My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[awkwardcustomer]

Today my 4 yr old sat very still during sung mass and a long sermon  playing with his hands at times and I had to turn him back towards the altar once. It was his first time off mine or hubby's knee . 4 years training for this result.

I'm sorry, but that's a lot of time at Mass spent in concerning yourself with something other than the Holy Sacrifice.

Correct, its called duty of State

It absolutely is not.

You have no duty of state to attend Mass knowing you will have to spend half your time there childminding.  How could having at best half of your attention on the Holy Sacrifice as a matter of course be a 'duty of state'? Unless Mass attendance is a mere tick-box exercise, that is.  Is it?  Is that what your 'duty of state' is? 

When was the last time you went to Mass alone and were able to concentrate on the Mass from beginning to end?  Have you ever experienced the peace, silence and reverence of the TLM without the constant baby/toddler chorus?

Has it never occurred to you that you, as a Catholic parent, might be one of the greatest beneficiaries of a more restrictive approach to Mass attendance?  Yes you would have do things differently.  But what about the benefits?  What about the peace you would experience?  What about being able to focus all your attention on the Holy Sacrifice for a change.

If this has occurred to you, and to other parents here, why are you all so determined to cling to the existing situation? Perhaps because you imagine being deprived of something and can't conceive that you might, in fact, gain something infinitely precious.

[bigbadtrad]

How very Modern of you, mikemac, sacrificing the peace and reverence of the Mass today for a future demographic triumph that will never happen.

Never happen? Modern?

You're the one who repudiates tradition for the innovation. Now you deny the future of the Church.

You are the one praising not bringing kids to Mass against tradition and a father & doctor of the Church, oh but don't worry you have a priest with an imprimatur admitting kids do go to Mass but he's against it which is almost at the same level of authority.

Now we know you're real motive, you just said it, you think the future of the Church will never happen. You just said it.

The end, raising holy children, justifies us trying to train them to be good and holy which takes practice, hard-work, and you just think the innocent sneeze must be stopped with a sword.

You don't want people training the future of the Church, you don't think it will exist.

No one should take your seriously. No one misrepresents you, and I think we would all be wise to ignore you. I'll start now.

[Aeternitus]

What one can do about it is subject to the individual family circumstance/options and after discussion with one's priest.  But the default position from the most vocal posters here, seems to be outrage that parents of young children should be expected to do anything, because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers (NOT children) at Mass attendance, opposed to the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Well, if one lives too far from church that obligation doesn't apply and it then becomes a choice.  How far is too far is a discussion one has with one's priest, so that the particular circumstances of the family can be taken into consideration also.

It was the bolded/underlined that gave the impression that we trad parents were just feckless in our responsibility to keep our children quiet, it didn't say that our default position was we couldn't leave them at home , it said our default position was outrage at being expected to do ANYTHING.

If I took it up wrong then apologies.

Of course, apology accepted, but I've got to say I was completely surprised at how you read my words.  It has never occurred to me that people here didn't take their young children outside when loud/noisy.  They obviously do and have said as much on many occasions.  So when I said that the most vocal posters seem outraged at the thought of doing anything, that was a direct follow on from my previous sentence: "What one can do about it is subject to the individual family circumstances/options and after discussion with one's priest". I thought this was evident by the qualifier "But the default position... which I used at the beginning of the sentence to which you took exception. 

So, to rephrase: most people don't want to do anything about considering options and/or discussing them with one's priest, because most people don't think there is any need to do so.  Why? Because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers at Mass attendance, whereas one does have the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Isn't that the case most people have presented?

And I still think my comment, as intended, is fair comment.  Most people do not feel the need to consider options. They would only do that if they thought there were any merit in the arguments presented by Awkward and, more recently, myself.  Most people involved in this discussion don't.  They have reached their decision.  If anything, most people have become more rigid in their original position, in opposition to what they view as Awkward's antipathy towards children in general, coupled with her own self-focus.  A mistaken and ill-formed judgement of them to make, in my opinion.   The only option I have seen taken up with any enthusiasm and cheered on by others, with varying levels of thinly veiled sarcasm, is for Awkward to invest in ear-plugs, pay for a baby-sitter or simply do the babysitting herself.  So the problem is Awkward's and the solution should come from her, is what most people think.   Some posters have even given her counselling on what her dispositions should be in preparing herself to suffer in silence. I am sorry, but I don't agree, with most people on this topic, for all the reasons I have already discussed in this thread.

