My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[awkwardcustomer]

It probably wouldn't be possible, or even charitable, to accurately speculate on that.

On the other hand, there is clearly a deep disturbance that is being manifested in their SJW tactics.

And it could be something as simple and fundamental as being repeatedly disturbed and distracted at Mass and, as a result, never knowing the peace and recollection that comes from being fully absorbed in the Holy Sacrifice.

[awkwardcustomer]

This thread, in a nutshell.

I could not find video of this exchange without a bunch of left-wing nonsense included in it.

I'd like to tie up Thunberg in a chair and make her watch an endless loop of Woody Allen's "The Universe Is Expanding " segment from Annie Hall until she can repeat it verbatim. If that doesn't work, then Lyndon LaRouche's people can try to indoctrinate her into eating babies.

Totalitarians of all varieties love using children and youth as cover.

Therefore you mustn't have a healthy, adult reaction to an insufferable brat.  Instead you must pray for patience, practice acceptance, let go of your preference for common sense and learn to recognise your place in the new social order in which children fronting for despots rule.  What's more, you're probably a bitter, twisted bigot into the bargain.

Greta is the future.  Suffer the little children etc etc.

God has given us youths to rule over us.

[mikemac]

We need a cry room in this forum.

[Aeternitus]

So, Aeternitus, I did look up that book and started on a few sections.  I'll give you my honest opinion, but keep in mind that I do struggle alot with scrupulosity.  After reading even a few sections, I felt myself being pulled into despair, so I won't be finishing the book, even though I think St. Leonard is right in extolling the beauty and treasure in the Mass.  I just know, based on previous spiritual guidance from a priest, that some books are not good for my scrupulosity, and I can tell this will be one of them.  I also apologize in advance, because my thoughts are somewhat all over the place.  Hope you can hear with me through my thought process

Munda, I know there has been a suggestion to cease contributing to this thread, but I owe you a response to your last post to me.   I admire you for having an open mind on such an emotionally contentious topic, close to your heart, and being willing enough to dip into the book.  I hoped St Leonard would be able to explain to you what I have been unable to convey, concerning the reverential silence that is required in Mass - and why.  I just wanted you to have a look at the "other side" presented by a Saint, no less. I certainly think he has touched a chord with you.  I would never suggest anything against your priest's advice and you are quite right to follow his instruction.

Anyway, my very first thought after reading about the great lengths that St. Francis de Sales went to attend not only Sunday Mass but daily Mass really struck me.  It told me that merely having young children or a long distance to drive (in my comfortable, air conditioned Yukon, no less  ), definitely does not excuse us from attending Mass.  On the contrary, I should be doing everything I possibly can to go to Mass, even if it means bringing all of my children along and making sure they know how to be still and quiet. 
It also sounds like the book was saying that if we don't take every possible pain to get to Mass - Sunday AND daily Mass - then, we clearly don't recognize the treasure in it or love our Lord very much.

St Francis de Sales did not have any children, so his duties were not compromised in any way in attending Mass every day.  We can't compare like with unlike.  If you aimed to attend Mass with your children every day, to the detriment of your duties of state, you would not be doing God's will, but your own.  Bigbadtrad made this point, quite clearly, in his quote from St Alphonsus.  Not only that, you would be putting immense and unnecessary pressure on yourself, because you would have to oversee all your children on your own (if your husband is at work), and you would constantly be occupied with child-minding. Continual, daily stress means burn-out and illness.  Who looks after your brood if you are unwell?  The babies and toddlers are not missing out on anything by not attending daily Mass (or Sunday Mass) and your older children will only benefit, ultimately, if their mother's health, strength and practices are in accord with providing them with care in all aspects of their lives. That is not to say I am opposed to daily Mass for mothers of older children.  It is a judgement call based on individual circumstances.   

Because if we did, we would never miss an opportunity, regardless of the obstacles.  I thought that was a little extreme, personally.  But, like I said, I tend to scrupulosity, so my lens of perception is kind of defective to start with.  Perhaps he was using exaggeration to prove his point, similar to how Our Lord said we should cut out our eyes and hands if they cause us to sin, rather than being literal.

