Feelings in prayer
I'm wondering something--for those of you who are not Catholic, or who are converts, how do you/did you approach prayer? Do you rely on an emotional validation for you to feel that your prayer was heard? This was something that I struggled with a great deal before becoming Catholic, and while I've heard this is common among Protestants, I'm not so sure it's a Church of Christ thing, so much as a Freaky Kate thing. Basically, I would go to pray, and in praying, would work myself up to the proper emotional pitch
so that my prayer would be effective. When concluding my prayer, if I did not "feel" a certain way, I would be discouraged and believe my prayer had died in transit.
This is no longer a problem for me; actually, formal prayers have eradicated the problem almost completely. The thing of it is, a formal prayer puts into words the feelings I might be struggling to express, so that I spend less time struggling to express and more time actually praying. I also now know that an emotional feeling has nothing to do with the efficacy of an action; the big example of this is that in the days before converting, I would pray for forgiveness, without "feeling" forgiven, so that, as far as I was concerned, I wasn't forgiven. Thus, when I first started going to Confession I worried that unless I worked myself up emotionally, it would not be effacacious, but it quickly became apparent to me that I could not approach it that way--and it's hard to describe the difference in my heart, now that I know I do not have to rely on how I "feel" about my prayers or my requests for forgiveness for them to work as directed.
But, as I said, I suspect this is just a Freaky Kate thing, unless your testimony bears this out as a common experience . . . .
Labels: prayer
Trucking along
Today was really a low point. At some point in the last week I started to forget to take my medication, so by today, I was primed and ready for falling down. All day I felt so bad that all I could think about was having a Coke, or some chocolate. The feeling at times like this is one of desperation, of being caged. Instead I tried to pray for the grace to turn to Christ for encouragement, instead of to a candy bar. I would say it worked somewhat--it's not a cure-all, but it kept me on the straight and narrow.
Labels: grace, lent
What's up with my Catholic bookstore?
Today was Adam's birthday, so I went by our Catholic bookstore to get him some books. Essentially, I had to pick the orthodox material out of the offerings, which consisted of biographies of Buddhist figures, writings by Andrew Greeley, drivel by Max Lucado, something called
God Has No Religion, and of course the requisite shelf of books on Medjugorje. Blech. However, I did get some good stuff:
The Catholic Sourcebook, a dictionary of theological terms,
Pope Fiction, a Navarre commentary on Matthew (with the original Vulgate translation!), and some icon notecards to be mounted for hanging.
While I was there, my mom called me. She was upset--my dad's doing. I've long sensed that she is open to Catholicism, but has put off really talking with me about it because of my dad, because where he goes, she goes. I think she knows that he simply would not allow her to follow her conscience, and that would be the end of it. And, if she allowed her conscience to form enough to tell her to become Catholic--she wouldn't be able to, and how could she live knowing she was not obeying God? Thus, don't talk about it.
In fact, it's because of this that I am almost afraid to pursue any real discussion with her. If I began making sense to her--let's say she actually had the strength to stand up to my dad, and tell him she was converting. He would have one of two reactions: hurt, or furious. Let's say it was so disproportionate that it resulted in a separation. Who do you think he would blame? Not only that, but he would say--and believe--that I only converted my mom to hurt him. (He already thinks my conversion was solely to hurt him.)
The real question is, why don't I think I can make sense to my dad, too, so that there can be one big happy family swim expedition across the Tiber? Well--because he won't talk to me about the Church. And the way things are between us I don't know how commendable any attempt on my part would be, either.
But, driving home from the bookstore, I thought back to the first few months that I began my conversion. Right at the very start, as I was discovering all this information about the early church and history, just as I was thinking that perhaps the Catholic Church wasn't the apostate Whore of Babylon after all--I did a tiny bit of poking around online. Looking at some information right from the source. I came across
Free for Catholics, a site that brings together free offers relating to the Church.
One of the things offered was a blessed Miraculous Medal. Cheap, of course, made of aluminium. I ordered it. I remember putting it on and hiding it under my shirt because I didn't really know how to feel about this thing I was wearing. What did it mean? Yet it was--a link to centuries of belief that might, after all, be true belief. Whenever I wore it I felt that I was not alone, though I could not explain why.
Later, after I had made the decision to convert I found out that the Medal is an aid in the conversion of sinners--or non-Catholics, in this case. It seemed a bit funny at first, and then--I realized it wasn't. Just how much did that blessed medal have to do with my change of heart?
So, tonight I ordered one for my mom. I don't expect her to wear it, but if she puts it in her purse--we'll see. And maybe there's hope yet.