If I am wrong about most peoples' lack of genuine openness to options and the need for them, please let me know.  One of those rare occasions when I would genuinely welcome being wrong!  ?         

[Aeternitus]

But the default position from the most vocal posters here, seems to be outrage that parents of young children should be expected to do anything, because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers (NOT children) at Mass attendance, opposed to the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.

Aeternitus, I think you may have misunderstood what some of us are trying to say.  Speaking for myself, this is not my default position at all.  I don't get the impression it is anyone else's, either, but they are free to clarify for themselves. 

My opinion is more that if the ideal is to leave younger children (babies and toddlers are, in fact, children, too) home, then given the crisis and the lack of Masses available, we have an exception currently.  When I am visiting my Mom out of town, we are able to split Masses and leave the younger children.  That is exactly what we did today, in fact.  It's not possible to do split Masses when we are at home, though. Neither are we able to procure a babysitter.  Neither can I just stay home indefinitely, which is what it would take otherwise.

Well, if one lives too far from church that obligation doesn't apply and it then becomes a choice.  How far is too far is a discussion one has with one's priest, so that the particular circumstances of the family can be taken into consideration also

I actually remember reading what the Church says about Mass attendance and distance.  I believe She does have a set distance for dispensation.  I can't recall at the moment exactly what it is, but I'm pretty positive that the 45 minute commute my family makes is not up for a dispensation of our Sunday obligation.  Therefore, if we miss Mass, we incur mortal sin.  It's not worth the risk.

Many thanks Munda.  All your points noted and I will reply as soon as possible, but no time at present. 

[Aeternitus]

How very Modern of you, mikemac, sacrificing the peace and reverence of the Mass today for a future demographic triumph that will never happen.

Never happen? Modern?

You're the one who repudiates tradition for the innovation. Now you deny the future of the Church.

You are the one praising not bringing kids to Mass against tradition and a father & doctor of the Church, oh but don't worry you have a priest with an imprimatur admitting kids do go to Mass but he's against it which is almost at the same level of authority.

Now we know you're real motive, you just said it, you think the future of the Church will never happen. You just said it.

The end, raising holy children, justifies us trying to train them to be good and holy which takes practice, hard-work, and you just think the innocent sneeze must be stopped with a sword.

You don't want people training the future of the Church, you don't think it will exist.

No one should take your seriously. No one misrepresents you, and I think we would all be wise to ignore you. I'll start now.

I do not have sufficient time to address this completely, but this is important.   Misinterpretations have been made on this thread.  I know, I just spent time explaining one in which I was completely misunderstood.  I am not blaming anyone,  or applying motives.  I think it is always wise not to apply motives.   It is but the nature of language and peoples' varying degrees of comprehension and language skills.  Things can be and are misunderstood. 

Awkward is not questioning the future of the Church.  She questioned a future triumph based on demographics.  There is a huge difference and to infer otherwise is a big misinterpretation – on your part.   

[MundaCorMeum]

So, to rephrase: most people don't want to do anything about considering options and/or discussing them with one's priest, because most people don't think there is any need to do so.  Why? Because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers at Mass attendance, whereas it does have the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Isn't that the case most people have presented?

I think I see what you mean now.  I don't think the case is that we don't want to do anything about the issue.  It's more that we feel our hands are tied.  There is not really anything we can do, except completely miss Mass for the duration of raising our babies.  I personally do not see that as a viable option.  Therefore, our solution is to then teach and expect our children to behave properly at Mass.  That is what we are doing, given the current reality of the situation.  Reality and ideals do not always line up, and we only have so much control over that.