Yes, I believe you are right.  The saints often used the same method as Our Lord, as in your example, to highlight a point.    Balanced judgement needs to be applied.  Obstacles which can be overcome, should be.  Obstacles that can't be overcome, or compromise a higher duty, such as one's duties of state, are nothing less than a clear indication of God's will in the matter.  People should consult a knowledgeable and trusted spiritual guide over such issues and particularly those who tend to scruples.  Did you know there are numerous legitimate excuses for not attending Sunday Mass, apart from having to travel a long distance? Such as: when it hinders one's duty of state; when one would suffer injury to their good name or possessions; if one has reason to think if they stay at home they will hinder sin.  And even if one lacks clothing befitting their social standing!  There are more.  So many legitimate reasons that apply to our ever changing, variable life events, because the Church is a loving, considerate Mother who chooses not to place unreasonable burdens upon Her children.  No, I am not advocating one apply these exceptions to themselves, without consultation!     

On the flip side, if we do attend Mass, we should be completely and utterly silent, no matter what.   One quote said that a priest didn't even tolerate coughing or the sound of breathing. 

Again, this is only used to illustrate the point about the level of reverential quiet that is requisite at Mass, which is evident from the context in which St Leonard wrote.   Everyone must breathe or else there would be no attendance at Mass at all, ever!!  Some people must cough, but if one is continually coughing due to illness, perhaps one shouldn't be there at all.  They should be at home.  Or, at the very least, remove themselves to a place where the cough is not audible to the rest of the parish and reduce the possibility of passing on their illness to their neighbour.  But let's say the cough is just a habit of clearing one's throat, or that loud sigh is just an unnecessary attempt at a display of piety, etc., etc., etc.  I sneeze loudly.  Don't know why.  I just do and always have.  But when at Mass, if I feel a sneeze coming on (generally caused by the eye-watering perfume of a lady sitting close by  ), I strive to stifle it in my handkerchief.
 

Given all that, I don't see how anyone should dare to attend Mass, as even adults are incapable of making zero sound, however slight.  It made me think of the times when there were no pews.  How was that allowed?  From what I understand, it was done that way so people could have freedom of movement and posture.  That wouldn't foster stillness or complete silence, as people make slight noises as the move from standing to kneeling to lying prostrate; or if the walk from one place to another.  Pews seem more conducive to being completely still, yet those are considered Protestant innovations. 

I am not familiar enough with the early Church to know what the floor was made of or what their wore on their feet, but I'd bet a million there were no clicking high heels to be heard!  Perhaps they were barefoot?  Pews are constricting. People are quite crowded next to one another.  If one in the window seat of the pew needs to get out for whatever reason, it's a mass exodus!  Not that I think anyone should move from the pew in Mass, but, let's face it, they do and sometimes it is necessary – if one is feeling faint, for instance, due to the incense or lack of air in the church (another reason one is excused from Mass attendance), etc.   My feet don't fit on the floor beside the kneeler when vacating the pew. One does, but the other has to walk along the kneeler to get out.  There is much noise when one walks on a movable plank of wood.    There is even noise going from standing or sitting to kneeling on a pew.  When 6 pairs of knees descend together, but at varying speeds, and consequently slightly varying times, there is noise.  I don't have any difficulty believing that pew-less churches meant less noise.  There were also outer chambers where one stood, seating to the side, but probably not in a cramped row.  The women and children, as we know, "stood apart".  My church is made up of wooden floors and carpeted areas.  I have always walked on tip-toe when on the wooden floor, as I am very conscious of the resounding noise I make otherwise.  I do walk heavily and quickly and it sounds like an invasion.       

So, basically, I walked away feeling damned if I do, damned if I don't.  Bring them along, and I'm a child-centered feminist who is displeasing to God.

I don't think bringing them along because you have no other option makes you a child-centred feminist, at all.  And neither do I believe Awkward ever presented such a case.   Those that have options, but elect to ignore them, because of the totally misapplied and inappropriate use of Our Lord's words: "suffer the little children to come unto Me", might fall into that category, but you have not adopted that non-argument, to my knowledge.   Only last Sunday, you gave us an example of utilising your mother when this was available to you.  You do not dismiss options, as if they are unnecessary impositions placed upon over-burdened parents, by bitter, child-hating, uncharitable curmudgeons who need a crash course in patience and a hat passed around after Mass to buy them all ear-plugs.     

Stay home with them, because I have no feasible way of leaving them behind, and I don't love the Mass enough to overcome that obstacle.

People show their love of the Mass when they strive to understand it and attend it (appropriate to their duties of state) with requisite reverential silence, devotion and attention.  They also show their love of the Mass, by staying home when duty dictates and keeping the Sunday holy (reading the Mass prayers, etc).   

