Does the EWTN daily Mass set the benchmark for what an Ordinary Form Mass shoud be like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lepanto

Guest
Does the EWTN daily Mass set the benchmark for what an Ordinary Form Mass shoud be like?

Would you like to see your parish’s Masses look more like the way EWTN does it?
 
I think they present a good model of how it can be celebrated and in many things it’s worth imitating but I voted no because “benchmark” to me implies that if your mass doesn’t look exactly like EWTN’s then there’s something wrong with the celebration of your mass. I think “a good model” or even “an excellent model” would have been a better way to put it. Lots of places don’t have the resources available at EWTN. Other places exist in contexts, like mission territories, that require something of a different approach. There can be worthy and valid celebrations without Latin or chant and incense. I say this as someone who likes Latin, chant, and incense and would like to see more. But it seems to me that online too many people think less of masses that aren’t celebrated exactly in that way. That’s my personal impression. So I voted no, with qualifications.
 
Tepeyac said:
I think they present a good model of how it can be celebrated and in many things it’s worth imitating but I voted no because “benchmark” to me implies that if your mass doesn’t look exactly like EWTN’s then there’s something wrong with the celebration of your mass. I think “a good model” or even “an excellent model” would have been a better way to put it. Lots of places don’t have the resources available at EWTN. Other places exist in contexts, like mission territories, that require something of a different approach. There can be worthy and valid celebrations without Latin or chant and incense. I say this as someone who likes Latin, chant, and incense and would like to see more. But it seems to me that online too many people think less of masses that aren’t celebrated exactly in that way. That’s my personal impression. So I voted no, with qualifications.
Click to expand...
I find one thing about the EWTN mass annoying , which is that some of the priests chant English as though it were Italianate Latin. English chants are not much like Latin chants, even Latin chants pronounced in the English manner.
 
It’s a particular pole of the wide range of acceptable. So no.

It’s a benchmark, but not THE benchmark.
 
No.

As a benchmark, I would prefer the masses celebrated and televised, for instance, at the National Shrine in DC. A few months ago, there was a convocation of all the US bishops and the celebration reaffirmed that the mass I viewed was the same as those celebrated in our local parishes.

EDIT:

As my personal preference for reception of the Eucharist, none of the bishops demonstrated the multi-forms of reception that are commonly adopted by communicants on EWTN. Rather, there was a respectful, reverent uniformity.

Whenever I attend a parade and watch a marching band, I marvel at the beauty of their precision. One who is out of step sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. At EWTN, anything goes, as if nobody has ever received instruction.
 
I may be the odd man out here, I voted no. Personally, I find all that switching back and forth between Latin and English a bit distracting, and not every priest does it the same. I think that in a regular parish setting, if more Latin is to be used, it should be standardized so the people know what to expect. If more Latin is used in the Mass, there should be a way for it to be done so that the Mass flows smoothly. Right now, to me, it seems rather like a hodge-podge of two different languages. One minute they’re speaking English, the next they’re using Latin. The average person does not speak or pray in that manner, and the construct seems artificial, as if they are using Latin for the sake of using more Latin.

The homilies, however, are usually outstanding, and I think that they are worthy of emulation, and the reverence shown is an example to us all. I’m just not a fan of mixing Latin and the vernacular like that, although I realize that in these forums that is definitely a minority opinin:D
 
I don’t think it does but, I do like it.👍

Here in the parishes around Tuam, Ireland, we say the Our Father in the Irish language. Well mostly…
 
My cathedral parish is very close to ETWN’s practices although we don’t use Latin for the Canon of the Mass. It is not at all unusual for us to have chant and motets in Latin although the only time the congregation chants is during Lent when we chant the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.

I’m not sure I understand what Joysong is speaking about in terms of multiple forms of reception. Our parishoners are free to receive in the hand or on the tongue. I would be most distressed if I were forced to receive in the hand which I understand is the practice at some parishes.

I was really impressed by the Chilean/Argentinian (?) priests a few months back. I thought they brought reverence to a new height.

I am also confused by the English chant comment. From 1984 to 1992 we were not permitted to chant in Latin. Our chant came straight out of the 1940 Episcopalian hymnal which was a note for note translation of the Latin. Chanting “Sing my tongue the Savior’s Glory” is like taking a shower with a raincoat on. It didn’t even sound remotely Italianate - just awkward. Could I get some clarification on this?

Is EWTN the sine qua non? Probably not. My diocesan TV chanel broadcasts Masses from Boston in addition to the daily Mass from the Bishop’s chapel at the Catholic Life Center. Both are certainly reverent but both are what I would term “low Masses” while EWTN’s are “high Masses”. Yes, I know the analogy is not perfect. EWTN usually has a schola or choir and uses incense.
Boston and Baton Rouge have a cantor and no incense.
 
I’m not sure I understand what Joysong is speaking about in terms of multiple forms of reception. Our parishoners are free to receive in the hand or on the tongue. I would be most distressed if I were forced to receive in the hand which I understand is the practice at some parishes.
Click to expand...
It was simply my observation whenever I watch the mass on EWTN. Some kneel, some stand, some genuflect in front of the priest, some genuflect behind the communicant, some make the sign of the cross. My comment had nothing to do with receiving on the tongue or hand, neither of which would create this jack-in-the-box atmosphere, where everyone indulges his particular preference. This is notably absent when everyone is on the same page, such as the bishops I mentioned in the National Shrine.
 
