I stumbled on to a sight called "Ship of Fools: The Magazine of Christian Unrest." It's an e-zine geared toward making respectful, lighthearted fun at being a "christian." All denominations are represented, but it is predominately Anglican.

One of the features of Ship of Fools is 'Mystery Worshippers.' People attend services (sometimes Catholic Masses) and write about their experiences. I happened to find someone who mystery worshipped at a parish I attended a number of times. The 'mystery worshipper' is a a "High Church Anglican" and his/her comments are, in many instances, very telling...

Mystery Worshipper: Newman's Own.

The church: St Virgil's, Morris Plains, New Jersey, USA.

Denomination: Roman Catholic.

The building: The exterior is non-descript brick, in the plain and boring style that is so pat that one wonders if the RC Church paid the architect once in 1955 and built every church in the tri-state area for the next 20 years. The inside is tacky: wreaths and other decorations (including bird's nests) which appeared to have been made in an introductory crafts class on the wall; banners that would win no awards, and a sort of canopy decorated with artificial roses.

The neighborhood: Nothing of particular note. It is basically a residential, suburban area, located near a minor highway.

The cast: Sorry – I do not know the name of the pastor.

What was the name of the service? First Communion.

How full was the building? About three-quarters full.

Did anyone welcome you personally? No – everyone was occupied.

Was your pew comfortable? Yes, average.

How would you describe the pre-service atmosphere? Noisy and annoying. The first communicants were to sit with (and approach the altar with) their families, and there was much bustle over who was to sit where.

What were the exact opening words of the service? "Welcome to St Virgil's on this great day."

What books did the congregation use during the service? Leaflet printed for the occasion.

What musical instruments were played? Organ – though it sounded more like an electric piano. The music was absolutely dreadful, from the disco-Schubert Ave Maria, which an opening soloist sang straight from the throat through the nose, and worsening when a children's choir sprinkled their off-key singing of horrid hymns throughout. The celebrant sang much of the eucharistic prayer to a "light rock" tune, which was far from effective.

Did anything distract you? A small children's choir (probably the worst I've ever heard in a long history of Mystery Worship), who apparently were unaware they were standing in front of a microphone, talked throughout the eucharistic prayer and communion. Echoes of such sentences as "cut it out!" were extremely distracting and caused me to have a giggling fit.

Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what? Irritating stew of "let's not offend anyone" self-esteem claptrap. The trendy, dreadful music, combined with the carefully non-challenging re-wording of prayers and readings, was rather like a poor 1970s musical play. For example, during the penitential rite, rather than God's being beseeched to have mercy on us and forgive us our sins, the Almighty was requested to "be with us on our journey." The hymn at communion kept referring to our journey as well, and, though I saw no signs of the returned Messiah, our "rising from the dead" as if it already had happened.

Exactly how long was the sermon? 7 minutes.

On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher? 3 – It was a dialogue with the children, asking them basic questions about what they'd been taught. A few comments only told the kids what they already knew.

In a nutshell, what was the sermon about? The liturgy of the word was compared to inviting a dinner guest into the living room to chat before the meal. (I have a strong aversion to the "family dinner and nothing else" approach to the eucharist, which I've noticed when Mystery Worshipping in RC churches.) The pastor is an Anglican transplant with five children of his own, so the inability to explain mysteries to kids should be no excuse.

Which part of the service was like being in heaven? It was a lovely spring day, and a calming breeze was coming through the open rear door.

And which part was like being in... er... the other place? The "Christian lite" diet the congregation was served throughout – a far cry from the radical and challenging message of Jesus of Nazareth. The children said the Lord's Prayer with gestures, raising their arms up, down and to the side, which apparently was a tribute to the recent aerobics craze. What it symbolised is beyond me. (It was not the sign language used by the deaf.)

What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost? Everyone was so busy taking photographs of the first communicants that they would not have noticed if John Paul II walked through the crowd.

How would you describe the after-service coffee? I did not attend.

How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)? 1 – Even one hour here probably cleared me of any time in Purgatory... it was strictly for the down home, "church is nothing but us" crowd.

Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian? Well, I suppose nothing could shake that – but it equally made me glad to be an aesthetically sensitive, happily snobbish high church Anglican.

What one thing will you remember about all this in seven days' time? How tiresome the trendy becomes... though the trendy here is about 30 years old.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 29, 2003

Answers

Bump!!

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 29, 2003.

St. Virgil's was the parish where I was baptized, received first Communion, first Pennance and Confirmation. Went through 8 years of Catholic grade school there, too.

Here's the link to the "Mystery Worshpper" article.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 29, 2003.

Check out the April 27 bulliten. On "Wednesday May 30" you can head on down to St. Virgil's at 7:45 PM and participate in Qigong, some New Age Chinese medicine nonsense. Ah, well. At least they still hear Confessions...err, "Celebrate Reconcilliation" for 45 minutes a week.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 29, 2003.

Interesting, but not suprising. How very sad.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 29, 2003.

Look what they say about preparation for Confirmation:

"It does not take adult faith and unshakable commitment to celebrate Confirmation. If you are ready to celebrate your life, your abilities, and whatever courage God has given you to take the next step (?!) then you are ready for Confirmation. Our program’s goal is to bring the religious education process, which began in the elementary years and deepened in the middle school years, to a maturity level of a fully initiated adult Christian. An emphasis is placed on understanding the past, living the present, and planning for the future, as members of the Catholic Church.

If this doesn't give you pause, maybe send up a red flag or two, it may indeed be too late.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 29, 2003.

"The pastor is an Anglican transplant with five children of his own"

isn't this the reason why? the Church allowed them in when the Anglicans decided for women "priests". maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all.

however, no matter how High Church an Anglican claims to be, Anglicanism is a load of old baloney and anyone who follows it does out of stubborness and very little else. they'll soon be having gay and lesbian priests. so, for one of them to sit in judgement on any Catholic ceremony, let alone First Communion, says it all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 29, 2003.