Labels: conversion
For Jason . . .
I posted this on PF, but there are so many threads you probably won't ever see it.
Kevin Cauley wrote: Try looking at the scriptures with honesty and sincerity instead of through the colored lenses of the pope and cardinals.
Kate wrote:I did that as a member of the Church of Christ, and ended up Catholic.
jlongwith wrote:
Kate,
There is obviously more to this story, since you have told us more than once that one can't find the truth without the Catholic church to guide them. I have a feeling that there are some specific circumstances in your life that lead you to leave the church.
Jason
Kate wrote:
It's all right here.Labels: conversion
Lent for beginners
Last year I really bombed at Lent. I have mentioned that last year was pretty low spiritually speaking, and I didn't really do anything to stop it. To be honest, in that first year of being Catholic I don't think I had yet come to understand grace and how it works; grace is not a word you hear much of in the Church of Christ. My understanding of grace was that when a baptized person sins, as we will, God agrees, if we pray for him to, to overlook it. We will continue to be hobbled and bankrupt, but God will overlook it. How sad and shriveled that concept is! I have only recently come to recognize what the command "Be ye perfect" really reveals: that by grace we come to be perfect, come to be, in fact, saints. Our sins are not "overlooked"; we actually become less attached to sin, and less prone to sin, until, by virtue of the grace we ask for, we cease to sin.
So, this year for Lent, I'm setting out to ask for grace. I've become really attached to eating too much, drinking soda to the tune of six cans a day. So, I'm giving up ice cream and soda. And each point that I crave these things, I am instead praying for the grace not to be attached to such things. Which is part of what the penitential aspect of Lent is about.
I have to admit, it's already rough for me. . . .
Labels: grace, lent
Amillia Taylor
Tiny baby is youngest ever to survive preterm birth.
A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is to be released from a Florida hospital Tuesday.
Amillia Sonja Taylor was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born Oct. 24. She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.
Do you realize that there are babies this age, and older, who are thrown in trash cans every day?
Another article on this story states
The American Association of Pediatrics indicates that babies born at less than 23 weeks of age and 400 grams in weight are not considered viable.
"It may be that we need to reconsider our standard for viability in light of Amillia's case," said Smalling.
Yes, it may be.
I wonder how much longer this hypocrisy is going to go on, choosing who lives and who dies based on how we feel about that person's value. When will every individual be guaranteed the right to live?
Labels: pro-life
It's not all bad in the Novus Ordo
Back when I was going through what was laughingly referred to as RCIA, one of our sessions focused on the Mass, specifically, the parts of the Mass. The catechist that day spoke about how wonderful it was that Vatican II had dismantled "the medieval trappings" of the Tridentine Mass. I muttered to my sponsor, "Some of us
like those medieval trappings."
Well, it's true, I do--I firmly believe in the necessity of creating a sacred and holy atmosphere for the Sacrifice of the Mass. (I'm all about smells and bells, neither of which are detectible in my parish.) However, I'm reading Father Alfred McBride's
A Short History of the Mass (which, if you're doing a comparison, is much better than Mike Aquilina's
The Mass of the Early Christians), and it's doing the Novus Ordo quite the service. It begins with the earliest Mass--the night on which Jesus was betrayed--and traces the development of the Mass all the way to today.
Never having been fortunate enough to see a church more than one hundred years old, I did not know this, but in the medieval period, the nave (where the faithful assemble) was separated from the sanctuary by walls. From the photographs in the book of some of these churches, it's apparent that while worshippers could witness the consecration, they were not exactly invited in to it. In fact, eventually much of the Mass became conducted
sotto voce; as a result, the faithful received quite infrequently.
While the Novus Ordo has many drawbacks, primarily the misunderstanding that the use of Latin in the liturgy is no longer acceptable, and, if you ask me, the deliberate playing-down of so many sacred aspects of the liturgy--one thing that I now see that the NO has done is to invite us back in to the Mass. Yesterday, for example, sitting only a few feet from the elevated Host--how possible would that once have been? It's a shame that this invitation to full participation in the Mass has been misconstrued as a almost disrespectful familiarity with the liturgy, yes, but I'll admit it: It's not
all bad in the Novus Ordo.
Labels: liturgy, the Mass
Wishing for a miracle
Mass always has more meaning when I manage to get there early enough to sit on the front row. I love being able to see the Blessed Sacrament, to hear it broken in the priest's hands, to see the wine being poured. I find myself praying that I will be blessed with
truly seeing the Body and Blood of Christ, but then I have to wonder why I want this. Tonight, watching Father elevate the Host, and thinking of the Lenten season which approaches, I realized that it was for greater love. I don't love Christ enough--who, really, does? It is for a heart inflamed with love that I pray for such a thing, all the while remembering that blessed are those who have not see, yet believe.