Honestly, I still stand by what I've said earlier in the discussion.  I do not think bringing children (of any age) is the problem.  The problem is when parents exert no effort at teaching, correcting, and expecting proper behavior of their children.  And they goes for at Mass or anywhere.  It's not expected of the parents by society at large, so the motivation to do so is pretty low.

And this is where I do part with you.  Certainly the problem is increased a thousandfold when parents do not rear their children correctly.  I don't think anyone on this thread would fall into that category, though of course, I don't really know. 

But I also believe it is an unreasonable to expect a young baby or toddler to remain quiet for the duration of Mass, yet we know that quiet during Mass is an expectation of the saints.  I do not think one should place unreasonable expectations on young babes and toddlers.  Nor do I think one should place unreasonable expectations on their parents to keep them totally still and quiet. When they have been trained to sit still and quiet for an hour, or more in the event of a sung Mass (training which can occur at home during family prayers and the rosary) then that expectation should be met by the child or there should be consequences imposed upon them to ensure there will not be a next time. If there are continual "next times" something is wrong – with the parents.   It goes without saying that if that child is unwell then they should be at home with their mother.    So, if there are options to keep the young at home with someone else, then that option is the most appropriate, for both the young one and the parent.   Just as it was with St Theresa, (and it didn't prevent her from becoming a saint, or compromise the holiness of her parents) and even those on this thread who have stated they were kept at home also, until 4 years old, together with the recent examples I provided of others in the US, after a brief search.   

But, the fact remains, we are in an unprecedented crisis.  Things change as a result.  I have always acknowledged as much.  If people do not have options, as is the case with you most of the time, and others on this thread all the time, then you can only do your best.  You do have a Sunday obligation.  You do need to bring your baby along if only one Mass is available.  The even tougher job of keeping them quiet or going outside is then imposed upon you and all the more so if you have a true and necessary appreciation of the silence and attention the Mass demands.  It detracts from your own attention and devotion at the Mass, which is not, in any way, your fault and consequently, you will be pleasing to God, if you are diligent. Those who do have options, however, but choose not to use them, well, different story entirely.   I actually liked Coffeeandcigs idea of single people assisting.  But this wouldn't work with only one Mass available. If there were two, and single women took turns to attend one Mass and mind the young children for the second Mass, well, that sounds like a positive solution, providing the babysitters were known to the parents and extremely competent and trustworthy.

I think of priests would raise the bar and teach the laity about the importance of reverence and quiet at Mass, then more people would fall in line, including parents and children

.

Agree 100%. I hold the priests responsible.  Priests are falling down on their job and I believe they are accountable. Young parents and many young priests today have grown up in this crisis.  They know nothing else.  They do not know what it was like in days of Lauermar, on this thread, who was kept at home until he was 4 years old.  Yes, infants did receive the sacraments in the early church, but that is not evidence they attended Mass.  They could have been brought in from an outer room, purely for this purpose, just as catechumens and penitents only attended part of the Mass.   So, how can these young parents/priests be blamed for what that don't know and were never taught? BBT told us himself that he had to rebuke his own father for allowing his nephew to speak during Mass.  I have been blessed with many good priests who have insisted on pin-drop quiet.  Always the older priests.  More recently, I have noticed a trend away from that, probably due to an influx of younger priests.   My experiences do not compare in any way with Awkward's and Max's, which are, quite frankly, shocking.  I do not have an intolerance to noise or children, nor do I believe Awkward displayed any intolerance to children and any accusation against her on that score is pure and simple rash judgement. In fact, I have the ability to turn off completely whilst at home and work, which can be rather embarrassing when I have failed to respond to those who have spoken to me, when I am engrossed in something else. I also have an affinity with children and enjoy their company, sometimes more than adults.  My interest in this topic has always been concerned with undermining the dignity and sanctity of the Mass.

Of course, it wouldn't solve things completely.  We are dealing with fallen human nature, and sometimes you just have to sneeze.

Agreed.  One can usually feel a sneeze coming on and take steps to muffle it. People can avoid having to leave the Mass to go to the bathroom either themselves, or with their children, by making sure they have attended to this prior to Mass.  A medical condition may make this impossible, in which case one positions oneself to cause the least disturbance.   People can sometimes avoid bring babies and toddlers to Mass, by making other satisfactory arrangements.  But some choose not to.  Why?  They have not found the hidden treasure in the Mass that St Leonard describes so beautifully.  They do not realise that by not having the burden of overseeing and caring for the young ones, if possible, would mean they could assist at Mass with more attention and devotion and consequently reap the benefits for themselves and their families.  Yes, their highest duty is to care for their children and they will be judged according to how well they fulfilled this duty.  No one has ever suggested or expected otherwise.  When they are convinced it is ideal, but have no options available to them, well, they do their best.  But that best can only be attained if they instruct themselves in and never lose sight of the reverential silence that the dignity of the Mass requires, as made clear to us by the saints.  As Max said: "necessity is the mother of invention", or to put it another way, where there is a will there is a way.

