Charismatic Mass

[Balance]

palmas85:

A group of disgruntled, forward thinking Catholics, bored to death by the latin prayers and probably badly distracted by clacking rosary beads, this is the 60’s remember, saw a really emotional faith filled pentecostal service, they can be very emotional you know, and felt that all the bells and whistles would help a moribound church locked in rigid ritualism and dogma. They neglected the fact that all the bells and whistles, speaking in tongues, prophesyzing, testifying, and other antics common to pentecostal gatherings are there primarily to cover up the fact that they have nothing of any real value to offer anyone except an intense emotional experience. In fact the whole faith filled pentecostal movement itself is very recent, past 100 years or so.

QUOTE]

what a cynical post!
extraordinary. I think your opinion will change one day.
We’ll see, hey?

 

[Balance]

palmas85:

Not trying to be a pest or nasty or anything, but could you point me to some official church documentation that allows these practices in the context of a Mass?

I doubt you’re going to find official documnetation. a better thing to look for might be what JohnPaul II said about the Charismatic Movement as a whole, then asking a respected figure in the movement - put “Catholic covenant community” (emmanuel covenant community in Australia is one I can think of off the top of my head) in a search engine and that might turn up something - contact details I mean. then ask them about it.

might be a bit of work but worth it if youre really curious.

 

[anna1978]

If it were me (and I don’t have a car either), I’d take a bus/coach or taxi to the nearest 'normal parish…it sounds far too ‘pentecostal’ for me, and abuse or not, it’d put me off BIG time having to sit through that!

Anna x

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Balance:

I doubt you’re going to find official documnetation. a better thing to look for might be what JohnPaul II said about the Charismatic Movement as a whole, then asking a respected figure in the movement - put “Catholic covenant community” (emmanuel covenant community in Australia is one I can think of off the top of my head) in a search engine and that might turn up something - contact details I mean. then ask them about it.

might be a bit of work but worth it if youre really curious.

But just because Pope John Paul II might have said that he supports the Charismatic Movement in the Church does not mean that he supports any abuses that they may do. After all he supported the Mass but did not support the abuses done in it.

Also, if the Holy Father says something without it being backed up by Official Church documents then it is just his opinion as a priest/bishop and not binding.

As for the argument about somethings being abuses in one country and not in another, those things are spelt out in the GIRMs of each country. The GIRM we are talking about here is for the US translation of the Missal.

 

[Balance]

ByzCath:

But just because Pope John Paul II might have said that he supports the Charismatic Movement in the Church does not mean that he supports any abuses that they may do. After all he supported the Mass but did not support the abuses done in it.

Also, if the Holy Father says something without it being backed up by Official Church documents then it is just his opinion as a priest/bishop and not binding.

a Pope’s opinion, at least a Pope of the calibre of John Paul II, is rarely “just an opinion.”

of course i’m not saying he would support any abuses. are you serious? think about what people post - don’t put words in their mouth.

my comments abt JPII’s endorsement of the Charis. mvmnt were about the mvmnt in general , not abou this questn abt this particular Mass.

 

[netmilsmom]

Balance:

a Pope’s opinion, at least a Pope of the calibre of John Paul II, is rarely “just an opinion.”

of course i’m not saying he would support any abuses. are you serious? think about what people post - don’t put words in their mouth.

my comments abt JPII’s endorsement of the Charis. mvmnt were about the mvmnt in general , not abou this questn abt this particular Mass.

What ByzCath is saying that although the Movement may have been supported by our last Pope, that does not mean that they have free reign to change the liturgy as they see fit. The hammer is coming down in other movements, and the Charismatics may well see things reigned in as well.

JPII, as will Mother Angelica, were happy with the Charismatic movement spiritually. It was in vogue, fun and dynamic. Some of the leaders of the movement took it too far and Mother dropped out. The movement is losing numbers and should never be the norm in our parishes. I am all for a LifeTeen or Charismatic Mass anywhere but for a time, the Charismatics tried to control (at least in my area) all the parishes and all the masses. That should never be allowed. All forms of worship should be accomodated, even the traditional.

 

[netmilsmom]

Balance:

For example,
I bet tthe instructions on the sign of peace don’t say anything specific about smiling, or couples giving each other a kiss instead of shaking hands, or a dad ruffling his toddler’s hair, or even flicking a peace sign when you can’t reach your friend down the end of the row - but this is all quite acceptable surely?

