Lay People With Pectoral Cross? Annoying?

February 20, 2015

I think the novus ordo is usually valid,

Well color me relieved!!!

February 20, 2015

No I have a strong desire to go to daily mass. I think the novus ordo is usually valid, and thre are many graces from recieveing the Eucharist every day. but sadly, it is a parish with leaflets about Enneagram and LGBT catholic groups

Leaflets and heretical beliefs don't invalidate the mass, though.

If it's not an ordained priest, if they aren't using wheat bread and wine, if they aren't saying the words of institution, the priest is intending to say Mass... basically if there's a defect of matter (bread and wine) form (words of institution) or intent (defective if the priest intends not to consecrate).

Now, a mass can be valid but illicit. If they don't follow the rubrics for Mass, it can certainly be illicit. But that means they didn't follow the rules. Invalid means it wasn't actually a mass. I seriously recommend people go to mass where they're spiritually fed, or work to make good changes in their home parish. But ultimately you can't just skip mass because it's celebrated illicitly if it's still valid (without a dispensation).

February 20, 2015

It is at least plausible that a priest could be so radically heretical that his intent was compromised. I think that would be a fairly high hurdle though.

Also plausible, although also highly unlikely, that said priest's heresy is occult and therefore the parishioners would not even know about it.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

February 20, 2015

It is at least plausible that a priest could be so radically heretical that his intent was compromised. I think that would be a fairly high hurdle though.

Also plausible, although also highly unlikely, that said priest's heresy is occult and therefore the parishioners would not even know about it.

But even compromised intent can be sufficient, because the law assume intent is positive unless proven otherwise. And if it is occult, then yes, you're right - they wouldn't know, so they'd still be going to mass anyway. :)

I believe it does more harm than good, though, to overly speculate about a priest's intent. Unless you actually hear him say something like "When I say mass I don't intend it to be a mass or to consecrate the bread and wine." Even serious doubts about transubstantiation don't invalidate a consecration.

I just don't want people to think that they can skip Sunday mass entirely because of liturgical abuses (ones that don't entirely invalidate the mass).

February 20, 2015

I just checked and see that our phorum guidelines aren't up, I will try to locate them.

For new posters in particular, it's probably worth mentioning that we need to be careful and avoid getting into "Catholic v. Catholic" debates. They are not allowed on phatmass. In most cases, this is when Catholics start debating the validity of the Novus Ordo mass or Vatican II.

It's fine to criticize liturgical abuses, questionable literature and heterodox homilies in our parishes. (Lord knows the parish just minutes from where I live is awful in this regard.) But please be very careful about what is insinuated about the validity of the Novus Ordo, as it is a valid mass.

I hate to be a boring mother hen, but it's easy for this discussion to get carried away and we are getting way too off topic here. Back to your regularly scheduled priestly bling.

February 20, 2015

But even compromised intent can be sufficient, because the law assume intent is positive unless proven otherwise. And if it is occult, then yes, you're right - they wouldn't know, so they'd still be going to mass anyway. :)

I believe it does more harm than good, though, to overly speculate about a priest's intent. Unless you actually hear him say something like "When I say mass I don't intend it to be a mass or to consecrate the bread and wine." Even serious doubts about transubstantiation don't invalidate a consecration.

I just don't want people to think that they can skip Sunday mass entirely because of liturgical abuses (ones that don't entirely invalidate the mass).

I mean compromised in the sense of being completely lacking. But yes.

February 20, 2015

Seriously, get back on topic or I will lock the thread.

February 21, 2015

I find it annoying, for two reasons:

1. As someone's said already, it's flashy, screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M SUCH A GOOD CHRISTIAN!!!" Which I find to usually not be the case, actually, when someone wears their religion for show.

2. It's tacky as all get out. The Church cares about aesthetics, and unless you're wearing a robe, those things don't match NUTHIN'.

So: prideful AND ugly, both of which are unchristian.

Blech.