Jake, that is bad about Confirmation preparation, but it isn't any worse than going through it (or First Communion) because it is expected of you to do so by your parents. It's not like children (even if they are of junior high-high school age) are going to say, "No, I'm not ready for this step". Maybe that parish's approach is all they can get children to even nominally grasp nowadays.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 29, 2003.

We have an obligation to pray for the clergy and faithful of St. Virgil's Church, Morris Plains, NJ.

I'm sure God is familiar with the parish. He goes there daily. If all of us pray, He may send grace and spiritual understanding to the people there. All over New Jersey, even. This is, after all, Sopranos territory.

The tackiest environment in a church I've experienced is in Tijuana, Baja Calif, a number of poor parishes. Very few of the marginal population of that city hire baby-sitters. With toddlers tripping all over the interiror, and no air conditioning, a box of groans called the organ, this is no ''mystery worship.'' It's being good instead of being bad.

The good come, the bad stay away, because they have business in the streets, such as panhandling & drug peddling.

And, I'm happy to testify, the GOOD meet Jesus Christ inside these campy churches. He LIVES, and they acknowledge Him. Naturally, a High Church Catholic is never found even dead in those places.

I recall reading in the New Testament; Scribes and Pharisees were always found at front & center in the glorious Temple of Jerusalem. There was a healthy economy taking place within, as well. These folks did NOT hit it off well with Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

This is the priest from whose hands I received my first Communion, taught me to serve at the altar, and heard my confessions growing up.

Agreed, Gene, let's pray for priests, not only the ones of my former parish, but for all those who have impacted or lives in one way or another, from whose counsel we have benefitted, at whose Masses we assisted. They were not supermen, they were weak men with fallen flesh like yours & mine. May they obtain sufficient grace in this life to secure their eternal salvation.

Our Lady of Sorrows, ora pro nobis. Amen.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 29, 2003.

Beauty is really in the eyes of the beholder. Let us rewrite this scene using the same facts but with different adjectives as through the eyes of someone else.

I attended a lovely springtime 1st communion service in a small residential, suburban church in NJ.

A calming breeze was blowing through the open rear door. The building was simple, only plain brick. Unpretentious decorations were scattered tastefully throughout, and wven a little bird found its home in this holy place.

Before service, there was the expected hustle and buzz, getting the children ready for their big day. Finally they trickled in, the children sat to the front woth their famalies. A lovely touch that emphasised that communion is about community.

The church was about 3/4 full and the pews were comfortable. I felt slightly the outcast, as no one seemed to notice it was my first time there; but this was after all, a special day for the children and all attention was on them. I am sure had John Paul II walked in he would not be noticed.

After a brief welcome, the service started. There was singing at all stages, from the opening soloist to the celebrant. Even the children sang the lord's prayer with lifted hands that reminded one of a choir of angels in front the altar in heaven.

The surmon was brief and to the point and couched in language the children coould easily identify with.

After the service, the families gathered for photographs and I slipped quietly away, carrying with me the strong feeling that the church , after all, is alive and well.

Bless you all

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

Honestly Angelo,

I don't see how your rendition of the story is much better. Here's why:

A lovely touch that emphasised that communion is about community.

Really??????????????? That reminds me of Protestant thinking. First Holy Communion is first and foremost about receiving Our Lord for the first time, a sacrifice freely given for us.

Before service, there was the expected hustle and buzz

We don't have all that hustle and buzz in my Church in front of the Blessed Sacrament. The pews are marked with names and the children 'practice' beforehand. So all is calm and solemn.

a special day for the children and all attention was on them

I can understand that, but attention and emphasis should be put on Our Lord, and preparation before Mass.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Isabel:

You have taken Angelo wrongly; he isn't giving you any gloss-over. he's showing how a given impression of the Mass is tempered by the one who observes. He is right. If your heart is well-disposed, you might see it very much the contrary of what the ''High Church'' critic sees. No mention was made of how God sees it.

There's the fine line between your ''trad'' judgment and our own:

You presume to know what pleases God. Or what ought to please Him, because it pleases YOU And by your measures, our Church is lacking. --The strange truth is; Angelo's viewpoint is in no way inferior to your viewpoint. Angelo lets God make up his own mind; where YOU are the best qualified. You or nobody. (No offense; just my opinion with all respect.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

Isabel

A lovely touch that emphasised that communion is about community.

Really??????????????? That reminds me of Protestant thinking. First Holy Communion is first and foremost about receiving Our Lord for the first time, a sacrifice freely given for us.

You seem to be taking a "the glass is half-empty" approach. Of course 1st communion is about receiving Christ's body for the first time! But is that really ALL you want children to get out of it? What do you see as wrong with showing them that they are all unified in Christ? I'd say Angelo didn't go far enough, it's not just that Catholics are a community, they are all joined as one in Christ -- or would you disagree?

Before service, there was the expected hustle and buzz

We don't have all that hustle and buzz in my Church in front of the Blessed Sacrament

Does you church routinely leave the Blessed Sacrament exposed before services?

a special day for the children and all attention was on them

I can understand that, but attention and emphasis should be put on Our Lord, and preparation before Mass

You know Isabel, Christ wanted the little children to come to him, I really think "you" schismatics have confused Christ with "The Great and Powerful Oz" who demands all grovel before him. Personally, I think Christ would love to hear a bunch of excited kids talking before and anticipating the services, and not standing silent and bored with their parents making sure they look respectful enough for Jesus and the community. If Christ REALLY wanted people to be stiff as boards all the time, and as emotional, He could have told them to act that way. Christ has given children LIFE, why do you want to take it away from them? They will have all their adult lives (in your church) to look as dour and respectful as the next guy, why make them start when they are seven years old?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2003.

