From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Some questions
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:21:50 GMT
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <Bw68xH.FL0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>First, my background: 
>
>I grew up in what some apparently consider the most conservative 
>Archdiocese in the U.S. <Philadelphia>, went K-12 in parochial schools, 
>got a Bachelor's and Master's from a Jesuit university <St. Joseph's>,
>and was employed by the Archdiocese for 2 years as an internal auditor
><under John Cardinal Krol>. Given this background, please tell me if
>my perceptions are skewed a bit.
>
>Current situation:
>
>I'm a doctoral student and engaged to be married next June. My fiancee,
>born a Methodist, has decided to convert to the RCC. We've started
>attending Mass and RCIA together at the campus Newman center. This is
>where the questions come in. I'd like to know if certain practices are
>common that I've seen here. I've never seen them elsewhere.
>
>For example, the last Mass we attended:
>
>-the penitential rite was omitted
>
>-the creed was omitted

Except in the cases of children's masses (i.e. grade school), the Nicene
Creed is an unchangeable part of Mass.  It has to be there, since the 
profession of faith is an integral part of the celebration.  In
addition, the penetential rite (which replaces the old prayers at the
foot of the altar..." Introibo ad altare dei, ad deum qui laetificat
iuventutem meam..." while the ICEL translation provides 3 versions, is
also a necessary part of the Mass.  Both the enabling texts that
introduced the Pauline mass to the world and the Bishop's instructions
are clear that changes to the mass in substance, order of rites, or 
deletions are not permitted except within the limits provided within the
General Instructions and the Sacrimentary. 

>
>-the gospel reading was an "adaptation" that I can only describe as a
> skit or caricature; it was done with Christ and the Apostles doing
> street talk. It was very uncomfortable to me and felt almost like a
> personal violation. 

Uncomfortable, perhaps, but, if the story was faithful, perhaps
understandable.  But I wonder about college centers like the
newman...that's a discussion for another thread...
>
>In RCIA last night on a discussion of the sacraments:
>
>-It was stated as a matter of fact that the RCC has never taught that
> intentionally and habitually missing Mass was a serious enough sin
> <or a sin at all, was the implication> to disable one from receiving
> Holy Communion without first receiving absolutionThe statement
> made was that even if someone decides not to go to Mass for 20 years,
> they could receive Communion without seeking rReconciliation first.

Intentionally (stress the word here, intentionally) not assisting at
Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.  Even that survived the rewriting of the
basic catechism.  Catholics are bound to assist at mass on Sundays and 
Holy Days of Obligation under the all the latest theories, catechisms, 
or whatever.  Reception of the Sacred Body and Blood is reserved to 
those not in the state of serious sin, and so forth.  I would call a 
mortal sin, a sin which by its own definintion is a total removal of 
oneself from God's presence, a serious sin.  Ergo, mortal sin=no
communion.
>
>-One participant related how an acquaitance's husband was denied 
> Communion by a pastor who knew he had not attended Mass for a 
> number of years and had not received absolution. The speaker
> accused the pastor of being a "bad priest".

But it was totally within the right of the priest to withold communion
so as not to cause scandal or when the priest knows that the recipient 
is not spiritually capable of providing a proper reception to the
sacrament.  Perhaps before accusing the priest of being a "bad priest",
some self-examination is in order here.  
>
>-It was stated that the precept requiring receiving of the Eucharist
> during Easter time was, "to encourage people to show up at least
> once a year," but was not binding.
>
>Everyone there is apparently comfortable with these teachings except
>me. Is my catechism out of date? Am I just a victim of my background?
>-- 
No, perhaps like me, you are a victim of the jesuits and ecumaniacs that
have muddied the waters of catholic thought to the point where even the
catechists don't know (and maybe don't care) what the real story is.
Msgr. Michael Wrenn of the Archdiocese of NY has written an excellent
book published Ignatius Press called "Catechisms and Controversies"
which details the tortuous path that the new Catechism has travelled-and
especially the tactics taken by some clerics and other relativists to
torpedo the Catechism due to its strict doctrinal line.  Interesting
reading (and Msgr. Wrenn is a friend...this is a non-plug plug...)-
it should be available in a good Catholic bookstore...

My advice would be to find a more faithful parish rather than the Newman
center to continue your friend's acceptance into our faith.  It is 
important that a TRUE picture of Catholicism be provided, rather than
a relativist-modified, questionable theology be taught. 

Bryan D. Boyle
Jesuit-trained and still a Catholic.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic