Mass numbers expected to fall by 1/3 in Dublin

Samaris

robindch wrote: »

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits? Did the church ever get that straightened out?

Last time I was at a mass - a few years ago for the marriage of a few non-Irish friends - nobody had a clue of when they were supposed to stand up, sit down + slouch forward and the mass looked like a slow-motion exercise session at a lunatic aslyum.

I'd posted in the meantime, so double-post for the sake of Boards not actually imploding from my trying to edit...


The Mass Eurythmics seems to be slowly having exceptions made to it - anyone who finds it difficult or painful doesn't have to do it - mind you, the elderly that this is particularly aimed at are still the ones most likely to do it! And as I've commented before, my recent Mass-going expeditions have generally been in a rural area that's still more hard-line, so people generally knew what they were at. Hrm...

Far as I recall, it goes something as follows;
Stand for the entrance antiphon (and first blessing).
Sit for the first and second readings and the responsorial psalm (mostly read by a lay person)
Stand up again for the Gospel and stay standing for the Profession of Faith (Nicene Creed - during which there's a brief bow that seems to have fallen out of fashion. Bowing doesn't really come naturally to us anymore, there's very few, if any, circumstances that it's used in Irish society in general.)
Sit again for the homily and try to hear what the priest is saying, which can be awkward as half of them seem to speak in a continuous low mumble interspersed with sudden sharp bits to wake people up)
Kneel for the Eucharistic bits
Stand up and do the handshake (Let us offer one another a sign of that peace)
Go to Communion, queue, kneel, bow, whatever.
Kneel for personal prayers after Communion.
I think it's generally sitting after that.
Fleeing.


Wow. You know, I'd never really paid attention to the muttering about how up and down and all around the Catholic mass is, but reading over that again, yeah, we really do jump about a bit.

EnergyPro

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

Nodin

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

....while I can't comment on exactly how true that is, its safe to say you don't agree with the churches belief that weekly mass attendance is mandatory.
http://www.canonlaw.info/precepts_noaudio.htm

The Randy Riverbeast

Samaris wrote: »

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."

Vatican III: Revenge of the Pope

While things aren't looking great in Europe they aren't going to die off any time soon. They still have strong markets in some parts of the world. It will be interesting to see how things play out in those countries, will the same mistakes be made? From my experience of talking to African Christians (I don't know what brand of Christian they are) they tend to have a more "classical" view on matters that you would have seen in Ireland a few decades ago.

Some details on population growth and decline of Catholics.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313

EnergyPro

Nodin wrote:

....while I can't comment on exactly how true that is, its safe to say you don't agree with the churches belief that weekly mass attendance is mandatory.

Touché!
Fair enough point! But I mean society is changing. Years ago Sunday was a day of rest worship etc etc. Times changed and wknds are so much busier now with people working and what not. I guess my point is that just because mass attendance are not as high as before, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

The "descended into hell" bit in the Nicene Creed is an older alternative of the prayer and not said in Church; that's one I'm only confronted with in a more private setting. I guess it's just their preferred method. Still catches me out something rotten though.

Was that due to a navigational error, or was he deliberately going down there to pick a fight with Auld Nick?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits...

I don't mind these; just follow the herd, no problem being a few seconds behind.
What really annoys me though is being climbed over by people returning from communion. Last time I was at a funeral, I deliberately sat at the very centre point of the pew, so other people could exit and enter at each end, unobstructed.

So there were 3 of us non-communicants sitting there in the centre, when the first guy returned.
He wants to sit on the extreme LHS but he makes his approach from the RHS.
Then he comes up against the obstacle of the 3 people and stands there with a silly grin as if to say "Oh..what are you doing here". The f*cker could see we were there all along! Why could he not modify his behaviour to the situation and go back to his seat the same way he left the pew? I purposely will not stand up to make it easier for him, because of his inflexible attitude. Then 4 more arrive and do exactly the same. Meanwhile there is no problem accessing their own end of the pew directly, if they wanted to.
There seems to be some kind of rigid and invisible one-way system in place, which was probably fine back in the days when there was a big crowd and everybody got up. But now its just stupid, especially when the church is half empty.
By providing less knee room than a ryanair flight, the church does not exactly help matters either.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

Was that due to a navigational error, or was he deliberately going down there to pick a fight with Auld Nick?

