put up with me 'til now though. _________________ Now starring as Redbeard the Pirate, suitor of Rapunzel
You're 100% correct of course. My early morning posts often come off this way, I can be harsh.
While my post should have been kinder and more carefully worded, the point remains. Guys like Keating and Madrid truly are hypocrites of the worst kind via their actions and words. They consistently -often shamelessly - defend the root causes of why the traditional faith has been nearly ruined. In addition they prove in a real world way just how much they despise traditionalists by how they take after them in their books, on their websites etc.
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 2261 Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject:
murph wrote:
"Conservatives are the last to understand what is happening." - Fr. Malachi Martin
Great quote.
P.S. Servitium, I understand. I'm a bear until my 14th or 15th blast of caffeine in the morning. _________________ Now starring as Redbeard the Pirate, suitor of Rapunzel
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: FEASTS AND FAMINE
Quote:
These reasons are said to be "pastoral," in the sense that word so often is used nowadays. A more accurate word might be "accommodating."
Obey the bishop. Don't know more than the bishop.
Quote:
Changing the days on which holy days are observed takes into account what many Catholics really do (which is to say: they stay home if they can) and tries to make participation in the Church's liturgical life as convenient for them as possible.
Negative. Not uplifting. Holier than thou.
Quote:
This is bad psychology. What is easy is not valued.
Self styled, self interpreter.
Quote:
When the Church makes a weekday holy day not obligatory or moves it to a Sunday, what message is sent to the laity?
Don't question the hierarchy.
Quote:
Aren't the folks in the pews told, though not in so many words, that the belief or event behind the holy day isn't important?
Beliving this would be to believe that the gates of Hell have prevailed. You must not be properly catechised.
Quote:
Consider a parallel: the fast before Communion. I wonder whether it is possible to reduce it much further and still call it a fast.
Don't pretend your judgment is better than the Church's.
Quote:
This empties the fast of its meaning because no real effort is needed to observe it. If the fast were made any shorter--say, 45 minutes--it would be impossible to violate it unless you brought munchies right into the pew.
It can be reconciled with tradition. Quit working against the hierarchy.
Quote:
The previous regimen was a three hours' fast, and before that the fast was from midnight. Has the "dumbing down" of the requirement heightened Catholic sensibilities? Do Catholics nowadays see more value in mortification than did their grandparents? Can the mini-fast be shown to have increased reverence for the Eucharist? Has Catholic esprit de corps gone up now that receiving Communion has been made easier?
This is fast becoming a "dangerous tragectory towards schism", <i>Karl</i>.
Stop. I beg you.
Quote:
Only an airhead or a liturgical expert could answer "Yes" to these questions. (I hope that doesn't come across as rude. I don't mean to insult anyone by calling him a liturgical expert.)
Aw no, not the elitist trad attitude. Please. Spare us.
Quote:
I think the most one can say about the shortened fast is that it removed what a few considered to be a burden. I don't think anyone can claim that by shortening the fast anything more positive has been accomplished.
It can be reconciled with tradition. Stop, please. Schism is inches away.
Quote:
The changes came from the top. They were instituted by well-intentioned bishops who, for whatever reason, had an odd understanding of human motivations and psychology. These kindly men thought they were doing their flocks a favor by rounding off hard edges. In fact, they were doing them a disservice.
Obey the bishops. Quit questioning them.
Schismatic.
You know what, I'm going to open up a special site dealing with just Catholic Answers.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject:
Let me post a public apology for the way I took on Karl here, publicly. After posting this, while my point was entirely valid, I did not feel comfortable with my approach, and believe that it has violated the principles of charity.
To clarify: I agree with everything Karl Keating has said in his e-letter.
I also stand by the essence of the point I was getting across, completely and totally, which was this:
Karl is, in this e-letter, doing the exact same thing he castigates traditional Catholics for. Somehow it is alright when he does it, but not when traditional Catholics bring the same principles to bear on other issues.
This, of course, is duplicitous. My point I stand by fully.
I just didn't have to do it that way. Here is a case where truly it was the way something was said that was the problem as opposed to the content of what was said.
Still think it was kind of funny, but that's neither here nor there as well.
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 2261 Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject:
JMJ
Dude, that was rioutously funny. St. Teresa of Avila said it is an act of virtue to mock what needs mocking. _________________ Now starring as Redbeard the Pirate, suitor of Rapunzel
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject: Feast or Famine
When Mr. Keating says, "The changes came from the top...In fact, they were doing them [the flocks] a disservice." he shows himself to be a heretic. It is impossible for the Catholic Church (to which he says he is referring) to do anything detrimental to the soul.
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 2261 Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Feast or Famine
Phineas wrote:
When Mr. Keating says, "The changes came from the top...In fact, they were doing them [the flocks] a disservice." he shows himself to be a heretic. It is impossible for the Catholic Church (to which he says he is referring) to do anything detrimental to the soul.
JMJ
Phineas, here is the dogma of infallibility.
Quote:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
The Church has NEVER claimed that her human element cannot be scandalous, or that the orders of Christ's Vicar are always conducive to the salvation of souls. If the Church never claimed that, neither should we.
In 1111, Pope Paschal II gave an ORDER - he COMMANDED - all the bishops and abbots to resign their sees so the emperor could appoint new ones. Almost every one refused the order, because obedience to such an order puts the Church under the kabosh of the State - contrary to the Faith.
The leadership of the Church leaders is not infallible, it is supreme on earth. Church dogma IS infallible. In other words, the Holy Father has no superior on earth in terms of authority. But it does not follow that his authority is arbitrary. If his orders or policies go against Church doctrine, the doctrine comes first. Remember: it was one LAYMAN who stood up to the second highest authority of the Church - Nestorius - when he said that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not God, and the layman was right. _________________ Now starring as Redbeard the Pirate, suitor of Rapunzel
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 9791 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:57 am Post subject:
St. Thomas Aquinas says somewhere, "Truth, no matter what its source, is of the Holy Spirit." I presume that also applies to good satire.
Nonetheless, Karl Keating "hoists himself on his own petard" at the end of his e-letter with his real news about Catholic Answers' "Apologetics on the Love Boat" cruise.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
St. Teresa of Avila said it is an act of virtue to mock what needs mocking.