I usually attend Mass during the week and strive very hard to get there before it begins. Quite often I see people arrive during the Eucharist and receive Communion. What is the Catholic teaching regarding the time you need to arrive for weekday Mass? (not talking about Sunday obligation, of course). thanks

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), February 20, 2003

Answers

Catholic teaching is that you *should* be there from the beginning of the Mass till the end. So you're certainly right to be concerned - I see that too - people who show up 15 minutes or even half an hour late and yet still go up to Communion.

However - keep in mind that in some churches, there may be places like "crying rooms" or people standing in the back where you can't see them, who come up closer to the front when it gets to be time for the Eucharist. So we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, that at least some of them WERE there all the time and we just didn't see them till now. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 20, 2003.

On All Soul's Day I got confused about the times of the Masses, because the third Mass immediately followed the second Mass, when I thought it was supposed to be at a certain time. So, I arrived late. Well, to get a plenary indulgence for a poor soul in purgatory, I had to follow all the usual conditions, Communion and Confession, plus the other conditions pertaining to All Souls Day. The condition, strictly speaking, was to receive Communion. So I received Communion even though I was late for Mass.

I think the thing to remember here is this. It is not obligatory to attend Mass except on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation. What is important, though, is that you *always* prepare yourself properly for Holy Communion. That does not necessarily mean you have to be present from the very beginning of Mass to be properly prepared. I realize that it is ideal, but not necessary. We do not know of each individuals circumstances, whether or not they could make it earlier, whether they were caught in traffic, whether they are on lunch break from work, etc. Granted, a lot of people are late because of their own doing, but for others, some circumstances are unavoidable. And one can be properly prepared for Communion without necessarily being present the whole Mass.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.

Because of the bond of the Eucharist with the word of God a good rule says that you should be present for the Gospel if you want to receive Communion. But let us not be too judgemental - you know that you can receive Communion even outside a mass (but then with a short reading of Gospel again!). You don't know the reason of their comming late...

-- Viviana (Vivianamayer@aol.com), February 20, 2003.

Hi, I didn't mean it to be judgmental, just that I usually rush like mad to make it from the beginning or at least to the Gospel, and if I am past that point, I would stay for the next Mass. I see people actually arriving just for Communion and just wanted to know if I was running late if I could receive Communion without hearing the entire Mass. thanks again, maryann

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), February 20, 2003.

I know what you mean, maryann. It's tough, sort of like coming in during the middle of a movie and having to wait for the next showing to found out how they got to this point! But if you possibly can, you should wait and receive Communion during the *next* Mass so you can be there from the beginning of the "show"! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 20, 2003.

The Roman Rite is the precedential and universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the Apostolic See at Rome, the rite of Sts. Peter and Paul. There are a few Eastern rites, but they not universal, but restricted to limited areas. Thus, the Roman rite is not just a rite, but the rite of the Church.

If you read any book before the Modernist period of the 20th century, you will find that this understanding is clear. It was only when the Modernists wished to change the Faith that they came up with this novel and unCatholic notion of the Mass not being dogmatic, but changeable willy-nilly at the whim of any pope. Any pope before Paul VI, including John XXIII, called that idea anathema!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

The format of the Mass is not, never has been, and cannot possibly be dogmatic, or even doctrinal. If it was, it would have to be traceable in its present form all the way back to the Apostles. The format of Mass has been changed innumerable times over the centuries, which could not have been the case if it was doctrinal. If the format of Mass were dogmatic, the "new" Latin Mass could never have been introduced, since the early Mass was not celebrated in Latin. Dogma concerns beliefs - articles of the faith - not format of worship. If any Pope declared that a particular format of worship was inviolable, then that Pope was simply wrong in his opinion, which is entirely possible since the format of Mass is not a doctrinal or moral issue, and therefore is not infallible teaching. Such a declaration would be no more binding than a statement that abstaining from meat on fridays would be inviolable for all time. No Pope has the authority to render such a decision.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2003.

My contention all along is that the new mass, while valid is harming the Church. The numbers of those who have left the Church, and the loss of vocations are a fact that can be measured. Most priests today are n the "graying stage". Where will the replacements come from?.

“The old Mass is a Sacrifice, whereas the new Mass, the modernist Mass, is but a Meal. The Mass of Paul VI is to serve as a transition between these two. Failing an incident comparable to the derailment at Nancy, the locomotive of the Reform will everywhere jump the points blocking the route to Lutheranism and tear along the track of heresy, as happened at the intercommunion in Vaugirard, or at the Mass of Exchange and Dialogue at Dijon the other day, or at the drinking of red wine in Charleroi. And so we see that this Reform had no proportionate reason or genuine interest other than to introduce, albeit imperceptibly, a liturgy which corresponds to the change already accomplished – according to the Modernists – in the religious experience that the people of God find in the Mass. The modifications in language, hymns, ornaments, rites and words have no other aim than to ensure this transition from an out-of-date and too rigidly Catholic conception of the Mass to one that is open, dynamic and humanist, one that corresponds to Protestantism and Modernism.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Dear Ed,

To what do you attribute the decline in Mass attendance and vocations, and the mass exodus (no pun intended) from the Church which immediately preceded Vatican II, and which in fact were major reasons the council was called?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2003.

"the new mass, while valid... The old Mass is a Sacrifice, whereas the new Mass, the modernist Mass, is but a Meal."

If the new mass is indeed valid, which you say it is, then it is also a Sacrifice. So, your statement makes very little sense.

In one breath you say that the new mass is valid, which means that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is truly present. But in the very next breath, you bring that True and Present Christ down to simply a meal!

That is despicably intolerable. You are talking about Almighty God! You are saying that He is merely a meal in the new mass. That makes me sick! I must stop writing or else I will explode with [just] rage...