All, but you are mistaken, Eugene. I never said I know what please God in my last post. I was simply saying what I know to be due to God. And the utmost respect, attention, love and honor is due to him. By saying Communion is all about the community puts this sacrament on the level of man. That, I know, is not what is due to God. Therefore, if that is not what is due Him, will it please Him? Yes, He is merciful and loving, but also very just.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

All, but you are mistaken

Actually, that was not supposed to be all, but Ah! :) Sorry about that.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Hang on, Gene. This is not a 'trad' thing; not entirely. Look what they're saying in my old parish about Catholic Doctrine on the Eucharist:

Catholic Doctrine "The chapters in We Celebrate Eucharist correspond to eucharistic themes that are based on the official teachings of the Catholic Church. The many teachings that apply to eucharistic celebration reveal the rich dimensions of this sacrament...

Sharing a meal "Jesus tells his followers to share a meal in memory of him. When we break bread in Jesus´ name as the community of his followers, God´s healing and sustaining presence is made known to us. When we receive the Eucharist, we share a special meal with other people who love Jesus. Jesus told us to share this meal as a way to remember him."

Does this sound like authentic Church teaching on the Eucharist? Even if you manage to find some truth in what's said; listen to what's NOT said:

- no mention of the Eucharist as sacrifice for sin

- no mention of the need to be in the state of grace

- no mention of the Real Presence, except in broad & nebulous terms

- describes the Eucharist as something commemorative, not something made present on the altar.

If this is what was being taught to my child, I think I would have grave doubts about whether a real Sacrament was even taking place. One of the requirements for validity is intention. The priest has to intend to do what the Church does when he pronounces the words of Consecration. The above theology on the Eucharist is, I think, sufficiently flawed as to raise at least a material doubt as to validity, if the pastor / priests approve & promulgate it, which they obviously do. That's not injecting opinion. That's how I see it using all the objectivity I can muster.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 29, 2003.

if the army traind their soldiers that way. Everybody relax and go with feelings.

Any wonder that more Catholics than not, including priests , do no longer believe in the Real Presence.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Isabel

I think what Angelo is saying is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to see Christ in the world around you, he wil be there.

If you want to look at the world with a closed heart and a closed mind, then Christ himself could be speaking to you and all you would hear would be yourself and your own ramblings.

As Catholics we believe in the "true presence" of Christ with us in the Mass. We believe that it is Christ himself which we consume in the Holy Eucharist. We also believe that Christ is present in the "word broke open" in the Homily. We hear the words of his servant, but it is Christ "present" who speaks to our heart. We also believe in the true presence of Christ in the gathering of the assembly. For where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there also. It is the gathered assembly of believers who are offered up with the bread and wine. It is the assembly gathered there who are sacrificed in the Eucharist. It is the assembly gathered there along with the whole church that Christ raises up in new life. If all that person could hear . . . with all that presence going on . . . were the voices of little children picked up in the sound system and a simplistic sermon given by a simplistic pseudo priest, then perhaps the reviewer was the "empty cup."

Shame on her.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 29, 2003.

Jake,

More of the same I see. Why not try reading their whole coursework before criticising a web blurb? Oh, but then you chose to leave the church rather than try and improve what you thought was lacking, didn't you?

Your complaints do seem covered (though apparently not to your satisfaction ;-) )

- no mention of the Real Presence, except in broad & nebulous terms

From the page you linked:

"When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus is really present"

"We encounter God through his creation, in bread and wine that becomes his Body and Blood."

"The real presence of the Risen Jesus in the Eucharist "

With all your "objectivity" you can't decipher that maybe somewhere in the chapters the kids have to read that the real presence and the consecration is somewhere mentioned?

- describes the Eucharist as something commemorative, not something made present on the altar

no mention of the Eucharist as sacrifice for sin

"We are a resurrection people, who enter into the sacrifice and memory of Jesus Christ, source of our salvation"

What do you think "enter into the sacrifice" might imply if not "now"? and yes, we DO remember the past event as well as participate in the timeless sacrifice of Christ. Are you seriously suggesting that a Catholic school doesn't teach children that Christ died for our sins? And you think you're NOT a schismatic? LOL

no mention of the need to be in the state of grace

"Grace is the empowerment to share in God´s own divine life. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive God´s grace"

Grace is mentioned twice in the first part, I'd bet if you actually read their texts you'd find what you want here too.

If this is what was being taught to my child, I think I would have grave doubts about whether a real Sacrament was even taking place

The ARROGANCE of you! Unbelievable, Jake! YOU have doubts about whether a valid consecration is taking place? I would bet that even an SSPX priest would find *that* offensive.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2003.

If Jake and his ilk are so concerned about the problem, why do they scatter? The real Christian wants to make up for any deficit in practice of the faith. To make a difference in our own person, setting examples. My wife & I remain after Mass every celebration, kneeling for a while in joy. Offering our thanks for the graces He brings to us in Holy Communion.

It has to hurt me interiorly, naturally; that very few do this inside the church after Mass. But we do it nonetheless; we would not dream of running away to some ultra conservative, blue stocking parish.

My life on earth is dedicated to setting the saints' example, not deploring others' examples. I couldn't accomplish that end anywhere else but right there. Where the example is most needed. Christ is with us; what can add much to that?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

The ARROGANCE of you! Unbelievable, Jake!

Sheesh. Calm down, Frank.

YOU have doubts about whether a valid consecration is taking place?

Was that arrogant? Think about it: In every Catholic church, everywhere, at every Mass, do you think it's safe to say that every priest in every diocese and every religious order intends every time to do what the Church does; or do you think there's a chance that some invalid Masses are being said out there somewhere?

Forget about intent for a minute; how about matter? In two seperate family first Communions last year (I had to rely on family testimony - I wasn't there), the priests "consecrated" leavened bread, and wine mixed with grape juice. Do I have grounds for doubting validity in these cases?

I would bet that even an SSPX priest would find *that* offensive.

I think you just might lose that bet.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

Jake,

Sheesh. Calm down, Frank

Jake, your statement is very offensive coming from someone who claims to be a Catholic. I think everyone should get upset when a Protestant or Schismatic attempts to undermine the Catholic faith.