And, yes, the fact that the Church does not have a law forbidding children (of any age) to attend Mass, yet does have the positive command to attend Mass under pain of mortal sin, is an important consideration.  We laity are not allowed to bind people to practices that Holy Mother Church Herself does not.  Regardless of whether it is the ideal or not, it is not intrinsic sinful to bring children (of any age to Mass).  Also, just because people are not able to meet a particular ideal, it does not automatically mean that said person is displeasing to God, as has been put forth as an argument previously. 

I think it's also important to distinguish between a discipline and a dogma.  Whether or not parents bring young children to Mass is a discipline.  So, The Church is within Her rights to allow that discipline to change, as She sees fit, regardless of if the laity approve or not.  The change also does no mean a prior discipline was wrong or less than ideal; it just means that The Church has decided that it is ok or necessary for the discipline to change for some reason. 

It is a dogma that missing Mass without grave reason incurs mortal sin.  That is a constant.  Having young children is not, that I can tell, grave reason to miss Mass.  As I said earlier, the Church allows six weeks for a mother to recover after child birth.  After that, her dispensation to be allowed to miss Mass is no longer applied.  That tells me that if I cannot find a way to leave the baby at home, then I have to bring him with me. 

It is not that we parents are trying to be displeasing to God, modern, feminist, are extolling the "virtue" of noise and disruption, are choosing to introduce noise and disruption into Mass, entitled, take pleasure at our children (of any age) disrupting other people's Mass experience (as if Mass is about any of us in the first place), or any other of those things that awkward accused parents of (which, I believe is where the outrage stems from.  It comes across as rash judgment and uncharitable to apply those statements to parents, in general). It's simply that we want to obey God's 3rd commandment.

[diaduit]

So, to rephrase: most people don't want to do anything about considering options and/or discussing them with one's priest, because most people don't think there is any need to do so.  Why? Because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers at Mass attendance, whereas it does have the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Isn't that the case most people have presented?

I think I see what you mean now.  I don't think the case is that we don't want to do anything about the issue.  It's more that we feel our hands are tied.  There is not really anything we can do, except completely miss Mass for the duration of raising our babies.  I personally do not see that as a viable option.  Therefore, our solution is to then teach and expect our children to behave properly at Mass.  That is what we are doing, given the current reality of the situation.  Reality and ideals do not always line up, and we only have so much control over that.

And, yes, the fact that the Church does not have a law forbidding children (of any age) to attend Mass, yet does have the positive command to attend Mass under pain of mortal sin, is an important consideration.  We laity are not allowed to bind people to practices that Holy Mother Church Herself does not.  Regardless of whether it is the ideal or not, it is not intrinsic sinful to bring children (of any age to Mass).  Also, just because people are not able to meet a particular ideal, it does not automatically mean that said person is displeasing to God, as has been put forth as an argument previously. 

I think it's also important to distinguish between a discipline and a dogma.  Whether or not parents bring young children to Mass is a discipline.  So, The Church is within Her rights to allow that discipline to change, as She sees fit, regardless of if the laity approve or not.  The change also does no mean a prior discipline was wrong or less than ideal; it just means that The Church has decided that it is ok or necessary for the discipline to change for some reason. 

It is a dogma that missing Mass without grave reason incurs mortal sin.  That is a constant.  Having young children is not, that I can tell, grave reason to miss Mass.  As I said earlier, the Church allows six weeks for a mother to recover after child birth.  After that, her dispensation to be allowed to miss Mass is no longer applied.  That tells me that if I cannot find a way to leave the baby at home, then I have to bring him with me. 

It is not that we parents are trying to be displeasing to God, modern, feminist, are extolling the "virtue" of noise and disruption, are choosing to introduce noise and disruption into Mass, entitled, take pleasure at our children (of any age) disrupting other people's Mass experience (as if Mass is about any of us in the first place), or any other of those things that awkward accused parents of (which, I believe is where the outrage stems from.  It comes across as rash judgment and uncharitable to apply those statements to parents, in general). It's simply that we want to obey God's 3rd commandment.

This times a thousand.

Thanks Munda.

[orate]

So, to rephrase: most people don't want to do anything about considering options and/or discussing them with one's priest, because most people don't think there is any need to do so.  Why? Because the church doesn't have a law forbidding babies and toddlers at Mass attendance, whereas it does have the duty of fulfilling one's Sunday obligation.  Isn't that the case most people have presented?