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Th deserves the best. Remember the wedding feast at Cana.When the old wine was gone, the Lord's new wine prompted the servants to say " the host has saved the best for last"., which was against the traditions. Now the mass, unchanged for 1400 years, is changed to such a degree tat it is not recognized by anyone who would see if for the first time. People say that the Church was declining before Vatican 2. Not so. Catholic attendance was 70% at that time. It has skidded down to 30% since V2. Priests and nuns left in droves, by the thousands. Convents and residents sold off, lay techers replacing nuns, deacons replacing priests. What did V2 fix?. Traditional societies have no trouble attracting young men and women to the religious life. Why would a young man want to become a presider, or president?. There are many more things I could say but that is just some of the problems. I am not happy over this, not at all, but I face things as they are, not as I would like them to be. As long as Catholics put up with clown mass type antics things will just get worse. The bishops do nothing. They have become much too worldly. Recent news events show that. God bless you. Ed

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

The Morning News review found that at least 111 of the nation's 178 Roman-rite Catholic dioceses are headed by men who have protected accused priests or other church figures, such as brothers in religious orders, candidates for the priesthood, teachers, and youthgroup workers. Eight of the 111 are cardinals in U.S. archdioceses. This is their main concern... not the salvation of souls.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two- thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million. Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/bishops.htm

check this one out for yourself

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

> "What did V2 fix?"

It prevented a greater slide. This is actually a topic you and I could argue till the end of time and both of us could never provide the proof that V2 was damaging or not.

The decline of our society as a whole is the reason for the sorry state of affairs in our Church today, and it has nothing to do with V2.

One could easily argue that the traditionalist orders are growing, because liberalism is destroying our Church, but I don't believe liberalism is a result of V2, like you believe. You even label conservatives like our Pope as a liberal.

> "Now the mass, unchanged for 1400 years, is changed to such a degree tat it is not recognized by anyone who would see if for the first time."

So what, it's only in your mind, that the Mass is less somehow, however you put it. I was raised my whole life in the new Mass, and I don't have any problems with it. Why should I, for I see it for what it is, a celebration of worship to God, and the sacrifice of the Mass still exists.

If you have yearning for the old Mass, then attend one, but don't try to force it on others who don't want it. Just because 1400 years of Catholics celebrated it, does not mean I have to!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

and everlasting God, this spotless host which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and their salvation unto life everlasting.

What a marvel of doctrinal exactitude! Along with the actions of the priest, this prayer makes it clear that what is offered at the mass is the "spotless host" or victim. Second, the propitiatory (atoning) nature of the Mass is explicit – it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered "for the living and the dead"; and fourth, that it is the priest who offers the Sacrifice as a mediator between man and God. The beauty of its precise expression is the splendor veritatis – the "splendor of the truth."

In the New Mass this prayer, needless to say, has been entirely deleted. And one of the reasons Paul VI offers for doing so is to make the doctrinal content of the Mass more clear (cf. p. 24). In fact, of the twelve Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass. 23 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. 24 And why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, they "smacked of Sacrifice... the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."

The Novus Ordo Missae not only omits these significant prayers, but it effectively abolishes the entire Offertory. The General Instruction speaks instead of the "Preparation of the Gifts." And within this part of the New Rite there is not so much as a word which even hints that it is the Divine Victim which is offered. The bread and wine – "the work of human hands" – is all that is offered. Michael Davies points out that this concept is fully compatible with the Teilhardian theory that human effort, the work of human hands, becomes in a certain way, the matter of the Sacrament. 25 And further, except for the prayer of the washing of the hands, all the petitions are in the first person plural – "we" – which is consistent with the false concept enveloped in various parts of the New Mass that it is not the priest-president who offers up the Mass by his own special sacerdotal power, but rather it is the "assembly" or "the people of God" who do so.

Which would you offer to the Father in Heaven: The unspotted Host a pure and Holy oblation, Or this bread and wine offered by man?. Which would please the Father more; His Divine Son, the victim, or bread and wine. One a sacrifice, the other a meal?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 08, 2003.

Ed, a valid Mass none the less. There is nothing in the Mass that is sinful. If you feel it is less meaningful to you, you have an option to not attend it, and continue attending the old Mass. I in no way feel the new Mass is lacking in anyway.

It is a source of great grace, and the sacrifice of the Mass is still intact.

Basically it all comes down to this: Because the Pope says so. He is the head of our Church, and the Vicar of Christ, and his authority has to be respected. That's all part of being a good Catholic.

When the sacrifice of the Mass is no longer present, and the host is not consecrated, then you have reason to complain.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 08, 2003.

Gordon: If you want to give your offering in a brown paper bag that is your choice. I give mine in a beautiful gift wrapped box. You would not put a gift to a child, on Christmas day, wrapped in a brown paper bag , or would you?. Same gift in bag ,right?. Abel and Cain both valid gifts, but the Lord was not pleased with Cain's gift.Abel offered the best... Cain did not.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 08, 2003.

Dear Ed,

May we take that as an admission that everything you have been complaining about, when all is said and done, is merely cosmetic, mere wrapping paper for what is of true value?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2003.

Ed, I don't agree with your analogy at all. The new Mass in no way is a lesser offering to God, then the old Mass. You are simply speaking about your opinion. It's how you FEEL about it.

The Catholic Church is God's Church today as it was before V2, and still retains the full authority as given to it by our Lord Jesus Christ. You either respect that authority or your don't. There is no middle ground.

The Mass is valid, the consecration takes place, and the new Mass is beautiful.

I don't want to attend the old Mass, and so you should respect that. You cannot play Pope, and try to change things, because you do not have the authority to do that. If you prefer the old Mass, then attend the old Mass. No one is stopping you.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 08, 2003.

We'll leave it at that Gordon.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 08, 2003.