I can honestly say I have never been to an irreverent Ordinary Form Mass and the Ordinariate Use Mass I attend each Sunday is more reverent than some, please note ‘some’, of the Extraordinary Form Masses I have attended which have sometimes been so rushed that it was almost like a race to get through it as quickly as possible.
Lets just take the statement above. What is coming through is – a person covers ( using a kleenix if they have to) if they believe in the Real Presence. So this leads to --women who do not cover – are somehow deficient in their belief in the Real Presence.
Head covering was a disciplinary practice of minor importance – which the Church saw fit to not carry forward.
Wasn’t Debbie, in her response to Joey, referring to a specific situation 'back in the 1960s? Not today? And while I am not going to claim causality because I personally think it’s multifactorial, the fact remains that belief in the Real Presence was much higher even in the 1960s than it is today.
My 88 year old mother was mentioning to me just yesterday (and she goes to an OF parish where she’s visiting and finds the young priest very devout) that over the last couple of decades, even in very reverent and fine OF parishes, the atmosphere in the churches is much different from that of her girlhood and youth. She said, "The sense of the sacred is just. . .gone’. Even in a church full of stained glass and statues and candles, ‘happy’ people, etc., one is just walking into a building; a pretty building, a pleasant atmosphere, conviviality, lots of fellowship etc. . .but no real sense of "God’s House’. It’s more like the house of the really nice people who are always the first to volunteer for community events, but the whole focus of the people is on ‘community’. The people could be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, whatever, and the atmosphere is based on what the community finds comfortable. That’s why if the community likes ‘smells and bells’ it’s there; if the community likes burlap and bare, it’s there; if they like an ambience of service then the focus is on tangibles (boxes of food set up in back, sign up sheets for rallies, lists of ‘projects’), if they like a ‘diversity’ approach there’s the labyrinth, centering prayer, ‘ecumenical services’ etc.
But God? The God of our Catholic forebears, whatever ethnic/cultural/socioeconomic status as known in any Catholic Church in the U.S., Europe, S. America, etc. and whose presence was still so remarkable that even today Hollywood evokes it by flashing a screen of a church interior from 1940 or before because that’s what even the most ‘progressive Catholic’ knows will be recognized AS "Catholic looking’. . . the presence of THAT God my mother and her contemporaries, and I and mine, and my children and theirs. . .is harder and harder to discern. . .
It was – what it was – a disciplinary practice of minor importance – which the Church did not see fit to carry forward.
The problem here is – people going beyond/outside Church teaching by – trying to use Scripture and/or “tying” it to the Real Presence.
How does one measure how reverent a parish is? By head coverings worn by the ladies? By the clothes worn? By if the faithful bow their heads at the entrance of the priest? By if they bow to the Eucharist?
Oh I agree. But it is judgmental to say that those who wear head-coverings are just trying to look pious. I’m not trying to argue that head-coverings should or should not be worn. I’m just saying that those who want to have a good reason to wear it.
Interior disposition cannot be measured.
Not if they have been misled – by false ideologies.
Well, I’m sure some have but not all. And one should not lump them all together.
That’s why I said if . That is not lumping them all together.
No. In this case it is more like liberal Protestants where Scripture can be rendered meaningless because it is claimed to be written for a different time and people. Veiling however could be supported without Holy Scripture by the sensus fidei given its practice throughout Christendom since the very beginning.
As I said prior – going beyond/outside Church teaching-- is the problem.
I am in no way, shape or form saying a woman who doesn’t cover her head is less pious, holy or believing in the RP. My mentor and sponsor through RCIA is the wife of a deacon and she doesn’t veil…and I am certain of her beliefs and reverence. But let’s look at the high number of Catholics who do not believe in the RP today. Forgive me, I do not recall right now what the percentage is, but when I heard it I was shocked and saddened by the high number. I just thought it unnecessary to poke fun of a tradition (napkins/kleenix) from years ago when perhaps it added to more people actually believing. Perhaps if more women did it today, those who do not believe would ask about it and start a much needed conversation.
Thank you. It is exactly my point. I did not see this until after I posted my last.
Again – you are tying 2 together – which the Church Herself does not tie. “Head covering” and belief in the Real Presence.
Head covering was just what it was – a minor discipline with no normative value – which the Catholic Church did not carry over.
You can say stopping a minor discipline has nothing to do with the decline in the belief, but I don’t believe in coincidences. It’s not to say that stopping this discipline is the sole reason for the decline, but I can certainly see how it could add to it. Do you have any insights as to why the decline in the belief?
Church teaching on the matter of “head covering” – over-rides anyone else’s “belief” – of tying “head-covering” with the Real Presence.
And I can honestly say it’s been the exact opposite for me.
Does the Church explicitly say why there has been a decline in the belief in the Real Presence? I would really like to see this. Do you have a link?
Again-- you continue with the agenda of “tying” – what the Church Herself does not tie.