Quo Vadis? said:

---

*the asterisk is a qualifier in that I am only talking about the ones that I have personally attended*

I attended Mass with one of my children at St Anne Catholic Church in Tomball this morning as the rest of the household was feeling sick. St Anne is closest to my house, and as I didn't want to leave my sick family for very long, it was the best way to fulfill the obligation.

The church is fairly small with pews that hold around 400-500 parishioners and then two elevated wings up a staircase that each hold about 50 people. The church was packed (good sign) and there was SRO at the time of mass.

For what seemed to be a decent sized community I was shocked that the parish has only 1 priest, and there was no deacon assisting at the mass. The priests name is Fr.Tommy, and while he seemed very friendly and folksy did not exhibit the type of solemnity nor reverence that I am used to.

He said all the words of the liturgy in the exact same conversational language, and after every response from the laity he would say "thank you" which I thought was odd. He did seem very popular, and his homily on the Epiphany was well received, even if it didn't really speak about the gospel much and instead told the tale of a fictional "4th wiseman", who spent 33 years trying to find Christ and got held up doing acts of charity. When he finally reaches Christ, it's the day of the crucifixion and he's hit in the head by a falling roof slate and Christ takes him to heaven with him. Sweet story, nice message but inappropriate.

The biggest issue I have is with how communion is done. The priest calls down the Holy Spirit and changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and then distributes communion to the EMHC before handing them their own chalice or ciborium. The EMHC were a mix of men and women and all were nicely dressed and acted reverently but what struck me most, was the absolute non chalance exhibited by the laity when the EMHC would walk past them to go to their communion station at different points in the church.

The body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, King of Kings, is passing by your location, and you don't even acknowledge it? You don't prostrate yourself, or kneel or even bow your head as God passes by?

It may seem like a small thing but to me this is the biggest indictment of the entire thought process of the church post Vatican II. The Eucharist is the center of our faith, and it seems as a church, we are fine with treating it as regular bread and wine. I don't blame the laity, this is what we're being taught by Bishops who worry that kneeling while receiving will "disrupt the flow" of communion, by parishes that don't have reconciliation available before every Mass, and by priests who give a cursory wipe down of the vessels post communion, instead of taking the time to ensure every piece of our precious Lord's body and blood has been consumed.

It's an absolute travesty. I am extremely depressed. Come Lord Jesus.

---

I agree that the 'thank you' part is odd. The rest of the post IMO almost seems a little petty (I can't think of a better word right now). So you didn't like his homily. There are plenty of homilies that we don't like. You keep talking about the Eucharist being the center of our worship (and rightly so), but you complain about a homily. Maybe you're focused on the wrong things. And I guess I don't see issues at my church about receiving communion. Most people receive in the hand, but some do on the tongue, and others kneel and receive on the tongue. Our priest is fine however you do it... as long as you consume it right there.

Sorry for the negative reply, but I sometimes feel TLM attendees can cause their own share of division.... and I'm for both types of masses being allowed in every diocese.

Maybe you can define "change" for me then?

As has been quoted, nothing changed from a revelation standpoint. What was updated, using the Pope's choice of words, were certain liturgical aspects to bring about an increased awareness of the gospel in lives of the baptized laity through the mass.

To me nothing has changed theologically, rather, instead of being silent observers we are now more active participants in the Eucharist celebration.

"Both types"

How would that work?

PabloSerna said:

---

Maybe you can define "change" for me then?

As has been quoted, nothing changed from a revelation standpoint. What was updated, using the Pope's choice of words, were certain liturgical aspects to bring about an increased awareness of the gospel in lives of the baptized laity through the mass.

To me nothing has changed theologically, rather, instead of being silent observers we are now more active participants in the Eucharist celebration.

---

I mean the form of the mass has changed. I don't know anyone who denies this but maybe you? If that's what you're claiming? It's not making a whole lot of sense.

Maybe I'll ask it this way: if the church came out tomorrow and said the use of Eucharistic ministers needs to curtailed and used only when absolutely necessary (say a very large parish that has multiple priests and deacons but only one priest is available for some reason), would you consider that a change?

Depending on what you mean about the "form of the mass" I think we agree that the use of EMHC is more about serving large crowds and not some new rubric to the theology behind the mass.

What won't change however is our "offering" up along with the bread and wine. This true in all rites.

So in my understanding of Vatican II, that has not changed, but is now more apparent.

The original idea was that the Novus Ordo and the liturgical reforms are the root causes for a lack of reverence and understanding of the reality of the Real Presence- is flawed in my opinion. I think this was already happening and the attempts to update the liturgy were valid.

It may be only my opinion, but the folks I know that attend TLM- do so by deliberate choice. They will go out of their way to find a TLM even if it means driving to another town.

My point there is that was never the intent of keeping the TLM because mass and the rites are intended to unite the local community.

PabloSerna said:

---

Depending on what you mean about the "form of the mass" I think we agree that the use of EMHC is more about serving large crowds and not some new rubric to the theology behind the mass.

What won't change however is our "offering" up along with the bread and wine. This true in all rites.

So in my understanding of Vatican II, that has not changed, but is now more apparent.

The original idea was that the Novus Ordo and the liturgical reforms are the root causes for a lack of reverence and understanding of the reality of the Real Presence- is flawed in my opinion. I think this was already happening and the attempts to update the liturgy were valid.

It may be only my opinion, but the folks I know that attend TLM- do so by deliberate choice. They will go out of their way to find a TLM even if it means driving to another town.

My point there is that was never the intent of keeping the TLM because mass and the rites are intended to unite the local community.