In every Catholic church, everywhere, at every Mass, do you think it's safe to say that every priest in every diocese and every religious order intends every time to do what the Church does; or do you think there's a chance that some invalid Masses are being said out there somewhere?

It sounds to me like you're falling into Donatism. Try putting your trust in Christ.

In two seperate family first Communions last year (I had to rely on family testimony - I wasn't there), the priests "consecrated" leavened bread, and wine mixed with grape juice. Do I have grounds for doubting validity in these cases

Not that I can see, although the use of leavened bread is probably illicit (like an sspx mass) the consecration would still occur (this was decided in Florence, I believe). I'd say the same for the wine. With even a drop of true wine present, I'd think the consecration would occur, even in a vat of grape juice. Is it illicit (like an sspx mass)? Hopefully. I hope you weren't there because of other VERY pressing business, and not that you just didn't want to go for some reason...

I would bet that even an SSPX priest would find *that* offensive.

I think you just might lose that bet

Then you've proven one point, the SSPX really has left the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

No matter what anyone confronts you with, Jake, you pay no attention. There most certainly IS arrogance in the response you always make. It wouldn't be of importance, we all act with self-assurance. But you defend all the wrong things and still want to rub it in. You like to pour it on -- with an empty can.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Now jake is being accused of Donatism?!?

I thought once about purchasing a Dunkin' Donats; I never dreamed it could be so easily marketed on the web, though.

So jake's the Dunkin' Donat.

If you persist, jake, you may develop a mentality. Not an individual act of sin, mind you, but a mentality. Before you know it, you'll be calling yourself Deacon Donat!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Jake,

I hope I misunderstood, but I think Frank earlier said that you left the church. I sincerely hope it isn't so as you obviously are still very interested in it. If it is true, I am sure you must have wrestled with it a long time before taking such a step.

I know the church seems less than perfect at times, and its teachings don't always make sense, but it reminds me of when the deciples were leaving after Jesus claimed to be the bread of life etc. Jn 6:60 and following I think. Peter's response is a great example of faith; "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life".

Those words of eternal life still live in his church. There really is no where else to go.

God Bless

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,

this whole thread blows my mind. imagine such a debate started from a falsified document. really, its amazing. I wonder who took the time to look up all this stuff, only to write some propaganda piece on Novo masses that is obviously not true.

but dont feel bad, angelo, if you think that part of communion is a unification of the congregation in the body of Christ. it surely is. see, jake belongs to an ultra conservative protestant schism that believes if you dont fully explain the entire history and moral theorum behind the host every time you mention it then it doesnt count.

Jake, sorry to say it, you are arrogant. you have given yourself the power to condemn the pope as wrong. you of all people, ultra conservative to the point that youve stopped celebrating your faith and joined the mourning souls that dont understand the true gift that Christ has given us. Its sad really, that you are so like the scribes and pharisees: taking the letter of the law to the point that you have stopped worshiping God with joy in your heart and begun to worship the laws you place on yourself as though you are at a funeral for every mass.

A mass shouldnt focus on children? ARE YOU NUTS? children who are baptized are the most innocent creatures in the world. we should strive to preserve childhood and be innocent and loving, as our children are.

But most of all, im in shock that you must resort to printing falsified documents in order to try and prove a point. Sad, really, my prayers will be with you that you find the true way, because there is so much more to faith than that tiny portion of the law which you see.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Pay up time.

jake belongs to an ultra conservative protestant schism

Not true.

...that believes if you dont fully explain the entire history and moral theorum behind the host every time you mention it then it doesnt count.

Non truth.

Jake, sorry to say it, you are arrogant.

Having had the priviledge of getting to know jake personally, not true.

...you have given yourself the power to condemn the pope as wrong.

Inaccurate statement.

you of all people, ultra conservative to the point that youve stopped celebrating your faith...

Unsupportable statement.

...and joined the mourning souls that dont understand the true gift that Christ has given us.

Uncharitable statement.

Its sad really,

If it were true.

...that you are so like the scribes and pharisees: taking the letter of the law to the point that you have stopped worshiping God with joy in your heart and begun to worship the laws you place on yourself as though you are at a funeral for every mass.

False statement.

Sad, really, my prayers will be with you that you find the true way...

Why do I find this so hard to believe? I really do. People constantly say this... do they do it? I couldn't possibly prove they don't, but be honest with yourselves, all of you. Do you really, really do what you say you are going to do?

...because there is so much more to faith than that tiny portion of the law which you see.

Tell me about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Hey Emerald the good fight goes on I see :-) I miss all you guys, my computer is still being repaired and Im restricted to lunch breaks at work etc. Ive been wasting my time throwing insults at JFG, better I return to more wothwhile and Christian endevours.

Eugene is outdoing himself I must say and I was very moved by his earlier message of the poor Church with the children

"You like to pour it on -- with an empty can". Brilliant! Jake you gotta admit hes still got the midas touch.

Bye Gents

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Emerald, my friend, there are some things about which you are missinformed. Jake doesn belong to the ultra conservative schism known as SSPX.

Second, jake and i had a LONG arguement in another thread about the fact that i called the eucharist the paschal feast... a term which the Holy See coined, and he stated that it cant simply be referred to as such. hence, he feels that you cant discuss one aspect of the eucharist without discussing the whole thing everytime. You say that i am innacurate in stating that Jake condemns the pope as wrong, why dont you ask jake how he feels about the luminous mysteries... or then again, ask him how he feels about the fact that JPII strongly supports the vatican II...

I can support the fact that SSPX masses have stopped celebrating their faith and begun to mourn it... Isabel said herself that a childs first holy communion isnt a cause for any celebration but for grave reflection. if you cant celebrate the first communion of a child, the most innocent in they eyes of God, then what do they celebrate?

...and joined the mourning souls that dont understand the true gift that Christ has given us.

Uncharitable statement.

get over it, you make uncharitable statements to joe all the time about his pro war policy. besides, its true.