I wonder what would happen if more people remembered that Mass is a community celebration, not just something between them and God and woe betide any one who messes with their private devotion by living life to the full?

All of the above mentioned are “Signs of Peace”. In Japan they bow. It is a sign of Peace but is not changing the litugy.

When one focuses on the “Community Celebration” rather than Our Lord on the altar, that is when we run into problems.

 

[Balance]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

All of the above mentioned are “Signs of Peace”. In Japan they bow. It is a sign of Peace but is not changing the litugy.

When one focuses on the “Community Celebration” rather than Our Lord on the altar, that is when we run into problems.

when one focusses only on the sacrifice, we also run into problems. the Mass is both.

 

[netmilsmom]

Balance:

when one focusses only on the sacrifice, we also run into problems. the Mass is both.

Then how can a priest celebrate the mass without any congregation?

 

[Balance]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Then how can a priest celebrate the mass without any congregation?

it’s hardly recommended that a priest clebrates Mass on his own.

 

[msproule]

Balance:

it’s hardly recommended that a priest clebrates Mass on his own.

You’re correct; It is in most cases a requirement that there be (at least) one person present (from the Code of Canon Law):
Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.
But in Canon 904, he is earnestly recommended to celebrate daily even if no member of the faithful is present.

Either way, I think you are missing the point. It is a “community celebration” if there are two people present or if there are 2,000 people present. Firstly, however, it is a solemn re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. It is not there for our entertainment.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

msproule:

Either way, I think you are missing the point. It is a “community celebration” if there are two people present or if there are 2,000 people present. Firstly, however, it is a solemn re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. It is not there for our entertainment.

Nor is it there for our private devotions. The Mass, along with the Liturgy of the Hours, is the prayer of the Church.

It is not a place for us to insert our own prayers/devotions.

 

[netmilsmom]

Balance:

it’s hardly recommended that a priest clebrates Mass on his own.

But it is allowed. So if a priest does celebrate by himself, where is “the community” in the sense of the people?

 

[BillyT92679]

Balance:

when one focusses only on the sacrifice, we also run into problems. the Mass is both.

The Sacrificial aspect *is *central and has pride of place over the communitarian aspect. To be fair, there is also the third aspect of Holy Mass, the Sacramental Mysteries, which is really the worship of God and reception of Sacramental grace.

The communal meal is a component of Mass, but it is the most superficial element.

 

[palmas85]

Balance:

palmas85:

A group of disgruntled, forward thinking Catholics, bored to death by the latin prayers and probably badly distracted by clacking rosary beads, this is the 60’s remember, saw a really emotional faith filled pentecostal service, they can be very emotional you know, and felt that all the bells and whistles would help a moribound church locked in rigid ritualism and dogma. They neglected the fact that all the bells and whistles, speaking in tongues, prophesyzing, testifying, and other antics common to pentecostal gatherings are there primarily to cover up the fact that they have nothing of any real value to offer anyone except an intense emotional experience. In fact the whole faith filled pentecostal movement itself is very recent, past 100 years or so.

QUOTE]

what a cynical post!
extraordinary. I think your opinion will change one day.
We’ll see, hey?

Why would it change? It’s the truth. The truth doesn’t change.

 

[palmas85]

Balance:

I doubt you’re going to find official documnetation. a better thing to look for might be what JohnPaul II said about the Charismatic Movement as a whole, then asking a respected figure in the movement - put “Catholic covenant community” (emmanuel covenant community in Australia is one I can think of off the top of my head) in a search engine and that might turn up something - contact details I mean. then ask them about it.

might be a bit of work but worth it if youre really curious.

Actually, I have read what Pope John Paull II of Blessed Memory said about charismatics, he never endorsed changing the Mass to allow their unique practices I have also done an extensive amount of research on the movement as a whole. As to what respected figures in Charismatic communities have to say, that is of absolutely no interest. I know what they would say. I asked if the Church has specific guidelines on the practice and from what I have seen there are none. So any changes that they make to the Mass could be construed as abuses. The time for experimentation in the Mass is over according to the Vatican. People have to start to raelize that.

