[quote="market224, post:1, topic:295045"]
I stoped going to mass in my teens and after many decades I returned to regular attendace for the past four years. I love the mass and have no quarrel concerning the structure of the Mass. Nonetheless, I can only take communion from a priest and I am compeled to kneel. The first time I did this the pastor assumed I had an agenda.
You're certainly ALLOWED to kneel, even though the norm in the United States is to stand for reception. You're also ALLOWED to change "lines" if it suits you...
but to point out a fact: Jesus is Jesus. You don't get "partial Jesus" by receiving from a Eucharistic minister rather than the priest. I'm concerned about the focus on "must come from a priest to be good enough" that seems to be cropping up lately. I mean, is the use of EMs to be avoided if possible? Sure, but they are allowed and Christ is no less Christ because of it.
Maybe a third of those attending Mass would receive communion as it was clearly understood that you had to attend confession and be without sin. Today the entire congregation receives communion, which is statiscally unrealistic.
Unrealistic or not (not that I don't agree with you on the statistical analysis part), nobody on earth is able to look at another person and determine if they are in a state of sanctifying grace or not... nobody. For all we know, everyone at your parish attends confession regularly, or is exceptionally devout and in a state of grace. That is the presumption that the Catechism asks us to make regarding rash judgements.
As a side note, if we are spending our time considering what proportion of the laity is receiving unworthely, then I would guess that our spiritual and mental state at that time is NOT one in which we OURSELVES are disposed to receive, and that in that regard it is US who should be staying in the pews, trying better to focus on Christ rather than the laity around us.
I believe the consecrated Euchrist is the body and blood of Christ. The priest in the old days would keep his thumbs and forefinger together once he touched the Euchrist. Now we have civilians giving communion.
Side note: priests are civilians (unless they are military chaplains). Do you mean laity? Do you mean unordained persons giving out communion? If so, you should know that historically laity have given out communion from time to time and in such various places as it was required. Eucharistic Ministers were always utilized to deliver the Eucharist to those who were to sick to attend mass. In other words, those "civilians" have been there all along.
The tabernacle is off in a corner and the priest sits behind the altar - center stage as in the protestant churches. .
The location of the tabernacle should be a "place of prominence", not necessarily against the wall in the center of the church. An example where the "chair" is centered directly behind the altar? St Peter's Basillica.
In fact, there are very MANY old cathedrals and churches where the tabernacle is and was on a side altar rather than "front and center". The idea that there was ever a strict rule that the tabernacle would ALWAYS be placed directly behind the altar is fallacy.
The Bishop of Oranage County actually refused to serve a women kneeling for communion
I don't presume to judge a bishop or his motives. He may have known something about this woman that we do not. The church is founded in the bishops, and when we start standing against the bishops, we are in dire straights.
In researching this subject it has been stated that the majority of Catholics do not believe that the Euchrist is actually the body and blood of our Lord. Ireland recently hosted the Eucharistic conference and a survey was conducted in Ireland stating that 60% of the Irish do not believe in the host being the body and blood of our Lord.
Without knowing what was asked in this survey, or the catechesis and perceptions of those who answered, we can't really say much about those results. For example, if the survey asked "do the bread and wine physically become the Body and Blood of Christ", there is probably a lot of ambiguity because the physical aspects of bread and wine do not change, while the physical aspect of substance does.
But even overlooking survey ambiguity, in the age of information I find it difficult to believe that western society catholics do not know that the church teaches transubstantiation as a doctrine. That information is out there and in every RCIA and catechism class that I'm aware of. Whether or not people choose to accept that probably has more to do with the rampant spread of the materialist heresy than with the structure of the ordinary form.
What is needed is good catechesis and good apologetics to combat materialism, and that movement is already taking shape as the vatican urges catholics to participate in social and technological media.
In the old days ushers wore suits for the collection. Today they will wander in wearing shorts.
I'm generally opposed to shorts for mass, but again, they are allowed provided they are modest and of acceptable appearance.
Furthermore, suits used to be the go to for social events. By and large, SOCIETY as a whole has shifted away from more formal attire to more casual. The fact that people in the 40s wore suits to mass does not indicate that they held mass in any greater regard than people do today... it's just that people dressed differently in the 40s.
For example, people going to a baseball game, or people enjoying an evening at a nightclub
Suits USED to be the go to for any social event. Today they are not.
The majority of Catholics do not attend Mass on a regular basis. I am convinced that is a direct result of "dumbing down" the Mass, in their opinion, to make us less different than other denominations. The result, Catholic numbers are going down as other church dedominations increase. The Pope wants us to Kneel, God bless him, but there is no enforcement from Rome.
Contrary to what you state here, the Catholic church is growing in numbers faster than it has in history. Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has nearly doubled in size.
Even if we look ONLY at the United States of America, the Catholic Church is one of the few churches which is increasing in size, while most of the protestant denominations are on the decline.
I'm also not convinced that the "dumbing down" of the mass is at fault for decreased mass attendence (although mass attendence is on the rise again as well). Again, I would blame the widespread heresy of materialism for diluting Catholic teachings, which are more available to the laity today than at any point in history.
In the past four years I have heard very little about sin. In the old days the priests laid it on the line. We are Catholics who abhor abortion, yet it is the Catholics who vote in the politicians who vote for the right to have an abortion as well as other laws that fly in the face of teachings we must accept as Catholics.
Again, there is the materialist heresy. There is also the fact that there's no membership card to call onesself catholic. Simply put, there are many people who name themselves as catholic who have little present-day connection to the church.
In the old days, in a large church, there was standing room only and today it is half empty.
The number of churches as well as the number of masses each weekend has also increased (in fact, moreso than the number of lay persons). More people having to work on Saturday and Sunday means that more people have to attend masses at odd times. When a parish that PREVIOUSLY had two masses a weekend now has 6, one expects the number of people per mass to decrease.
The Church could be a power house in stopping the decline in all aspects of our life if they would remember one fundamental concept, "Tradition" it is one of the three legs in maintaining our faith.
The Church is well aware of tradition, what it really is, and its place in teaching. And, as a cursory glance at news regarding the HHS mandate shows, the church IS a "powerhouse" for stopping encroachment on church teaching.
The lack of any mandates, directives,enforcement, and clarity from Rome is the root cause of children being molested, the decline in our membership, the revolt by nuns, and other major issues.
I always hesitate when someone says this, because pedophilia is an acute mental disease with very complex causes. To say what you have here definitely denies the reality of the circumstance to suit what you're trying to push... but the reality is that many many of the cases date back prior to the days of Vatican II.
The decline in membership is a farce, since the church is growing both globally and domestically. The "revolt" by the nuns isn't about the fact that they are unaware of catholic teachings, so much as they don't care because of materialistic perceptions.
The bottom line is this: there are REAL problems in the church, as there have always been. Combatting a major and spreading heresy is one of them, and combating abuse of the priesthood by pedophiles joining to gain access to children is another... but blaming those very real problems on the make-believe boogey-man of the ordinary form of the Mass is counter-productive, and can only serve to allow these problems to continue while REAL solutions evade us.