My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[MundaCorMeum]

Toddlers are capable of sitting and standing.  It also mentions that young women with children are to stand apart.  That could imply that women are supposed to be holding said children, because they are too young to be set down.

[Deirdre]

I just wish the parents at my church would insist that their children not talk and hit each other during Mass. That's more distracting than babies and toddlers any day, in my book. At least babies can't help it, and toddlers have some excuse due to being toddlers. 

[awkwardcustomer]

Toddlers are capable of sitting and standing.  It also mentions that young women with children are to stand apart.  That could imply that women are supposed to be holding said children, because they are too young to be set down.

I had to look it up, but 'The Didascalia' which Gardener quoted from dates from the 3rd century.  The practice in the early Church was for the laity to stand at Mass.  There would have been no chairs or pews in the nave.  The early Christians stood before the altar, and those too weak or infirm sat on benches in the side aisles.  The quote needs to be read with this in mind.

For example, you referred to the following.....

And let the young women who are married and have children stand apart, and the aged women and widows sit apart.

The aged women and widows sit.  The young women who are married and have children stand apart.  I find it difficult to imagine women with babies and toddlers being expected to stand, which suggests that the children being referred to had reached the age of reason.

I'm not sure what standing 'apart' means, unless it means standing in the side aisles and not the nave.  At any rate, the example from the Didascalia refers to an entirely different church layout than what is the norm today, a church layout that was also the norm for the entire Middle Ages and only disappeared after the Reformation.

The Didascalia, or the Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and Holy Disciples of Our Saviour, is a Church Order, composed, according to recent investigations, in the first part, perhaps even the first decades, of the third century, for a community of Christian converts from paganism in the northern part of Syria. The work is modelled on the Didache (cf. vol. I, pp. 29-39) and forms the main source of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didascalia.html

[mikemac]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

[awkwardcustomer]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.

[Gardener]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here.

Usually when people use the term "children", they use it to mean children of any age.  They aren't intending to exclude particular ages, unless they note otherwise.  So, it's not a fair assumption to say that "children" doesn't include babies and toddlers, since it typically does.

The example Gardener quoted includes standing and seating arrangements for children who are old enough to stand and sit.

This implies that the children being referred to are not babies and toddlers.

And yet Gardener used this example to argue that babies and toddlers have always been taken to Mass.

My 2 and 4 year old, toddlers, stand just fine thank you. Including when I'd much rather they sit. My 1 year old is perfectly capable of being held.

That there are no exclusions in the age differentiation is telling.

As for your other question on laughing etc., no, I would not have a problem with that. Which is why when my kids act up in Mass we remove them.

[MundaCorMeum]

Toddlers are capable of sitting and standing.  It also mentions that young women with children are to stand apart.  That could imply that women are supposed to be holding said children, because they are too young to be set down.

I had to look it up, but 'The Didascalia' which Gardener quoted from dates from the 3rd century.  The practice in the early Church was for the laity to stand at Mass.  There would have been no chairs or pews in the nave.  The early Christians stood before the altar, and those too weak or infirm sat on benches in the side aisles.  The quote needs to be read with this in mind.

For example, you referred to the following.....

And let the young women who are married and have children stand apart, and the aged women and widows sit apart.

The aged women and widows sit.  The young women who are married and have children stand apart.  I find it difficult to imagine women with babies and toddlers being expected to stand, which suggests that the children being referred to had reached the age of reason.

I'm not sure what standing 'apart' means, unless it means standing in the side aisles and not the nave.  At any rate, the example from the Didascalia refers to an entirely different church layout than what is the norm today, a church layout that was also the norm for the entire Middle Ages and only disappeared after the Reformation.

The Didascalia, or the Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and Holy Disciples of Our Saviour, is a Church Order, composed, according to recent investigations, in the first part, perhaps even the first decades, of the third century, for a community of Christian converts from paganism in the northern part of Syria. The work is modelled on the Didache (cf. vol. I, pp. 29-39) and forms the main source of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didascalia.html

So, parents' offspring don't officially count as "children", until they reach the age of reason at 7? 6 and under are in the "babies and toddlers" category?

I don't think it's difficult to expect women with babies and toddlers to stand at all.  It happens all the time in the back of church, because often babies and younger children are more easily kept quiet if standing in Mama's arms rather than sitting. 
Maybe that's why it was suggested that the mother/child pair stand off to the side; so they could tend to their children in Mass more easily. 

The quote also specifically mentioned children independently, who were to stand on one side; and then young mothers with children (which I took to mean as amother/child pair).  So, if a child has met the age of reason, then they would stand "on one side".  If they had not yet reached age of reason (baby or toddler, by your definition), then they would "stand apart" with their mother. I would presume that means stand next to the mother, as toddlers are perfectly capable of doing so, or sit at mother's feet quietly, or be in mother's arms if the child was too young to stand by himself.