Labels: sacraments
The Eucharist vs. the Lord's Supper
When I was a member of the Church of Christ, I think I looked upon the Lord's Supper differently than others. While others seemed to think the preaching was the focus of the worship, I was instinctively drawn to the Lord's Supper. From reading 1 Corinthians I felt that this was to be the focus of worship, yet, in the Church of Christ it had been reduced to a nibble of cracker and a hasty swallow of grape juice. Why? I yearned for it to be more. I was told in books and pamphlets that this memorial meal was supposed to be a source of spiritual nourishment, but how? How did a piece of matzo and a bit of Welch's communicate spiritual nourishment?
I assumed, as I frequently do, that it must be something I was doing wrong.
I was not working hard enough. I would sit very still and picture the death of Christ and attempt to work myself up into an emotional state so that that matzo would mean something. It became an effort all on my part, with nothing of God in it. No wonder it failed to nourish me.
What a difference it is, now, to receive the Eucharist. What a difference, now, to participate in the most intimate union with the Creator of Life, to know that the words Christ spoke are more than mere symbolism:
Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:53-56)
How could it ever have seemed right to me that a purely material Communion, one that did not take literally Christ's command, could have communicated grace, or bestowed Life? How could I have ever thought that this life he promised would be mine if I only worked hard enough to make it so? And how did I ever get along without the Life that the Eucharist bestows?
Jesus, my God and my all, my soul longs for You. My heart yearns to receive You in Holy Communion. Come, Bread of heaven and Food of angels, to nourish my soul and to rejoice my heart. Come, most lovable Friend of my soul, to inflame me with such love that I may never again be separated from You.
Labels: church of christ, sacraments
"May God have mercy on your soul!"
I went to Mass tonight, by myself, feeling down and discouraged. Not just because of the discussions taking place (see my prior post), but because of other, private things going on. As ever, Mass consoled me and soothed me; our Gospel reading for today was
Blessed are you when people shall hate you, and when they shall exclude you, and shall insult and denounce your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day, for behold, your reward will be great in Heaven; for their fathers treated the prophets in the same way.
It is interesting to me that people will resort to threats about damnation, and airing questions about one's honesty, simply because you dare to have a different view of a Bible passage than they have. This is the result of believing in the "right" to interpret the Bible on one's own: because Scott is honest, when Scott interprets the Bible he will interpret it correctly. Therefore, when Tim interprets the Bible differently, it does not, as it should, disprove this principle, it simply forces Scott, with his interpretation, to label Tim, with his different interpretation, as
clearly dishonest. It is a judgmental, small world to live in, and I'm grateful to no longer live there.
Labels: church of christ
Identifying the church through history
A recurring theme in discussions with members of the Church of Christ is the argument that the sect to which they belong is linked to the original church founded on Pentecost, 33 A.D. (There are other arguments for the claim of the Church of Christ to be the church Christ founded than this, but I'm only addressing this one right now.) If this sect is a direct descendant of the original Church, then it is logical to ask for verification of this descendance via records of some sort. Some members of the sect will claim that the descendance is through the heresies which arose at various points in history to oppose the Catholic Church; I deal with this suggestion
in this article. Others will make a statement such as the following:
Church succession does not prove anything. We do not have to find the church in the historical record for it have existed. Besides, even if you could trace the Catholic Church all the back to the beginning, you have no assurance that this church is really the true church.
The problem with this argument, however, is that it both defies reasonable expectations and contradicts the Bible.
About the Church, St. Paul says the following:
1 Timothy 3:15:
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
From this we deduce, first, that there is a church, and that this church is to be the pillar of the truth. Therefore, if truth (such as the Bible) is to be known, it is to be known through the actions of the church. So, if God wants us to know truth, it is reasonable to expect that he would make His Church available and known to us. Otherwise, God is acting unjustly.
What does the Bible say about the nature of the Church?
Matthew 5:14:
You are the light of the wordl. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
This verse describes the character of the Church as being the light of the world. It also describes the Church as being visible.
So, now we know that not only is truth to be known through the Church, it is to be, though that church, known to the world. Explicitly ruled out is the possibility of a hidden and unseen church. Also ruled out is the possibility of furtive transmission of the gospel.
Therefore we cannot say the following three things:
(1)The Church which is the pillar of truth is indetectible in history.