---

I agree to a large degree. I can drive 45 minutes to get to a TLM, but that negates any hope of local Catholic community. I don't think the new rite is invalid. I've been to some truly amazing novus ordo services, and was blessed to do so. But they are very rare, so I understand why some want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

I don't think anyone can deny that if someone who died in 1950 and came back just 30 years later they would think they were in an entirely different religion. Whatever the rubric used, the reverence needs to come back and there is very little movement inside of the mainstream parish trying to make this happen.

As to EHMCs: we agree. Using them doesn't radically change the meaning of the mass. But in practice I think it can unintentionally water it down.

Latin Rite Catholics that attend the TLM aren't the only ones to attend Mass across town to the exclusion of closer parishes. True, we're the ones more prone to drive extreme distances to get to Mass, but I digress... My parents, for example... they attend the 4th closest parish to their house yet they are founding members of the closest parish. Their reasons are due to the clergy at their original parish as well as the ACTS movement at their current parish. Reasons are many for Catholics to do this. A previous pastor at St. Louis in Waco joked to us that his parish was better than St. Jerome's (where we were) because St. Louis doesn't look like an Italian restaurant. Some people choose the parish that is farther because there is a school. Some seek community through certain parish ministries and outreaches (e.g. young adults), which I did when I was a young adult fresh out of college. Others, including posters here in F15, have chosen another parish due to seeking the authentic Catholic Faith being taught. In my current parish, people come from around the county yet there is community and camaraderie outside of parish events. Suffice it to say that there are many reasonable considerations people make on which parish to call home.

"Some people choose the parish that is farther because there is a school."

This is a great point I hadn't considered. In our family, we were so intent on sending our kids to Catholic school, back in 1993, that we applied to several schools until one of them had room for the first of our eight kids. That was the Cathedral of Saint Mary in downtown Austin, where we have remained parishioners ever since. All our kids went to Saint Mary's (1993-2023) even when we moved away to nearby Bastrop. We registered at Ascension (Bastrop TX) and have been active in the parish, but still help out from time to time at Saint Mary's (RCIA, Marriage Classes) because of our history with the staff.

There is no parish school at Ascension in Bastrop and we have to cap RE enrollment, as the kids come from all over Bastrop County. The same folks do everything, that is "the community"- but small steps are being made to expand the tent. ACTS retreats have been helpful for parish renewal, but I could see where a parish school could really make a difference.

When our kids attended Saint Mary's we were very involved at both the school and parish levels. It was evident when we would see the same folks at mass that were involved with the school. That dynamic would go a long way to restoring a parish identity. I remember hearing a speaker say that he used to tell people he was from "Saint Mary's" or "Saint Anthony's" instead of a street name.

ETA: Recently, one of our adult kiddos in college, preferred to attend Christmas mass at the Cathedral instead of Ascension precisely because of what they remember as kids. Needless to say we did both parishes-

Mark Fairchild said:

---

I read this with a sorrowful heart. We are NO parishioners, but we have much love for TLM. Our priest is very Orthodox; however, we have begun to clap for Birthdays, Anniversaries, Baptism, and most recently for our choir. Father did at least say loudly after the applause for the choir that, " this is not a concert!"

My wife and are thirty year converts to the Catholic Church. We left Protestantism for the beliefs and traditionalism of Catholics. We came into the Church to reverently worship Our Lord in our Liturgy, Sacraments, and Holy Eucharist!

It breaks our hearts that so many at Mass do not realize that The Lord God Almighty is there in the Tabernacle!!! The talking and irreverence before Mass grieves our hearts. We should be preparing to receive the "Body and Blood" of Our Lord and Savior!

OP, we will pray for you, please pray for us and for all Christians!

---

Well… it did look like an Olive Garden.

I hear the remodel is quite nice.

SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

Well… it did look like an Olive Garden.

I hear the remodel is quite nice.

---

I've seen some photos... and yes, the O.G. vibe is gone. Very much improved.

PabloSerna said:

---

"Some people choose the parish that is farther because there is a school."

This is a great point I hadn't considered. In our family, we were so intent on sending our kids to Catholic school, back in 1993, that we applied to several schools until one of them had room for the first of our eight kids. That was the Cathedral of Saint Mary in downtown Austin, where we have remained parishioners ever since. All our kids went to Saint Mary's (1993-2023) even when we moved away to nearby Bastrop. We registered at Ascension (Bastrop TX) and have been active in the parish, but still help out from time to time at Saint Mary's (RCIA, Marriage Classes) because of our history with the staff.

There is no parish school at Ascension in Bastrop and we have to cap RE enrollment, as the kids come from all over Bastrop County. The same folks do everything, that is "the community"- but small steps are being made to expand the tent. ACTS retreats have been helpful for parish renewal, but I could see where a parish school could really make a difference.

When our kids attended Saint Mary's we were very involved at both the school and parish levels. It was evident when we would see the same folks at mass that were involved with the school. That dynamic would go a long way to restoring a parish identity. I remember hearing a speaker say that he used to tell people he was from "Saint Mary's" or "Saint Anthony's" instead of a street name.

ETA: Recently, one of our adult kiddos in college, preferred to attend Christmas mass at the Cathedral instead of Ascension precisely because of what they remember as kids. Needless to say we did both parishes-

---

When I was in grade school... My family was registered at two parishes, giving $$ at both. The secondary parish was the one with the parochial school my sister and I attended. Fond memories of the pastor at the time, Fr. Haberman. Eternal rest...

Our primary parish was the one where we were founding members. Fond memories of the VFW hall that initially hosted us and playing on the tank after Mass.