Im offended that you call my pledge for prayer into question. you have the gall to call me uncharitable for saying that someone doesnt understand something and then you turn around and question my sincerity for the salvation of my bretheren? im really offended by the hypocracy here.

And finally, after you call my sincerity of prayer into question, you ask me to tell you how to keep faith?!?!?! let me admit something: i cant do that. you havent lived my life, what is written by God on your heart is not the same as what is written on mine. Your calling in the church is most likely different than mine. And yet you would ask me to explain my path to you? heres what i can say: search your heart and find your deepest inclination of service. find a way to love and serve your neighbor in a way that brings deep joy and contentment into the depths of your heart. when you have obtained the joy in loving and serving one another, as our Lord commanded us to do, you will see the beginning of the narrow path that leads to salvation.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2003.

Yeah, it's freaky, isn't it.

I'm starting to get mouthy myself, so I better pack it in for the night.

You and me, we may never see eye to eye, but it sure would be fun trying not to, huh?

God bless you. Whip out those Chaplets of Mercy and actually give it a go... just do it. Try it. Couldn't hurt.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

and by the way, im still offended at the use of a falsified document such as this lie in order to prove a point.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2003.

That last was for Kiwi...

Paul, whatever you say is true. Alright. That should do it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

jake belongs to an ultra conservative protestant schism

You know Paul, maybe just do this.

Prove the above statement, please.

Then we'll talk charity.

Because I've had enough of the above lack of it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Alright then. let me bend where I can, Paul, and then state where I can't.

Questioning peoples prayers for others... no I can't do that. You can have that one. However; however... there are many times when people say such things and I often wonder if it really ever happens.

There's no sin in that question. Generally speaking, it's just one of those things, you know... that people who actually get the job done don't make a whole boatload of mention about it.

That being said, I concede that point to you. Seriously; take it.

But I'm going to hang tough on this item: jake, and Isabel, and Ed, are not is schism.

It's a long drawn out procedure, but the claim can be shown to be false.

But until that process occurs, and I've had no serious takers on this challenge, the claim remains imho a display of absolute lack of charity, without basis, and leveled by those who have done no serious examination of the issue and the sub-issues which one would need to examine in full to support the claim.

What's more, any number of other insulting claims are consistently made about these people that cannot possibly bear themselves up under the weight of scrutiny. They have the letter and not the spirit. They're hooked on externals (the actual, proper word would be accidentals). They are small in Faith. They don't understand the essence of things. Whatever it is... I used to think goofy things like that about them too.

Much of the false accusation of schism has it's basis in an improper understanding of true assent to the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, as well as a doctrinally solid portrayal of how the Holy Ghost acts through His Church.

No takers now for weeks on end, on this discussion... none. Nobody wants to take it on.

Why do we need to answer your stupid question, Emerald?

Because some of you keep accusing others of being protestant schismatics, that's why. And the basis for these false accusations rests solidly on these principles or rather, misunderstood principles. If one makes this large a claim, as of schism or heresy, one must be able to support it.

In the meantime, of hypocracy:

The dealing of these people in this manner is in absolute contradiction to the currently promoted formula of ecumenism, and...

Declaring them to be such is done outside the much-touted sole dependency of the laity upon the magisterium of the Church to make such determinations...

In other words, those who say "we know nothing enough to figure anything and must depend upon the magisterium", are the same ones making invalid judgements about people being in schism without holding offices necessary to do so.

Muse on it all thoroughly.

Then sure, go ahead a pray for jake. Couldn't hurt.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

I'm sorry that this thread devolved to these depths so quickly. I'm going to leave it alone now, letting your inaccuracies, half-truths, and outright lies speak for themselves.

You Nuvos are supposed to be the non-judgemental, compassionate, understanding feely-feelys. Spread some of that New Springtime love around. Something just might grow from it (draw any inferences you wish).

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

and by the way, im still offended at the use of a falsified document such as this lie in order to prove a point.

I'm not sure how to take this comment, Paul.

Are you accusing me of falsifing a document to prove a point? Are you suggesting that I altered the report to my advantage? Read my post again, please. The website I got this from does not exsist to disparage Catholicism or the Novus Ordo. Its feature, Mystery Worshippers, are collected observations of people from all Christian faiths observing services (and sometimes Masses) and reporting them. There are plenty of Anglicans reporting dreadful Anglican services. There are a few Anglicans reporting nicely done Masses - (Interestingly enough in these reports, the more "nicely done" Masses were Masses which offered what I guess many here would consider "more orthodoxy.") There are Catholics reporting lousy Protestant services, and Catholics reporting poorly celebrated Catholic Masses...

I did post this particular report for a few reasons. First of all, I had been in a discussion/debate with Gene about the goings-on in some parishes in and around my diocese and I thought it would be interesting to demonstrate how at least one of those parish Masses was observed by someone other than myself.

Secondly, I thought it was interesting to note how a Catholic Mass was seen by a non-Catholic. I believe it is shameful that the only thing this non-Catholic could view as "heavenly" about a **Catholic Mass** was a spring breeze coming in through an opened door. He/she also maintained that the lack of the appearences of what is sacred and sacrificial was a common experience for him/her when attending Catholic Masses as a mystery worshipper. My argument is, why is this point so obvious to a *non-Catholic* (the lack of the sacred and the sacrifical) but so easily dismissed and/or denied by many Catholics?

You called this person's report a lie. Is his/her report so outlandish as to be unbelievable? I mean, there are many who attend Novus Ordo Masses outside their diocese, travel further than they really have to just to find a more "orthodox" or "conservative" parish, which demonstrates that there *are* parishes which aren't providing the faithful what they need. Apparently the parish in the report is one of those parishes...