February 21, 2015

I find it annoying, for two reasons:

1. As someone's said already, it's flashy, screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M SUCH A GOOD CHRISTIAN!!!" Which I find to usually not be the case, actually, when someone wears their religion for show.

2. It's tacky as all get out. The Church cares about aesthetics, and unless you're wearing a robe, those things don't match NUTHIN'.

So: prideful AND ugly, both of which are unchristian.

Blech.

I've heard the same complaints from Catholics regarding Catholic women who wear veils/mantillas during Mass.

February 21, 2015

I've heard the same complaints from Catholics regarding Catholic women who wear veils/mantillas during Mass.

I can understand that argument. These days a mantilla does shout, "Hey! Look at me! I'm traddier than thou!" if only because so few people wear them.

They're also hideously ugly.

February 21, 2015

Harsh...

February 21, 2015

I can understand that argument. These days a mantilla does shout, "Hey! Look at me! I'm traddier than thou!" if only because so few people wear them.

They're also hideously ugly.

I think the point I'm making is that crosses, like mantillas, should not be things which cause us to be ugly toward our Catholic brethren. Furthermore the mantilla does not shout "Look at me, I'm traddier than thou!" and I have never met a women who uses it to boast about her Catholicity but rather to give respect to Christ. Something I'm sure our fellow cross wearing Catholics do as well.

I think what we should look at is why do we perceive Catholics who wear these things as being prideful? Why do we assign prideful motives to their decision to wear these things? Maybe they cause us to be upset because we're prideful and ugly on the inside? Edited February 21, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

February 21, 2015

I think the point I'm making is that crosses, like mantillas, should not be things which cause us to be ugly toward our Catholic brethren. Furthermore the mantilla does not shout "Look at me, I'm traddier than thou!" and I have never met a women who uses it to boast about her Catholicity but rather to give respect to Christ. Something I'm sure our fellow cross wearing Catholics do as well.

I think what we should look at is why do we perceive the Catholics who wear these things as being prideful? Why do we assign prideful motives to their decision to wear these things? Maybe they cause us to be upset because we're prideful and ugly on the inside?

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling out a trend, which is not calling out a person. I'm sure many people don't wear pectoral crosses or mantillas for prideful reasons, but for right ones. In general, my point is not their intentions, but the effect their appearance has on others. In a time and culture such as ours, pectoral crosses on laypeople and mantillas on women at Novus Ordo Masses communicate something. We should not impugn their motives, but that's what's going to happen, because it's so rare and relatively ostentatious to see these things in America today.

I could run around wearing a giant neon flashing crown that shouts "Viva Christo Rey!!!" at 100 decibels, and I could do that with the very best of intentions. But my intentions wouldn't determine whether what I'm doing draws attention to myself, is ugly, etc. The social norm establishes those things. If I cause myself to stand out—even with good intentions—people are gonna' talk.

I agree with you that we shouldn't judge individuals who wear these things. I know plenty of meek, gentle, good Christian men who wear crosses way too large for my taste, and plenty of very good Catholic women who choose to wear mantillas for Christ and not for show. So I don't leap to a judgment about a given person when I see them wearing one of these things. But they are aesthetically appalling to me (I know a lot of people find mantillas attractive, but I abhor lace), and definitely "catch one's eye" in certain social situations, which I think gives at least justifiable reason to object to their use. We should not wear things that force people to notice us. It's against humility, IMO.

If you were not-so-subtly implying that I am prideful and ugly on the inside, then you are certainly right. Please feel free to just say it openly next time. I won't deny it.

February 21, 2015

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling out a trend, which is not calling out a person. I'm sure many people don't wear pectoral crosses or mantillas for prideful reasons, but for right ones. In general, my point is not their intentions, but the effect their appearance has on others. In a time and culture such as ours, pectoral crosses on laypeople and mantillas on women at Novus Ordo Masses communicate something. We should not impugn their motives, but that's what's going to happen, because it's so rare and relatively ostentatious to see these things in America today.

