Gathering around the altar for consecration

[YoungTradCath]

The parish I attend doesn’t have daily evening masses, just morning. Maybe this was some kind of Charistmatic Service.

Yes madam, but it doesn’t matter at all. Mass is the mass, and things may NOT be skipped. The affiliation with charismaticism does not change the structure and laws of the liturgy and of the Church.

Isn’t the only thing you HAVE to do to make it a Mass is the consecration? I know there is a set Mass, but can’t you leave parts out and it’s still fine (as long as you don’t drop out the consecration). I’ve been to Masses that drop readings, drop the creed, drop the penitential rite, drop any kind of entrance/exit hymn. These are still all valid. These people are for sure way out there on what they are doing with the Mass, but is it technically wrong?

Nooooo! That would be like me saying, “I’m going to do brain surgery on you but cut half of it out and not stitch you back up.” Sure, its surgery but, umm, yeah…

It is completely illicit and a superb abuse to knowingly leave out any part of the mass. Readings must be done. The Penitential Act (one of the three) must be done. There are no exceptions, ever. The creed is not sung or recited during weekday masses. It is only sung or recited on Sundays and Holy Days of Obgligation (ie, Solemnities).

Yes, leaving things out is very technically extremely wrong.

 

[promethius]

This is just another sad and pitiful example of an overly effeminate and protestantized influence on our beautiful traditional liturgy, OF and EF alike.

Excuse me? Effiminate? What in the world does that have to do with ANYTHING in discussing abuses? Might I remind you that the church is the bride of Christ and therefore is, herself, effiminate?

Please, don’t bash the feminine and womanly as “abuses” of the church. The proper formation of the church is the right combination of the masculine and feminine.

 

[opus101]

Boy, Jesus was there in the Bread and wine. There was consecration. What else do you want?

The reverence and respect that is due to Him. And adherence to the manner in which Mass should be celebrated through the directives of His Vicar on earth and the Successors of the Apostles. And the right to participate fully in that manner as opposed to the way a certain priest or faction desires it.

 

[SteveGC]

Excuse me? Effiminate? What in the world does that have to do with ANYTHING in discussing abuses? Might I remind you that the church is the bride of Christ and therefore is, herself, effiminate?

Please, don’t bash the feminine and womanly as “abuses” of the church. The proper formation of the church is the right combination of the masculine and feminine.

Which is why I was careful to preface it with the adverb “overly”. I am fully aware of the feminine nature of the Body of Christ, and embrace it fully. The feminine nature of the Church is sublime and well ordered. The effeminacy of liturgical worship is part of the problem of which I was speaking. It is not to pit man vs. woman. I am not describing effeminate as “that which is characteristic of a woman”, or “that which is done by a female”. Rather:

Effeminate:
::characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.:

Extreme effeminacy is relevant insofar as it introduces a disordered and unbalanced influence on the nature of liturgical worship. Some by-products of over-feminization include: overly-inclusive lay participation (gathering together at the altar, unnecessary overuse of EMHCs), demand for women priests (from men and women alike), altar girls (which is admittedly not illicit, but arguably a less than desirable reality), holding hands during the Our Father, mini-social events during the Peace, lack of strong moral teaching from the pulpit, etc. etc.

Effeminacy is meant to suggest that quality which seeks to nuture, to not offend, to include, to invite, to participate and serve. These are virtuous qualities women possess when they are properly ordered to their own lives. But men and women alike have overly-feminized liturgical practices by injecting these qualities into the liturgy over the last several decades.

Keep in mind, an over-masculinization of the liturgy would also be disordered and result in problems. But, we do not have this problem (yet). A balance is what keeps the sublimity and true nature of liturgical worship thriving.

My apologies to those who were offended by my use of this word to define what I believe to be at the heart of our liturgical problems. There really is no other word, however, that sums it up as succinctly. It is not to say women have done this, it is to say that men and women alike have harmed the Mass by overdosing the liturgy with it’s characteristics.

 

[Big_Feet]

A Mass that is not full of liturgical abuses which offend Our Lord.

I sure am glad SOMEONE knows what does and does not offend the LORD!

While we may point out abuses or inappropriateness, don’t you think it would be better to let the LORD make His own judgments on what He finds offensive or not?