Should one of these reports be taken as concrete evidence that *all* N.O. Masses are as poor as the one in the report? Of course not, and I didn't post the report to make that point, either. It was just supposed to be a tiny demonstration as to how the appearances of all that sacred and Sacrificial isn't obvious in some parishes, and how sad it is that those observances were made by a *non-Catholic.*

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

A small group of American bishops who recently petitioned Rome for clarification of what constitutes valid matter regarding the ingredients used in the manufacture of hosts, got more than they bargained for. Directives already existed which state specifically that the proper ingredients for hosts are water and pure flour— nothing more or less. What these bishops were carefully saying, if I may be allowed to paraphrase it for clarity, is: "Certainly there is nothing wrong with adding a little sugar, salt, butter or honey to the flour and water." They expected that the liberal heads of congregations at Rome would simply give approval to a sacrilegious practice which the bishops have been perpetrating for years.

Rome, however, answered quite differently. Under no condition, they said, can any foreign matter whatever be added to hosts or the wine. To do so, they continued, would constitute invalid matter and therefore an invalid Mass. A reviewing theologian went on to point out that it was common knowledge that abuses of this nature have been noted in the past, especially in America. There have been instances of priests using cake, cookies, bagels, hot dog buns and other sundry concoctions in their attempt to add novelty to the Mass. In the case of my newphew's First Holy Communion, juice was added to the wine so that it would taste good for the kids. Anyway, the commentary went on to state that this widespread practice must cease, and of the obligation on the part of the bishops to bring it to the attention of their fellow bishops and priests.

Not only were the offenders told to cease and desist, it was pointed out to them the very grave obligation they have of making restitution for every invalid Mass celebrated. Every stipend of such a Mass has to be returned or the Mass celebrated again in a valid manner. To date, my nephew hasn't been given a new, validly celebrated First Holy Communion.

Just imagine the dilemma of priests and bishops trying to determine how many of the Masses they have celebrated over the past fifteen years have been invalid. And, we have not yet considered the other elements which would have invalidated the Mass such as form and intention.

We have not yet heard of a rush of Catholic presses grinding away to make this decision known to the Catholic population. Neither have we heard of priests rushing out to return stipends or celebrating valid Mass in reparation for past errors. Nor, if we are to judge by past experience, are we likely to witness such action.

So, I guess the point is: Because *you* think something is valid, doesn't make it so.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Dear Regina,
If you aren't up on the subject of High Church- Low Church Anglicanism, let me explain some of that strange subject. If I'm off the mark, an Anglican will surely pop up to set me straight.

The English Christian lives all facets of the religion, from the incredibly bigotted to the mystical. Leaving aside all the extremist stuff, the Anglican believer is broken down into two camps. They seriously detest one another. Much for the same reasons Jake & Ed are so hostile to our regulars here on forum.

High Church is the ritually elevated church; altogether Catholic in tastes, but cool towards English Roman Catholics Those ritually elevated Brits who ''Poped Out''.

The other camp entertains no illusions about serious religion. It has dwindled down to something of a lip-service communion; held together in a ''church'' mostly by its Britishness. No need to tell you it's liberal to the core.

They're a particularly snobbish set, & each side agrees in the false premise that Popes are neither British nor infallible. Despite the plain fact Catholics in Britain are gravely serious about God, the Church in their country and love for the Pope.

It's only in a mutual dislike (hatred) for the Irish that any of these groups agree. ''Roman'' Catholics once supported their Queen without compromising their faith. I truly admire them.

The High Church observer or ''Mystery Bourgeois'' at Morris Plains, NJ is clearly showing not an orthodox religious interest in St. Virgil's Church, much less any appreciation for the Tridentine Fathers. What you see is an implicit hatred for the lower classes; quite normal in a Brit, who is brought up learning class prejudice no matter what his religion or lack of it. No Mass in America would tend toward his taste. Women must be veiled, Old Chap; and we must have candles and boy's choirs, all the tombs of our martyrs inside and beneath stained glass. A proper DISPLAY.

So, chalk up another for the hypocrites. God is not particular about display. He's not that fond of our tacky banners and guitar Masses either, I realise.

But it's a social burden this Church carries for us. The Church is more interested today in charity. Display is for snobs. Elitists who love display because well-- God wouldn't have it any other way? They'd be comfortable in England.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Regina,

Actually, I would very much like it if you could post the actual documents where it is stated that making a host of leaven flour makes it INVALID (as opposed to illicit), or that diluting wine would make it INVALID.

Thanks,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Oh, dear, this is going to be a long reply, I'm afraid. No other choice. You know, I'm trying to read "Come Rack, Come Rope" and I'll stick in a little post here and there, and then have to turn around and make a huge reply. I'll never get my book done. (It's really very good. About the time of Catholics during Queen Elizabeth I's reign in England.)

First, Frank,

Glad to see you are doing better. Much better, I see. :) Let's see then:

But is that really ALL you want children to get out of it? [receiving Our Lord for the first time.]

No, that is not all, but that is primarily what the focus should be on. I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't think the aspects are always kept in the 'correct order'.

Does you church routinely leave the Blessed Sacrament exposed before services?

The Blessed Sacrament is always present in the tabernacle in our Church, which is dead center in the middle of the altar. In the prescence of God, true respect should be taught.

Personally, I think Christ would love to hear a bunch of excited kids talking before and anticipating the services, and not standing silent and bored with their parents making sure they look respectful enough for Jesus and the community.

First off, I'm not concerned with how my children look before the 'community' as much as I am concerned with their understanding of the proper decorum and respect due to God. I agree that Christ would love the children to talk excitedly before their first reception of Him, only inside Church and in front of the Blessed Sacrament is not the place to do so. You are really taking everything out of context, and implying that I don't think *any of these* things should happen *at any time.* That is not so. I took pictures of my children in front of the altar after First Communion, we were all excited, etc. But upon entering the chapel, the focus shifted from *us* to *God.*

God did say, "Unless you become like little children....." (and I can be as much like a kid as the next person), but you are implying that children *can't* or *shouldn't* be taught to control their excitement in Church, to keep silent, to show respect, to pray, to pay attention, etc. And I assure you they can. It may take many trips to the car to make it happen (jake), but it can be done. My youngest son is proof of that.