Reading up on it, it seems that it's more usually part of the Apostles' Creed rather than the Nicene (don't ask me why I get hit with it in the Nicene), and it's occasioned much arguing. Eastern tradition holds that he went down into hell to speak with the souls bound there and to renew them too. Others argue that it's talking about the hell that is crucifixion itself and the general unpleasantness of dying in such a way. Others suggest that it is meant to be taken as Jesus suffering all the trials that await those who don't believe, i.e., suffering hell itself.

Or maybe there was an epic battle at the gates of hell with Lucifer. That'd be a pretty awesome image for the medieval painters to work with!


Wow, my last few posts in here look a lot like ninja Catholicism! I'm interested in all the whys and wherefores of how religions develop and accept dogma, to be honest, so please don't mind my going off on tangents to talk about bits of dogma and the whys and whats

Cabaal

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

You still share the beliefs of the Catholic Church? You sure?

So sex before marriage is wrong in your view? Gay people are unnatural, gay marriage is wrong?

You see divorce as wrong and you think contraption is also wrong?

I'll be honest, I pitty you if you share these views with the church, it doesn't make you a very nice and accepting person.

Cabaal

EnergyPro wrote: »

, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

Err actually if you look at the evidence it actually confirms there are less Catholics with strong beliefs,

If that wasn't the case the marriage equality vote never would have had a chance at passing, equaly all polls in relation to abortion would show a majority against allowing it in any situation... After all this is the official position of the Church,

There would also be more issues obtaining condoms and other birth control.

The reality is that if you look at condoms for example, the availability of the has increased over the years as the strong viewpoints of the Catholic Church have been supported less and less by its followers,

I know people that go to mass several times a week, but they still support the use if birth control, the accept divorce as something that must happen in certain situations and the support marriage equality. All of which are views pints not held by the church.

My parents would see themselves as Catholic but they were disgusted by the way the church had priests preaching about how awful marriage equality is during communion masses and also remembrance masses prior to the vote in may.

The reality is the church is seriously out touch with the vast majority of people who call themselves Catholic in Ireland, Catholics with strong beliefs that support the church are a tiny minority that continue to die off and shrink daily.

looksee

For anyone who is interested, this is the Apostles Creed as printed in my Anglican Book of Common Prayer (Presented (by the Sunday school) to looksee for regular attendance 26th July 1957). Complete with rather odd capitalisation. I could still say it.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead and buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholick Church,
the Communion of Saints,
The Forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

looksee

Duplicate

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

And sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholick Church,
[/I]

I love that "quick and the dead" line. I get it's referring to quick as in alive, but it's still amusing.

Why does Catholick have a k on the end? Is it something to do with differentiating from the Roman Catholic church?

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

Why does Catholick have a k on the end?

Looksee's little joke
I congratulate Looksee on the exemplary Sunday school attendance record. The prayer book is a modest prize, but well deserved.

On "quickness" I suppose you gotta be quicker than Speedy Gonzalez to go down into Auld Nick's place, and then get out again to tell the tale.

looksee

No, not my joke, that is exactly as it is written, I have no idea why.

recedite

OK. Perhaps just a more archaic form of spelling then?
I'm guessing it was a bit dated even at the time it was printed; religious texts have a habit of retaining old spellings long after they have disappeared from everyday language.

recedite

Here we go, wikipedia to the rescue.
There's a 1662 version and a 2000 version, which are both approved by the CoE. The earlier version would have been common to the CoE and the CoI, and possibly the later one is too, though I'm not sure about that.

Ghosts get replaced by spirits.
Quick by living.
Catholick with a big "C" changes to catholic with a small "c".

I think with the small "c" there is a definite attempt to say "not RC" but I don't think that was/is the case with "Catholick". Can't be sure about that though, as I was not around in 1662 when they decided to use it.

looksee

'catholic' with a small c just means wide, diverse, all encompassing - his tastes were catholic. With a capital C it desribes the early church before it was divided, the k is just an old spelling.

The CofE using the capital C was just their manic capital lettering, they apparently reduced it so not to be confused with the Roman variety.

RainyDay

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church

Isn't one of the beliefs of the church that you have to go to mass weekly? Do you pick and choose the beliefs that suit you?

Nodin

EnergyPro wrote: »

Touché!
Fair enough point! But I mean society is changing. Years ago Sunday was a day of rest worship etc etc. Times changed and wknds are so much busier now with people working and what not. I guess my point is that just because mass attendance are not as high as before, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

There are indeed a goodly number who would strongly identify themselves as "catholic" but when you put the questions to them on the basics - transubstantiation, contraception, divorce, sex in general - I think you'd find they and the actual church would differ. The problem we have in this country is that people essentially sign on because its what you do, rather than what they believe, if you follow me.