[MundaCorMeum]

 And, yes, I agree that the layout of churches and rubrics the laity are expected and capable of following has definitely changed.  Obviously, parishioners can no longer follow that method of suggested postures, since churches are not set up that way anymore.  But, the point of the quote, I think, was not so much to present a case for what posture the various members of the laity should adopt (though, it is an interesting topic), but more to show that back in the 3rd century when that was written, there was a very wide range of age groups - from very young to very old, parents and children of all ages alike - that attended Holy Mass. 

[orate]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.

And how does this putdown contribute to the debate?


awkwardcustomer
  You feel free to respond with an emotional putdown.  Yet when any or many of those who disagree with you respond in such away as to offend your delicate sensibilities, we are somehow ganging up on you.

You have hijacked this thread to continue your one man crusade against babies and toddlers at Mass, when the OP was asking about attending the traditional Mass.

You have not proved that leaving babies and toddlers at home was ever a universal practice in the Church.  And as has been pointed out by others, the example of St. Therese is just one example and does not constitute a universal proof.

Grow up!  The sun does not rise and set on you alone!

Life is not about you and your problem with noise.  It is about the love of God and doing His Will.  God has said nothing about absolute silence at Mass, but He has commanded us to "Keep holy the Lord's Day."

Let us not discourage young Catholic parents who are besieged by the world about their choice to obey God's Will, by implying that they are somehow doing something wrong in bringing their little ones to Church!  They should be praised for their efforts, not put down by one who presumes to know the mind of the Church.

edited for grammar and clarity

[Miriam_M]

THIS:

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII. 

Correct.  The allegation is historically false.

[Aeternitus]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.

And how does this putdown contribute to the debate?

Because it highlights that the poster who made the uncalled for comment Awkward was responding to (#153) was not contributing to the debate themselves, but making an unjustified attack.   It was nasty.  Awkward clarified way back in #70 that they were not referring to children, but only babies or toddlers.  That's about 90 posts ago.  Perhaps one could not be bothered to read them all?  That's fine, and a perfect reason to refrain from making any comment at all. 

I find Awkward's and Munda's (in particular) posts worthy of thought and I haven't yet come to any conclusion.  Posts like #153 don't help. 

[Tales]

Aeternitus,

Sorry for the delayed reply.  This is with regards to your question about cry-rooms pre-VII:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

This is also a link to a prior 13-page thread on this same topic.

[orate]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.

And how does this putdown contribute to the debate?

Because it highlights that the poster who made the uncalled for comment Awkward was responding to (#153) was not contributing to the debate themselves, but making an unjustified attack.   It was nasty.  Awkward clarified way back in #70 that they were not referring to children, but only babies or toddlers.  That's about 90 posts ago. Perhaps one could not be bothered to read them all?  That's fine, and a perfect reason to refrain from making any comment at all. 

I find Awkward's and Munda's (in particular) posts worthy of thought and I haven't yet come to any conclusion.  Posts like #153 don't help.

In fact I have read this entire thread from the beginning, as well as this entire thread:  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

The fact remains that this thread was hijacked to rehash what has been beaten to the ground in a previous thread.  Prior to post #153 I purposely refrained from commenting as I had commented fully, respectfully, I might add, in the previous thread.

In both threads awkwardcustomer has had some pretty snarky replies to those who respectfully disagree with him.  I guess I'm just tired of him dishing it out and then feigning feeling ganged up upon when anyone replies in kind.

The Church has never made a ruling calling for infants and toddlers NOT to attend Mass.  She has, however, made it a law of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days.

Again, I see no need to imply that  young Catholic parents are somehow doing something wrong when they try to do both their duties of state and obey the Laws of the Church.

Modified because of quotation error

[mikemac]

I have actually read every post in both threads myself as well.  In the last thread, which was about two months ago it was suggested to awkwardcustomer that he wears a pair of ear plugs.  At that time it sounded like he thought that was a good idea.  Yet in this thread he says he still has not tried using ear plugs.  And on top of that he gives the impression that the entire Church should change for him, and not him for the Church.  My answer to that is that it is his problem.  If he at least had tried using ear plugs then this round number two rant would not sound like such a self righteous whine.

[Aeternitus]

Aeternitus,

Sorry for the delayed reply.  This is with regards to your question about cry-rooms pre-VII:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

This is also a link to a prior 13-page thread on this same topic.

Thank you.   No time to read it at present, but I will get to it.