No.

While I like the EWTN Daily Masses there are aspects I don’t care for.

It would be nice to see communion under both kinds given the improved sign value as recognized by the Church. It also would give EWTN the ability to show how communion under both kinds can be distributed only by clerics and only by religious brothers under extraordinary situations.

It would also be nice to see the sign of peace more often and not only when visiting bishops celebrate the Mass. EWTN is ignoring a critical opportunity to catechize millions by showing how the sign of peace should be executed.

While I appreciate the altar crucifix and candles in imitation of Pope Bendict XVI’s Masses, they do look rather silly and way out of scale.

So no, definitely not a “benchmark.”
 
Joysong said:
It was simply my observation whenever I watch the mass on EWTN. Some kneel, some stand, some genuflect in front of the priest, some genuflect behind the communicant, some make the sign of the cross. My comment had nothing to do with receiving on the tongue or hand, neither of which would create this jack-in-the-box atmosphere, where everyone indulges his particular preference. This is notably absent when everyone is on the same page, such as the bishops I mentioned in the National Shrine.
Click to expand...
Ah! :newidea: Yes, I agree with you on that! It is a colossal train-wreck. It doesn’t work in a small church like EWTN’s. It would be impossible in a large church.
 
I’m actually not bothered at all that people receive communion in different ways on EWTN. Personally I think sometimes we expect too much rigidity from the faithful’s behavior at mass and I think people should be given some more breathing space, such as to kneel or not when receiving. I don’t think a person’s desire to receive devoutly is an indulgence and I dont think it makes things more difficult really. It might take a little more time but what’s the hurry? You just gotta watch where you’re going, 🙂
 
The biggest problem I have with EWTN’s celebration of the Mass is the constant genuflection to the tabernacle during the Mass. Officially, the only time the priest and servers are suppose to genuflect before the tabernacle is during the procession in and the procession out. During the Mass, they are to bow to the altar, since during the Mass, the altar is the main focus. Unless of course the priest needs to go to the tabernacle for some reason ( getting more hosts, putting hosts in). Also, as a general rule, if the server has something in their hands, they are not suppose to genuflect or even bow, which I think I have noticed to servers on EWTN do while removing vessels/sacramentary from the altar after the celebration of the Eucharist.

My guess is that they are trying to incorporate elements from the EF into the NO, which is a no no.

That and I really don’t like how everything is spoken in monotone. That I suppose is not against the rules, just a personal preference thing.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen
 
Brother Allen: The tabernacle is located directly behind the altar. In my parish the Eucharist is reserved in a side chapel. I’m sorry, but as a pre-Vatican II altar boy, I believe I would genuflect too. I don’t think they are intentionally trying to bring EF practices into the OF. One passes before the Eucharist…one genuflects.

I bow before the altar but if I pass before the Eucharist, I genuflect.
 
I do believe in the concept of a benchmark, so I voted “no”. I do think they do a wonderful job, but such a Mass would not be best anywhere. On the other hand it surely should be acceptable anywhere. 👍 It is a wonderful Mass for that place.
 
brotherhrolf said:
Brother Allen: The tabernacle is located directly behind the altar. In my parish the Eucharist is reserved in a side chapel. I’m sorry, but as a pre-Vatican II altar boy, I believe I would genuflect too. I don’t think they are intentionally trying to bring EF practices into the OF. One passes before the Eucharist…one genuflects.

I bow before the altar but if I pass before the Eucharist, I genuflect.
Click to expand...
"GIRM 274.* A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. above, nos. 210-251).

If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.

*Otherwise all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving in procession.
**
Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting."

EWTN is clearly not following the GIRM. Sadly some seem to think they know better than the Church does.
 
If it were ad orientem… maybe.

I do love the EWTN Mass and the OF, but I do think that the ad orientem should be more widely used.

and stick with one language for Mass, Latin or vernacular

(except the readings… vernacular reading in a Latin Mass whould be nice)

XC
Patrick
 
Unfortunately, I must long in as PNV, present, not voting. There are many, many things that I like about the way EWTN handles their Daily Mass. However, one doesn’t need to have music at every Mass. For daily Mass, what should be sung is the Gospel Acclamation, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation and the Great Amen. Of course, if a Solemnity (or Holy Day of Obligation) occurs during the week, then, have full-blown singing.

I am not at all bothered with the Altar configuration. The going back and forth between Latin doesn’t trouble me because the Council Fathers did call for a retention of the Church’s language. What’s more, Pope Benedict called for greater use of Latin in the Mass in Sacramentum Caritatis. In addition, the Papal Masses tend to go back and forth between Latin and Italian. Even when he is not celebrating Mass at St. Peter’s, the Holy Father still uses Latin in his Masses (such as those he celebrates when he is visting one of his Roman diocesan parishes or one of the other Papal Basilicas). So, there is a precedent.

The posture for the reception of Holy Communion is a non-issue because the faithful are exercising their legitimate options.

Now, as far as benchmarks are concerned, the one who has set the bar very high is Pope Benedict XVI. Granted, the Masses he celebrates tend to be during Sundays and great feasts, I have yet to see a parish come close to the Holy Father’s manner of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top