I think I see what you mean now.  I don't think the case is that we don't want to do anything about the issue.  It's more that we feel our hands are tied.  There is not really anything we can do, except completely miss Mass for the duration of raising our babies.  I personally do not see that as a viable option.  Therefore, our solution is to then teach and expect our children to behave properly at Mass.  That is what we are doing, given the current reality of the situation.  Reality and ideals do not always line up, and we only have so much control over that.

And, yes, the fact that the Church does not have a law forbidding children (of any age) to attend Mass, yet does have the positive command to attend Mass under pain of mortal sin, is an important consideration.  We laity are not allowed to bind people to practices that Holy Mother Church Herself does not.  Regardless of whether it is the ideal or not, it is not intrinsic sinful to bring children (of any age to Mass).  Also, just because people are not able to meet a particular ideal, it does not automatically mean that said person is displeasing to God, as has been put forth as an argument previously. 

I think it's also important to distinguish between a discipline and a dogma.  Whether or not parents bring young children to Mass is a discipline.  So, The Church is within Her rights to allow that discipline to change, as She sees fit, regardless of if the laity approve or not.  The change also does no mean a prior discipline was wrong or less than ideal; it just means that The Church has decided that it is ok or necessary for the discipline to change for some reason. 

It is a dogma that missing Mass without grave reason incurs mortal sin.  That is a constant.  Having young children is not, that I can tell, grave reason to miss Mass.  As I said earlier, the Church allows six weeks for a mother to recover after child birth.  After that, her dispensation to be allowed to miss Mass is no longer applied.  That tells me that if I cannot find a way to leave the baby at home, then I have to bring him with me. 

It is not that we parents are trying to be displeasing to God, modern, feminist, are extolling the "virtue" of noise and disruption, are choosing to introduce noise and disruption into Mass, entitled, take pleasure at our children (of any age) disrupting other people's Mass experience (as if Mass is about any of us in the first place), or any other of those things that awkward accused parents of (which, I believe is where the outrage stems from.  It comes across as rash judgment and uncharitable to apply those statements to parents, in general). It's simply that we want to obey God's 3rd commandment.

Thank you for stating so succinctly what I have been trying to express.

And even if it was the discipline of the Church in the past to not to bring small children to Mass--which I'm still not convinced it was--- I think a case can be made that it is a positive good to expose children from infancy to the sacredness and beauty, and, yes, the stillness of Holy Mass .

[orate]

And for the record, my children are now all adults.  I no longer have a hat in this ring.  My years of training up my children are over.

However, I find it edifying to see so many young families at Mass, with parents who are trying to teach their children, not only proper behavior, but a love of all things Holy!

I find myself, after Mass, more often praising parents for their children's good behavior, than I do extolling the very few parents who don't tend to their children's noisy behavior, to correct the situation.

[bigbadtrad]

Awkward is not questioning the future of the Church.  She questioned a future triumph based on demographics.  There is a huge difference and to infer otherwise is a big misinterpretation – on your part.

Demography is certainly against us in general, but look at the context and I believe myself correct. I and another poster cited beautiful stories about our children and Mike was inspired by them.

Here's what mikemac said:
"Thanks for sharing folks.  I love reading accounts like these.  It makes you feel like there is a bright future for the Church.  You know, because they are the future of the Church."

Awkward's reply was:
"How very Modern of you, mikemac, sacrificing the peace and reverence of the Mass today for a future demographic triumph that will never happen."

Who says that except a bitter, angry person who doesn't see hope through children? I'm not wrong. It's like saying "I'm so happy" and someone replies "Oh shut up, you have no reason to be happy!"

Sorry the woman is crazy. Who thinks of such a reply? Only a crazy person.

[The Curt Jester]

...long quote by Munda...

Thank you for stating so succinctly what I have been trying to express.

I  believe what Munda has expressed in that quote has actually been repeated (quite clearly) many, many, many times.  In the previous thread, even Awkward admitted about living in times in which sometimes ideal (assuming it is the ideal) is not possible.  That admittance seems to have been forgotten in this thread.