(2)The Church transmitted this truth secretly.
Or,
(3) That there is no assurance that the Church which has been seen and known in history is the true Church.
Therefore, to assert that the true church may not have been seen or known, or to assert that there is no assurance of the genuineness of that Church which is seen and known is to contradict what we know to be true.
To this may be replied something such as the following:
You're saying that unless secular history takes notice of a church, it can't be a light. But that doesn't mean it wasn't visible, because individual members would still bear fruit through their lives. It was visible through the individual Christians.
This also defies reasonable expectations. Individuals compose a group, and when individuals within a group act similarly, the actions of the individuals become the actions of a group. The actions of a group, in this case the Church, take place within history, not apart from it. Therefore, what it does forms part of the historical record, whether religious, political, or social. Therefore, if we are dealing with a group we expect to be historical, i.e., a group we assert existed at a certain point in history, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that we will find historical evidence of that group. If we do not find evidence of this group, we have two conclusions:
1. The group did not exist at the point in time in history, or,
2. The group was hidden and concealed at this point in history.
But as I explained, option #2 contradicts what we already know to be true, i.e., what the Bible says. Therefore, we have to conclude that this group cannot be the historical entity we are looking for.
We know from the Bible that the Church is to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. Therefore, truth will be known through the actions of the church. If it is to be asserted that the actions of the church were of so little impact on the world of which the church is a part that they failed to be distinguishable in the historical record, then we are asserting the failure of the Church to carry out her mission, and did not produce fruits--and therefore, does not have the character of the Church which Christ described.
Labels: apostasy, church of christ, church succession
"Here I am, send me"
In my prayers before Mass, I offered a prayer for the conversion of my family, feeling somewhat sad at the fruitlessness of my efforts thus far. You would think I would have noticed, on my own, the readings for today, but I did not: Isaiah 6:1-8 and Luke 5:1-11. Both focused on being sent to convert. It wasn't until Father's homily that I realized what the readings meant.
Then said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?"
"Here I am," I said, "send me!"
I wonder if I don't bear fruit because of my own attachment to sin--even more specifically, my resentment of my father? I don't even want to start thinking about that wound, or what I have to do to heal that. . . .
Labels: conversion, readings
Swiss expands assisted-suicide law
And here's more from the unethical science department . . . .
Swiss may expand assisted suicide lawNote this:
Switzerland already allows physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients under certain circumstances. The Federal Tribunal's decision puts mental illnesses on the same level as physical ones.
"It must be recognized that an incurable, permanent, serious mental disorder can cause similar suffering as a physical (disorder), making life appear unbearable to the patient in the long term," the ruling said.
. . .
"A distinction has to be made between a death wish which is an expression of a curable, psychiatric disorder and which requires treatment, and (a death wish) which is based on a person of sound judgment's own well-considered and permanent decision, which must be respected," they said.
So. If you're crazy, all you have to do is prove you're sane enough to know what you're doing when you say you want to die . . . despite the long tradition of viewing people who want to die as
not sane.
As I said the last time this was in the news, what this means is that doctors, instead of healing life, are now in the position of judging the value of a life, and whether it has enough value for it to continue. Clearly, for them, suffering diminishes the value of a life to the point that it should not be expected that a person should continue his life if all is not easy for him. Our dimished capacity for nobility shrinks hourly . . . .
Labels: unethical science
And one more . . . .
Speaking of unethical vaccines,
Texas now mandates vaccines against STDs. Do not fall for this politically motivated scam.
Here is a letter written by Dr. Clayton Young on this subject.
OBGYN Questions HPV Vaccine Gardasil
Editorial Office
Obstetrics and Gynecology
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
409 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024-2188
I am writing in response to the recent Committee Opinion 344 Published in the September issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I have several concerns regarding Gardasil.
First, the Gardasilís product insert states their endpoint is the prevention of "High Grade Disease", this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) which are "immediate and necessary precursors" for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.1 The MAXIMUM median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years.2 Claiming this vaccine prevents cervical cancer, with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is inappropriate.
The vaccine only "protects" against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 15 "high risk" HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.
According to ACOG, ìThe vast majority of women clear or suppress HPV to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.î3 Seventy percent of women clear the virus spontaneously after 18 months and 90 % clear the virus after 2 years.4 Vaccinating children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy may only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease, including the cervical cancer which the vaccine is supposedly preventing. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster.
The likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II with expectant management is 40%.5 This beats Gardasilís reduction of CIN II-III of only 39% in the ìgeneral population impact groupî which is where most people would currently fall.6 This includes ìall subjects who received at least one vaccination (regardless of baseline HPV status at Day 1.î7 Since ACOG does not currently recommend serologic testing for HPV before vaccination this will be the endpoint from here out. In this case, "first do no harmî rules.
The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children? Vaccinating children for this or any other sexually transmitted infection is not without risk. There are over 30,000 immunization reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) annually 8, and it has been estimated that only 10% or less of vaccine reactions are reported.9 In light of these facts the integrity of the post marketing surveillance of vaccines is questionable. Currently no vaccine has ever been examined for possible carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects, and yet the pharmaceutical industry stands ready to add Gardasil to the list of vaccines mandated for school admission.
Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. Cervical cancer causes approximately one percent of all cancer deaths in America. The utility of this vaccine may be in third world countries in which regular screening is not available and cervical cancer is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The Committee Opinion states that there continues to be a significant population of women not receiving adequate screening. If you estimate the cost of the series at $360.00 (the most expensive vaccine on the market) administered to all adolescent girls and use that money to expand and enhance screening, I believe the results might be quite impressive. To invest that amount of healthcare dollars in an immunization with no long term efficacy or safety data is unwise.
I have personally witnessed the devastation caused by severe vaccine reaction, including patients, their children, nurses and my own family. To proceed with mass vaccination against this embellished "threat" is premature.
Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
Cc: NVIC, AAPS, PROVE
References
1. Prescribing information for GARDASIL. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc.; 2006.
2. Management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 66. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 645-64.
3. Ibid.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genital HPV Infection Facts Sheet. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm. Retrieved September 16, 2006.
5. Management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 66. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 645-64.
6. Prescribing information for GARDASIL. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc.; 2006.
7. Ibid.
8. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, phone representative, interview with the author, September 13, 2006.
9. Cave, S. What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Childrenís Vaccinations. Warner Books, 2001. p.xviii.
Labels: unethical science
Immorally manufactured vaccinations
Did you know that when you vaccinate your baby against chickenpox, rubella, or hepatitis A, you are using a vaccine that is derived from aborted babies?This relates to something that has been bothering me for years. I currently have to take several medications whose origins I have simply been afraid to research. I'm sure that even if they do not make use of fetal tissue, they probably make use of unethically treated animals, which while less morally offensive is still an abuse of our stewardship obligation. As I age, I will undoubtedly have to add more medications to the list, and there is really no avoiding the fact that these meds will be derived via morally unaccpetable means. Exploitation of the helpless for our benefit is simply immoral; you do not do evil that good may be done. (It's to be noted that in the Church's mercy we are not condemned for having to use these medications and vaccinations.)
Yet the medical community has no such qualms, and because of this we are at their mercy. If we want to be healthy, we have to submit to unethical applications. I suppose that the best approach is to prevent the ill health for which we would have to take these unethical medications. Still, it's scary: this is the sort of world modernism builds. With cloning human beings purely for body parts just over the hill, it's going to get a whole lot worse, and there are going to have to be some sacrifices made--choosing to suffer rather than cooperate with this.
See also
The Vatican response.
Labels: health, modernism
Shh . . . for Catholics only . . .
This information is for Catholics only. It must not be divulged to non-Catholics.
The less they know about our rituals and code words, the better off they are.
AMEN: The only part of a prayer that everyone knows.
BULLETIN: Your receipt for attending Mass.
CHOIR: A group of people whose singing allows the rest of the Parish to lip-sync.
HOLY WATER: A liquid whose chemical formula is H2OLY.
HYMN: A song of praise usually sung in a key three octaves higher than that of the congregation's range.
RECESSIONAL HYMN: The last song at Mass often sung a little more quietly, since most of the people have already left.
INCENSE: Holy Smoke!
JONAH: The original "Jaws" story.
JUSTICE: When kids have kids of their own.
KYRIE ELEISON: The only Greek words most Catholics can recognize besides gyros & baklava.
MAGI: The most famous trio to attend a baby shower.
MANGER: Where Mary gave birth to Jesus because Joseph wasn't covered by medical insurance. (The Bible's way of showing us that holiday travel has always been
rough.)
PEW: A medieval torture device still found in Catholic churches.
PROCESSION: The ceremonial formation at the beginning of Mass, consisting of altar servers, the celebrant, and late parishioners looking for seats.
RECESSIONAL: The ceremonial procession at the conclusion of Mass led by parishioners trying to beat the crowd to the parking lot.
RELICS: People who've gone to Mass for so long, they actually know when to sit, kneel, and stand.
(Snagged from
Leah)
Labels: humor