This 20 page thread has been conducted with eye-blinking robustness for much of it and the misapplication of principles and motives,  which I agree could easily be responsible for the initial poster fleeing in fear.  I enjoy and applaud robust debate when it is fair and directed at positions and not persons.  I deplore it when used in misrepresenting and attacking persons not positions.
     

We can't let perfection be the enemy of good; and virtue lies in the balance between two extremes.  We're all a work in progress, so we need to be understanding and compassionate in that regard....that applies to all people.

Perfection could never be the enemy of good.  God is perfect and he instructs us to be like him: "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".  Perfection is not an extreme to be avoided, but a goal to be attained.  A false understanding of perfection is the enemy of good. 

Understanding and compassion are compulsory for all. We are living in the worst crisis the Church has ever endured.  We are all members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is at present undergoing its Passion.  It is an indescribable, mind-blowing stupendous honour. To be chosen by God to be a Member of His Church now is akin to being chosen to be one of His friends and true followers during his Passion on earth.  And the extraordinary graces we need to suffer this crisis, fulfil our duties and persevere in doing so, until He resolves it (or our life's end, whichever comes first) will be given to us in proportion to the attention and devotion with which we assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - the ultimate source of all grace.

Thank you, once again, Munda, for dipping into St Leonard to the extent you could, which, judging from your post, has given you more understanding and compassion for the "other side" of this debate.  I hope it is clear that I have the same understanding and compassion for yours.   

Gosh, this is a long post!  Will never happen again!!

[2Towers]

2towers, did you go to the latin mass yet?

I am working towards that direction.  Today I went to a church that has a more conservative reputation than mine.  The pastor  said in an email to me that he promised the parish to keep to Church doctrine as closely as possible when he first came there.  It was nice, no holding hands at mass, that was nice.  They said the St. Michael prayer at the end of mass, that was a bonus.

[TheReturnofLive]

Just wanted to be the one who hits the 290 mark for this thread.

[diaduit]

Just wanted to be the one who hits the 290 mark for this thread.

Will we go for the big '300'

2towers, baby steps eh.....oooops did I mention 'baby'.  Sorry 

[Gardener]

2towers, did you go to the latin mass yet?

I am working towards that direction.  Today I went to a church that has a more conservative reputation than mine.  The pastor  said in an email to me that he promised the parish to keep to Church doctrine as closely as possible when he first came there.  It was nice, no holding hands at mass, that was nice.  They said the St. Michael prayer at the end of mass, that was a bonus.

That's a step in the right direction, but what exactly does the bolded mean?

It's doctrine. How does one keep to it closely as possible? Why not just keep to it?

[awkwardcustomer]

Sorry 

Why pretend?

[coffeeandcigarette]

It probably wouldn't be possible, or even charitable, to accurately speculate on that.

On the other hand, there is clearly a deep disturbance that is being manifested in their SJW tactics.

And it could be something as simple and fundamental as being repeatedly disturbed and distracted at Mass and, as a result, never knowing the peace and recollection that comes from being fully absorbed in the Holy Sacrifice.

Considering that you hear ever whimper, I doubt you know much about the peace and recollection that comes from being "fully absorbed" in the mass. Let me quote from a book by a priest on the revolution in Mexico:

     I was kneeling alone in the back of one of the local church...a little Indian, about 40 years old came in...he knelt down, kissed the floor, and knelt with arms outstretched for a long time. Something made me want to see his face. I will never forget the look in his eyes, they were looking straight ahead, they did not see me at all. His eyes were aflame, in the very ecstasy of devotion."

I suggest that you try harder to be fully absorbed in the mass, and allow others to attempt the same, free from judgement, false accusations, and assumptions of a desire to ignore/undervalue God and the Mass.
         "

[Reader]

It probably wouldn't be possible, or even charitable, to accurately speculate on that.

On the other hand, there is clearly a deep disturbance that is being manifested in their SJW tactics.

And it could be something as simple and fundamental as being repeatedly disturbed and distracted at Mass and, as a result, never knowing the peace and recollection that comes from being fully absorbed in the Holy Sacrifice.