 

[MusicMan]

Balance:

all this… I don’t know. just because a documnet says “do this” doesn’t mean that there mightn’t be something else we can do as well as that.

Actually, when the GIRM says, “do this,” it means you do that. There isn’t something else we can do as well as that. If we do what the document tells us, we have done the best that the Church envisioned.

Balance:

For example,
I bet tthe instructions on the sign of peace don’t say anything specific about smiling, or couples giving each other a kiss instead of shaking hands, or a dad ruffling his toddler’s hair, or even flicking a peace sign when you can’t reach your friend down the end of the row - but this is all quite acceptable surely?

This is what the GIRM says about that:

The Rite of Peace

1. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

Why can’t people just follow the GIRM? Everything that we need to know about the Mass is to be celebrated is in there. And the Masses would be beautiful and wonderous!

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

TeAmo:

Hey, can you guys give me your opinion on this scenario?

I go to mass in a community that’s largely charismatic. During the Great Amen, the musicians often go into “extended praise;” i.e. for a minute they and the rest of the congregation (and generally the priest as well) will speak in tongues, praise out loud, etc. Then they repeat the Amen again.

I’m uncomfortable with this and suspect that it’s not allowed.

Was your attention pulled away from God, who should be at the center of the Mass, to those engaged in tongues? I think the obvious answer is that you were distracted. Hence, my problem with such activity in Holy Mass. Everyone’s focus should be on God, not on neighbor. Anything neighbor does, that causes another worshiper to “look away” from God, well intentioned or not, is not a good thing to have happening in the Mass. But, this is a fruitless argument where so many people in the Church have raised horizontal worship to the near exclusion of vertical worship.

Also, there is no such thing as a “charismatic” Mass. There is simply Holy Mass. There are no special rubrics that permit activity beyond what is in the rubrics. No one, not even the priest may add, remove or change the content of the Mass. When time is set aside for people to speak in tongues, in my mind, this is like adding content. Imagine if the priest decided to insert the Divine Mercy Chaplet in the middle of the Great Amen or during elevation?

Nothing specifically prohibits people from doing this during Mass, but then again, nothing prohibits anyone from doing cartwheels down the center aisle during consecration.

I have one other general problem with this during Holy Mass: If all those people are engaged in true tongues, where are all the interpreters. Is every single case of tongues expressed being interpreted by someone within earshot? If not, that is a serious issue.

While I don’t deny that the Holy Spirit can blow where He wills, I simply believe that there are, in such crowds, a good number of people who are merely babbling in an expression of emotion. That is, of course, just my personal opinion.

Did the priest speak in audible “tongues” during the elevation of the Host and/or Chalice too?

Here is a thread I began some time ago which raises the question as to whether tongues during Holy Mass should be considered Liturgical abuse. People are strongly in one camp or the other for the most part.

 

[Balance]

palmas85:

Balance:

Why would it change? It’s the truth. The truth doesn’t change.

Truth? it’s your opinion. Plenty of people, including John Paul II, whose words have some weight, would say that the Charismatic movement is anything but what you have described.

 

[Balance]

MusicMan:

Actually, when the GIRM says, “do this,” it means you do that. There isn’t something else we can do as well as that. If we do what the document tells us, we have done the best that the Church envisioned.

This is what the GIRM says about that:

Why can’t people just follow the GIRM? Everything that we need to know about the Mass is to be celebrated is in there. And the Masses would be beautiful and wonderous!

“As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner”

sober manner - I love that. no drunks at Mass please.

this is the thing with the GIRM, or the Bible, or any number of other documnets - they require interpretation. what does “sober” mean? no smile? just a littl smile? or is a big wide, crazy smile allowed?
“only those nearest?” so reaching across one person is OK but not two people? reaching across a narrow aisle is ok but a wide one not?

so it comes back to commonsense and thoughfulness. we know what obviously “unsober” actions might be - climbing over a pew to give someone a bear hug, or giving a high five, or shouting "peace be with ya! across the church, but the actual line between sober and unsober (what is the antonym of sober, in this context, anyway? is difficult to define.

why can’t people just follow the GIRM? because it can’t interpret itself. because to make a book which describes every little allowable and disallowable action would be huge, unwieldy and unworkable. The BIBle requires a wise head to interpret it and break it open - it doesn’t interpret itself - just so any GIRM or rubric.