They will have all their adult lives (in your church) to look as dour and respectful as the next guy, why make them start when they are seven years old?

Because a child's character is formed by the time they are five years old, and if you don't start teaching them before that time, then it will be very difficult to get them to appreciate it at any time in the future. I am all for kids being kids, but there were many saints, who even as children, knew how to act in Church, (St. Dominic Savio, St. Maria Goretti, St. Agnes, St. Theresa, etc.) and I am certain they did not act like they did outside of Church.

Frank, you also seem to forget that for a sacrament to be valid, it must contain proper intent, form & matter. If any of these are lacking, then the sacrament is invalid. Grape juice mixed with wine is not proper matter. You should know this.

jake,

you know what most struck me by your link, was this statement: When we receive the Eucharist, we receive God´s grace. True, but not the whole truth. We receive His grace in all the sacraments, but this is the only one in which we receive HIM. You see, you guys, it is not necessary to say everything about the Eucharist, everytime we speak of it, but the most important aspects of the Eucharist seem to be left out more often than not. And in preparing youngsters for their first time, those aspects should be stressed first and foremost. It is not that this Church didn't mention it at all, but that more emphasis (or at least equal emphasis) was put on the other aspects of the Eucharist. Let me tell you about my First Communion. Beforehand, we had First Penance. Four priests sitting up on the altar with a chair opposite them. We went up in turn, and had no choice but to make a face-to-face confession. No emphasis whatsoever, was put on making a good examination of conscience. Then it came time for First Communion. I can assure you that more emphasis was put on bread and wine, than Body and Blood. I was more concerned with my dress, and walking up in front of everyone, than anything else. There was just no emphasis put on the sacrifice of the Mass for the satisfaction of our sins.

Leon,

I really only have this to say to you. A catholic Mass should reflect what Catholics believe in, so that a non-Catholic can see this and have no doubt as to what is happening during Mass. If a non-Catholic can detect disrespect, improper decorum, lack of reverance, and a priest who does not stress the importance of the sacrifice in his sermon, then what does that tell you of the faith of the people and/or the priest? At the very least, you should see negligence.

paul, you said to jake,

A mass shouldnt focus on children? ARE YOU NUTS?

I would think that you are, if you think that it should. Mass should focus on God, not *us*. You know, it's funny.....Luther wanted the Mass to focus more on men.

Isabel said herself that a childs first holy communion isnt a cause for any celebration but for grave reflection.

I don't think I said this. If something I said came out this way, then I guess I need to pay more attention before I post. A child's First Communion is a great cause for celebration. I've had some huge parties after my children's First Communions. What I was saying was that it needs to be made clear what is happening on this day, it is the first time they are receiving the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, made for atonement of our sins. This is cause for grave reflection, don't you think? It is cause for serious contemplation, for proper preparation by prayer. And the children should be taught this, as well as what a joyous occasion it is. I was also saying that in Church was not the proper place for all the gabbing, laughing, etc. If they are old enough to receive Christ in the Eucharist, they should be old enough to have proper decorum and respect. Many saints have said that silence should be kept in the chapel.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 30, 2003.

Gene, while I appreciate the time it took you describing the differences between high and low church Anglicans, I'm sorry to say that those differences make no difference to me. I'm not interested in the Anglican faith or why the different denominations "hate" each other.

My point was (and it borders on the amazing how easily it was missed by so many) is that a non-Catholic could recognize what I've been saying all along - that in at least this Catholic Mass - the purpose of the Holy Eucharist was nothing more than a "family dinner." A non- Catholic actually recognized that the Holy Eucharist is something so much more than that. If a *non-Catholic* can recognize that the real meaning of the Holy Eucharist was not presented, what does that say about Catholics who *don't* recognize it?

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

here is my problem with this obviously falsified document. the high church anglican is supposed to be a rather conservative member of a church right? Why is it that he doesnt understand the ritual associated with the catholic church is a rich tradition, and not some form of excercise? anglicans stand up, kneel, and pray as often as we do, so this is a poor critique for a high anglican to level on a catholic church.

Second: he says he didnt stick around after the mass, but he knows that everyone was so busy that they wouldnt have noticed the pope. how would he know that if he didnt stick around?

Third: he complains that nobody greeted him in a rather perturbed tone. funny, when i went to a high church anglican service, no one stopped to greet me and ask me if i was new... i wonder why he would expect something his own church doesnt do?

fourth: organs cannot be made to sound like electrical pianos. a smaller organ doesnt produce as loud of sound, but the only way to make an organ sound like an electrical piano would be to put that piano inside of the organ and replace the organs keys with the pianos, i dont think that could be done if it wasnt obvious.

fifth: he doesnt know the name of the pastor, but he knows that the pastor used to be anglican and has five children? just like the after service thing, he claims ignorance in one part then flouts knowledge he claims to have had.

sixth: the sermon was seven minutes and consisted of the priest asking the children questions? im sorry, but a high church anglican should be able to recognize the difference between ritual of asking children questions before a sacrament, and sermon. the closest thing we catholics have to a sermon would be a homily, and the priest wouldnt ask ritual questions during this time. but high church anglicans would know this, being that their dependence on tradition and ritual is as high as ours.

i appologize for any slight you may have felt from my comment, regina, but it stands that a high church anglican could not have written this propaganda piece against a catholic church. they dont even know enough liturgical vocabulary to be a high church anglican. im not saying that you falsified the document, but if i were you i would put less faith in a website of critiques where the evaluators feel they need to wear masks so that they cant be identified.

paul

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2003.

Regina,
My aim in posting these details were so you would realise (you still don't) how irrelevant was the fact a ''non-Catholic'' was in some way on the ''trad'' side. He's on the SNOB side, Regina, since religious values are not what he's checking out. If you find it significant that he criticised all he found in that church, you side with somebody who doesn't care what YOU think, either.