Considering that you hear ever whimper, I doubt you know much about the peace and recollection that comes from being "fully absorbed" in the mass. Let me quote from a book by a priest on the revolution in Mexico:

     I was kneeling alone in the back of one of the local church...a little Indian, about 40 years old came in...he knelt down, kissed the floor, and knelt with arms outstretched for a long time. Something made me want to see his face. I will never forget the look in his eyes, they were looking straight ahead, they did not see me at all. His eyes were aflame, in the very ecstasy of devotion."

I suggest that you try harder to be fully absorbed in the mass, and allow others to attempt the same, free from judgement, false accusations, and assumptions of a desire to ignore/undervalue God and the Mass.
         "

I was thinking that very thing this weekend as the children in attendance fussed at Mass. I didn't let it distract me; it wasn't that hard.

[awkwardcustomer]

It probably wouldn't be possible, or even charitable, to accurately speculate on that.

On the other hand, there is clearly a deep disturbance that is being manifested in their SJW tactics.

And it could be something as simple and fundamental as being repeatedly disturbed and distracted at Mass and, as a result, never knowing the peace and recollection that comes from being fully absorbed in the Holy Sacrifice.

Considering that you hear ever whimper, I doubt you know much about the peace and recollection that comes from being "fully absorbed" in the mass. 

You people just can't help yourselves.  You will never stop the misrepresentations and insults, will you?

Let me quote from a book by a priest on the revolution in Mexico:

     I was kneeling alone in the back of one of the local church...a little Indian, about 40 years old came in...he knelt down, kissed the floor, and knelt with arms outstretched for a long time. Something made me want to see his face. I will never forget the look in his eyes, they were looking straight ahead, they did not see me at all. His eyes were aflame, in the very ecstasy of devotion."

I could just as easily suggest this quote to you.

I suggest that you try harder to be fully absorbed in the mass, and allow others to attempt the same, free from judgement, false accusations, and assumptions of a desire to ignore/undervalue God and the Mass.

No, not a desire - I never said that.  Instead I'm suggesting that the insistence on babies and toddlers being present at Mass is the result of a lack of thought and reflection on the part of priests and parents alike, but particularly priests.  How can parents concentrate on the Mass if their attention is divided?

Parents who take babies and toddlers to Mass will have to spend a significant portion of their time baby/toddler minding.  This automatically means they spend less time attending to the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. There's no way round it.

Since babies and toddlers are not required to be at Mass, but people insist on taking them, it follows that those individuals choose to attend Mass knowing that their attention will be divided.  I believe that a lack of thought and the misguided belief that the practice is beneficial are the problem.

So here's a suggestion for you - attend Mass with undivided attention for once, and you might begin to understand what you're missing.

Or keep attending Mass with your attention divided.

[awkwardcustomer]

Does divided attention at Mass receive divided attention in Heaven?

You know the answer.  So why do you insist on doing it?

[coffeeandcigarette]

Does divided attention at Mass receive divided attention in Heaven?

You know the answer.  So why do you insist on doing it?

See!!! INSIST??????   This is what we are talking about. No one has misrepresented you in the least. You are accusing all the parents with children of "insisting" on bringing children to mass. You are not sympathetically acknowledging that most have absolutely no way of leaving them with anyone, anywhere, or that the only have one mass and cannot "tag-team" the mass as suggested by others. You are painting a picture where we rip babies and toddlers out of the arms of the eager grandparents or nannies, who are begging to watch them, drive them to mass, march in, and smile as they disrupt, run wild, and sprinkle cheerios in the pew, all while saying "look at the little darlings, aren't they so cute when the express themselves." You are saying "Greta is the future..." as if we are bunch of hippies who don't care about discipline, and enjoy children who run wild. Most parents I know are very firm disciplinarians and keep their children in line. I'm afraid with this all-too-honest revelation of your feelings, who have lost any chance to pretend that you understand what parents are facing period. You may not be an old curmudgeon, but you are certainly ignorant of this entire situation; and have enjoyed your single life with all it's freedoms, silent moments, and intact china cats too long to turn a kind eye on parents or children. Sad...     Reality check in isle five...reality check in isle five please.

[dellery]

At age 17 I was a single father, and never once was it difficult to keep my child from disrupting people at mass.
In fact, being so rude as to ever allow it to happen, would've been, and still is now, inconceivable. A little charitable consideration for the people next to you goes a long way.