[Xavier]

Well, I think the disagreement has gotten out of hand: On the one hand, the very practice of Infant Communion that was practiced in some regions in antiquity, and is practiced by some Eastern Catholic Churches, clearly shows it's not inherently wrong to bring young children, even toddlers, to Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy. "Support for infant communion is drawn from several gospel verses, including Matthew 19:14 and Mark 10:14. Among the Church Fathers, Cyprian, Augustine, and Leo the Great explicitly favored infant communion.[1]". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion While it is not required as necessary for salvation for infants to communicate with the Lord Sacramentally, as they are already in the state of grace and cannot lose it, as the Catechism of Trent explains, it was not forbidden as harmful either, and therefore still less is it wrong for them to be merely present at the Lord's Sacrifice. The early Church apparently considered that more good than harm would result for those children. They will surely receive some grace by being present.

My personal experience at our TLM has been that quite a few young children come with their parents. They are generally well disciplined or at least quiet. On the rare occasion when you hear crying or other sounds little children make, their parents hasten to take them out. I don't see a problem with it. Being at Calvary can't have been easy for St. John and the Blessed Mother; the unbelieving Jews, Pharisees etc must have been hurling all sorts of insults at Our Lord, and causing Our Lady to weep, as some mystics also suggest. But She bore all that, offered it up along with the Sacrifice of Her Son, and participated most efficaciously along with St. John at the Cross. I believe we can all do the same, which really requires much less of a sacrifice from us. Of course mothers should try to quieten their children to the extent that is possible when they start crying, if necessary by taking them out. I don't think any one is saying otherwise.

Personally, I love when Holy Mass is so quite that everyone is entirely rapt with attention at the Holy Sacrifice being offered on the Altar. Generally, it is like that. Sometimes, it is not. If someone was deliberately making noise, it is different. Little children cry sometimes, that's a part of their growing up, and a part of life for their parents. I think we can bear a little cross patiently and without grumbling if they occasionally cry at Holy Mass; I'm sure Our Lord is not displeased or surprised that they do, and that's all that matters at the Holy Sacrifice. Jesus called them to come to Him.

Since no one is defending the idea that parents be indifferent, or even not do everything reasonable so that children are as less noisy as possible, I fail to see what the problem is. If the child cries, he or she can go out temporarily,

God bless all.

[lauermar]

I just dropped in on this old thread, and my reaction is, what the hell! How did this go so far off topic, and why are members telling another not to bring her kids to church?

Just my 2 cents...I grew up in the 60s. My mom and dad went to separate masses until I was 4. My dad liked the 6am. Then he'd come home and watch me while mom went to 9am. When I turned 4, he took me to mass with him and explained the Latin to me and what was happening. It would have been 1964. I remember feeling privileged to be there. By the time I started school there 2 years later, Latin was gone and I wondered why.

Children and mentally handicapped should never be forbidden from mass unless they have extreme mental outbursts.

Matthew 19:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

King James Version (KJV)

[lauermar]

Accidental double post

[awkwardcustomer]

How very Modern of you, mikemac, sacrificing the peace and reverence of the Mass today for a future demographic triumph that will never happen.

Never happen? Modern?

You're the one who repudiates tradition for the innovation. Now you deny the future of the Church.

You are the one praising not bringing kids to Mass against tradition and a father & doctor of the Church, oh but don't worry you have a priest with an imprimatur admitting kids do go to Mass but he's against it which is almost at the same level of authority.

Now we know you're real motive, you just said it, you think the future of the Church will never happen. You just said it.

The end, raising holy children, justifies us trying to train them to be good and holy which takes practice, hard-work, and you just think the innocent sneeze must be stopped with a sword.

You don't want people training the future of the Church, you don't think it will exist.

No one should take your seriously. No one misrepresents you, and I think we would all be wise to ignore you. I'll start now.

Please ignore me.

Then perhaps you will stop making false accusations against me, as you have done yet again in this post.

You misrepresent what I say, claim to know what my motives are, and resort to accusations and personal attack.

Just like a Social Justice Warrior.