It means something else to me that you can assume for yourself that ''. . . this Catholic Mass - the purpose of the Holy Eucharist was nothing more than a "family dinner." --'' It's calumnies found buried in your posts that are most alarming, Regina. You are NOT free to decide what a Mass is ''-NOTHING MORE than,'' In fact, no matter HOW indecorously a ''non-Catholic'' might view it, it will always be definitely ''more than'' that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

off

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Actually, I would very much like it if you could post the actual documents where it is stated that making a host of leaven flour makes it INVALID (as opposed to illicit), or that diluting wine would make it INVALID.

Ok.

The Code of Canon Law briefly states:

The most Sacred Eucharist must be celebrated with bread and wine, with which a small quantity of water is to be mixed.

The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption.

As early as 1979 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became alarmed over ther unauthorized practice in the the U.S. of celebrating Masses with invalid matter.

On June 4, 1979, Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, in a letter to Archbishop John R. Quinn, then President of the NCCB wrote: Where there is a question of substitution of all ingredients or a large quantity of water by other liquids such as milk, eggs, honey, etc., the matter will be invalid..."

As for the wine, here is what the GIRM states:

The wine must be made from grapes, “the fruit of the vine (cf. Lk. 22:18), natural and pure, unmixed withanything else” (GIRM, no. 284). In addition,That wine, or rather liquor, cannot be regarded as valid matter, which is extracted from apples or otherfruits, or which is made chemically, although it have the color of wine, and may be said in a way tocontain its elements; nor wine to which water has been added in a greater or equal quantity. In short, the matter used for the sacrament must have the true substance of unleavened, wheat bread and pure,natural wine. Either substantial alterations in the recipes or corruption of the matter invalidates its use. So as not to subject the Blessed Sacrament to danger of corruption, the Church places strong emphasis on theuse of fresh matter. As explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, when the sacred species lose those qualities generally associated with bread and wine, the True Presence no longer abides in the corrupted matter.

I hope you found this helpful.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

You are NOT free to decide what a Mass is ''-NOTHING MORE than,''

I am free to make a decision based on the outward demonstrations of anything, Gene. If a Priest fails to clearly define what he's doing, if he places little priority on the Mass as a Sacrifice, if his actions (or his sermon) demonstrate the Mass to be nothing more than a "family meal", I've *every* right to base an opinion, every right to be concerned, and every right to discuss it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Gene and Paul. I think the opinions of a non-Catholic were valid. I wonder: If the "mystery worshipper" had reported the Mass very favorably if you'd be calling the validity of his opinions into question...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

Personally, I think Christ would love to hear a bunch of excited kids talking before and anticipating the services, and not standing silent and bored with their parents making sure they look respectful enough for Jesus and the community.

Why must reverent silence before the Blessed Sacrament equate to boredom? I've no doubt Our Lord can hear the excitement of children even in their respectful silence. How come in your example do Traditional Catholic children and their families appear "dour", bored, and without emotion and only want to achieve the *"look"* of respect? If you want to talk in extremes and stereotypes, should I assume then that you think everything is permissable in Our Lord's Presence and that everyone ought to advertize their emotions to the "community" no matter how obnoxious those expressions might be? I guess that's why Clown Masses are so easily tolerated...

Having three children of my own, I can tell you that kids giggle, whisper, and horse around when they *are* bored. A child's silence often indicates he/she is taking his/her environment around him/her seriously - at least enough to ponder what's going on. Sometimes this silence happens naturally. Sometimes it needs to be encouraged. It should always be expected. If a child is truly bored at Mass, he or she needs to be taught that his silence is still expected - Out of respect for Our Lord and respect for others around him.

Should parents *not* take care to ensure their children behave "respectful[ly] enough for Jesus"?

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 30, 2003.

And they call your hubby arrogant. --So, based on the opinions of a visitor to this parish who skunked everything from the brickwork to the ''minor highway'' nearby, you are prepared to say this Mass was ''Nothing more than a family dinner'' to the parishioners? --Yes; let's don't bother to invite me to your parties. No, thanks.

_____________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

let's don't bother to invite me to your parties.

I don't think there's any danger of that, Eugene! lol.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 30, 2003.

Well thanks Regina, I found that in the GIRM. Learn something new every day. Too bad there weren't "Novus Ordo" schools when I was young, perhaps I would have learned that like you did ... ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Can't speak for Regina, Frank, but I didn't learn that until I went to a traditional Catholic school... ;-)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

funny, isabel, i learned that from a great novus text called Mass Confusion, it goes into alot more detail than even what regina wrote, but i unfortunately packed it since im moving in two days.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 30, 2003.

I am almost afraid to make another post on this point, but it seems a lot is being made of what somebody (whom we don't know), said about a parish after attending one single service there.

When I first read the thread, I thought to myself "I wonder if the service is as bad as all that? After all what do I know of the author? What do I know of the parish itself? I wonder whar the parishoners feel about their church"? Then I read it again without the adjectives and inuendos, and tried to imagine athe occasions using only the facts of the thread. To my surprise, I got an entirely different feeling from what was portraied. Hence my version.

You see the church, like everything else, cannot give us what we are not yet ready to receive, and the disposition we bring to it colours our experience entirely. It is the same old thing; "two men look out behind prison bars, one saw mud, the other stars".

When all we can hear in a service are the distractions like children's chatter or the fact that the butcher sitting 2 rows ahead is singing out of key, or the person I "know" to be a slanderer, is hypocritically kneeling piously as if they are fooling anyone; then we miss teh beauty of church where children are welcomed, where a tenor voice is not a pre-requisite to join in and where sinners form the majority of the congregation.

I know at least one High Anglican that would agree with me. He wrote a lovely pointed book called "The Screwtape letters" and a series of children's books called "The Chronicles of Narnia".

god Bless

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.

Ditto Isabel. I was never taught in N.O. Catholic school that the requirements were so particular.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), May 01, 2003.