I think you will agree that the culture in America is very anti-Catholic. IMO any display of ones Catholic faith is not so much about drawing attention to ones self as it is being a witness of the reality of Christ. There is such a thing as false humility and when we suppress licit Catholic attire like crosses and mantillas because others who live in our culture will be upset when they see them is us being worried about human respect.

I could run around wearing a giant neon flashing crown that shouts "Viva Christo Rey!!!" at 100 decibels, and I could do that with the very best of intentions. But my intentions wouldn't determine whether what I'm doing draws attention to myself, is ugly, etc. The social norm establishes those things. If I cause myself to stand out—even with good intentions—people are gonna' talk.

First I find it a little extreme to compair crosses and mantillas with flashing neon crowns which look like something daft punk would wear. That could be considered uncharitable since it would be a distraction to everyone. Crosses and mantillas are subtle outward expressions of ones faith which are not so shocking to Catholics as neon signs. I mean these things have a long and deep history within the Church. It's not like their new or novelties like neon signs.

I agree with you that we shouldn't judge individuals who wear these things. I know plenty of meek, gentle, good Christian men who wear crosses way too large for my taste, and plenty of very good Catholic women who choose to wear mantillas for Christ and not for show. So I don't leap to a judgment about a given person when I see them wearing one of these things. But they are aesthetically appalling to me (I know a lot of people find mantillas attractive, but I abhor lace), and definitely "catch one's eye" in certain social situations, which I think gives at least justifiable reason to object to their use. We should not wear things that force people to notice us. It's against humility, IMO.

I guess I do not see how these things force others to pay attention to them. Again crosses and mantillas are not novelties so IMO we should expect to see these things in Churches and during Church activites like adoration etc.

If you were not-so-subtly implying that I am prideful and ugly on the inside, then you are certainly right. Please feel free to just say it openly next time. I won't deny it.

If I thought you were ugly and prideful I would tell you. I used "we're" to include myself since I'm not above being prideful and ugly. I used "we're" so you wouldn't feel as though I was referring to you directly or even indirectly. It was more of my way of saying we as Catholics.

February 21, 2015

I think you will agree that the culture in America is very anti-Catholic. IMO any display of ones Catholic faith is not so much about drawing attention to ones self as it is being a witness of the reality of Christ. There is such a thing as false humility and when we suppress licit Catholic attire like crosses and mantillas because others who live in our culture will be upset when they see them is us being worried about human respect.

First I find it a little extreme to compair crosses and mantillas with flashing neon crowns which look like something daft punk would wear. That could be considered uncharitable since it would be a distraction to everyone. Crosses and mantillas are subtle outward expressions of ones faith which are not so shocking to Catholics as neon signs. I mean these things have a long and deep history within the Church. It's not like their new or novelties like neon signs.

I guess I do not see how these things force others to pay attention to them. Again crosses and mantillas are not novelties so IMO we should expect to see these things in Churches and during Church activites like adoration etc.

If I thought you were ugly and prideful I would tell you. I used "we're" to include myself since I'm not above being prideful and ugly. I used "we're" so you wouldn't feel as though I was referring to you directly or even indirectly. It was more of my way of saying we as Catholics.

You seem to be saying these things are okay because:

1) It doesn't matter that other Catholics (not just Americans in general) find them attention-grabbing.

AND

2) These items are "licit" and acceptable because they "have a long and deep history within the Church".

I would answer (1) with the statement that the effect our attire has on others is an important consideration we ought to make when choosing how to dress. We are to avoid giving scandal. If the general American Catholic perception is that giant pectoral crosses on laypeople "give scandal" by being obnoxiously flashy, then I think American Catholics ought to walk with the flock in that matter.

(2) I would counter with the questions: How "long and deep" must an item of apparel's history be within the Church to be acceptable? And does it matter not at all which country or culture that history primarily took place in?

February 21, 2015

You seem to be saying these things are okay because:

1) It doesn't matter that other Catholics (not just Americans in general) find them attention-grabbing.

AND

2) These items are "licit" and acceptable because they "have a long and deep history within the Church".

I would answer (1) with the statement that the effect our attire has on others is an important consideration we ought to make when choosing how to dress. We are to avoid giving scandal. If the general American Catholic perception is that giant pectoral crosses on laypeople "give scandal" by being obnoxiously flashy, then I think American Catholics ought to walk with the flock in that matter.

I would respond with, "what exactly is the scandal which mantillas and large crosses give to other Catholics?" Also do you think Catholics should stop wearing something licit because some see scandal where there isn't any? Are we required to live our lives in such a way as to appease unreasonable people?

(2) I would counter with the questions: How "long and deep" must an item of apparel's history be within the Church to be acceptable? And does it matter not at all which country or culture that history primarily took place in?

Sure these things can come into consideration, however, I hardly see how viels or crosses are exclusive to only certain Catholic cultures. From what I'm aware of the majority of cultures incorperate pendants and viels for women. Also I think the word your looking for would be "appropriate" attire since this would be the big deciding factor. How can we determine if a certain piece of attire is aporopriate for Church? Well we would ask ourselves, "does the attire show a reverence for the sacred?" I doubt that you're going to be able to make case that crosses and mantillas do not show reverence for the sacred. The opposite could be said for neon flashing signs. Edited February 21, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

February 21, 2015

Doesn't this entire thread topic violate the no infighting rule? Only on the internet will you find people debating about veils and scandal. Mantillas are more noticeable than large crosses. Both are fine. I don't really find any of them annoying. People will get used to it unless you're at a more "liberal" parish, but even then do what you want. Also keep in mind some third orders for laypeople require large noticible crucifixes as part of their uniform.

February 21, 2015

What's EMHC? Here at my parish we have the priest the deacon and ministers of the eucharist giving ash.

February 21, 2015

The difference between a woman's headcovering and a layman's loud cross for no discernable reason is that the former has Scriptural and centuries-old customary basis, whereas the latter is a product of individualism.

The discussion reminds me of why, despite that country's up and coming handbasket trip, an extended, non-touristy, non-expat stay in the Netherlands would do many people on Phatmass the world of good. It'll teach you that the majority do not give a fig about what you think, and you learn to not give a fig about what others think either. If I think someone's cross is ostentatious and it bothers me, well, that's my problem. If you think I'm being proud and showy-offy about my veil, well, that most definitely 'aint my problem.

February 21, 2015

The difference between a woman's headcovering and a layman's loud cross for no discernable reason is that the former has Scriptural and centuries-old customary basis, whereas the latter is a product of individualism.

The discussion reminds me of why, despite that country's up and coming handbasket trip, an extended, non-touristy, non-expat stay in the Netherlands would do many people on Phatmass the world of good. It'll teach you that the majority do not give a fig about what you think, and you learn to not give a fig about what others think either. If I think someone's cross is ostentatious and it bothers me, well, that's my problem. If you think I'm being proud and showy-offy about my veil, well, that most definitely 'aint my problem.

You don't need to go to the Netherlands to experience that. You only need to go to the Bible. :)

People find different ways to express their faith outwardly. Pectoral crosses and mantillas are just two of those. I'm sure there are some people who feel they *have* to wear a cross or veil (actually, I'm fairly sure I've met people like that), but the majority would, I believe, do so because they feel it suits them, because it helps them to express or reminds them of their faith, or because they see it as being appropriately reverent in their own personal way. We don't have to like it, but we should strive to be loving, and we should always pray for one another.

Sign In

Lay People With Pectoral Cross? Annoying?

Recommended Posts

MIKolbe

Basilisa Marie

Nihil Obstat

Basilisa Marie

Ash Wednesday

Nihil Obstat

Ash Wednesday

Gabriela

Oremus Pro Invicem

Gabriela

Nihil Obstat

Oremus Pro Invicem

Gabriela

Oremus Pro Invicem

Gabriela

Oremus Pro Invicem

veritasluxmea

cathedral monk

puellapaschalis

Spem in alium

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in