 

[promethius]

Which is why I was careful to preface it with the adverb “overly”. I am fully aware of the feminine nature of the Body of Christ, and embrace it fully. The feminine nature of the Church is sublime and well ordered. The effeminacy of liturgical worship is part of the problem of which I was speaking. It is not to pit man vs. woman. I am not describing effeminate as “that which is characteristic of a woman”, or “that which is done by a female”. Rather:

Effeminate:
::characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.:

Extreme effeminacy is relevant insofar as it introduces a disordered and unbalanced influence on the nature of liturgical worship. Some by-products of over-feminization include: overly-inclusive lay participation (gathering together at the altar, unnecessary overuse of EMHCs), demand for women priests (from men and women alike), altar girls (which is admittedly not illicit, but arguably a less than desirable reality), holding hands during the Our Father, mini-social events during the Peace, lack of strong moral teaching from the pulpit, etc. etc.

Effeminacy is meant to suggest that quality which seeks to nuture, to not offend, to include, to invite, to participate and serve. These are virtuous qualities women possess when they are properly ordered to their own lives. But men and women alike have overly-feminized liturgical practices by injecting these qualities into the liturgy over the last several decades.

Keep in mind, an over-masculinization of the liturgy would also be disordered and result in problems. But, we do not have this problem (yet). A balance is what keeps the sublimity and true nature of liturgical worship thriving.

My apologies to those who were offended by my use of this word to define what I believe to be at the heart of our liturgical problems. There really is no other word, however, that sums it up as succinctly. It is not to say women have done this, it is to say that men and women alike have harmed the Mass by overdosing the liturgy with it’s characteristics.

Thank you for the clarification, though I would think “overly inclusive” would be a better way of putting it to avoid confusion.

I also respectfully disagree that the practice of standing around the altar represents a feminine perspective. Perhaps in the case of hand holding during the “Our Father”, sure… but not on a couple of other counts. I’ll detail that below:

1. Women demanding to be priests has very little to do with effiminate worship. Instead it has more to do with the destruction of the feminine by the “feminist” movement… a movement that says unless a woman fulfills the traditional role of a man, she can’t be viewed as “good enough”. It is this anti-feminine movement which asserts that women cannot “respectfully” hold the position of nun, and that they must be priests. That’s not a male attitude, per se, but it is certainly an anti-feminine perspective to have.
2. Too many EMHCs probably has more to do with expedience than anything else… and perhaps too much. There are a lot of masses scheduled very close together today, and in American culture, taking 15 minutes for communion seems “too long”. Plus there’s an element of “it’s always been done this way”, which prompts priestsand lay organizers to continue the practice even when it’s not needed. It has very little to do with “including everyone” and more to do with America’s materialist perspective keeping people from being able to kneel silently for 15 minutes to have communion with fewer EMHCs.
3. Going up around the altar is the height of masculine mindset. Is it inclusive? Maybe, but it’s also obstinate and rejecting of authority. It’s the mindset that says “I can’t submit myself to the authority of the church and the priest on the altar, I’m just as good as him, therefore I’ll participate too!” The priest may be overly inclusive in inviting people, but the attitude of the laity who advocate such a practice is one of disobedience and throwing off authority for one’s own edification. In other words, while the priest might be taking on a feminine role here, the laypeople are not… it is actually not “overly effiminate”, but rather a reversal of the proper roles, with both masculine and feminine present, but present in the wrong persons! The same is true of the SSPX and others who have refused to submit to authority… these are examples of the masculine attempting to buck authority and serve it’s own interests.
4. Altar girls: not touching this one with a ten foot pole, since I happen to think it’s a very reasonable practice to have them. After all, Pheobe, in the bible, was an altar girl (though yes, I realize that in the bible she was called a deaconess)

At any rate, like I said, I would use “overly inclusive” rather than “overly effiminate” in the discussion to avoid the perception that you’re blaming women as well as because (I believe) the problem of inclusivity involves the disobedient masculine as well.

 

[Luvtosew]

Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone that only 8 people were there, or just to me?

 

[Big_Feet]

Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone that only 8 people were there, or just to me?

Let’s be glad that there were that many! I have been to many masses with this few or fewer people! I actually like them, as it really feels much more personal to me (that is as long as we remain proper in our positions and postures)

 

[Luvtosew]

Really, you must mean a weekday mass then hey?

 

[lizaanne]

While we may point out abuses or inappropriateness, don’t you think it would be better to let the LORD make His own judgments on what He finds offensive or not?

Jesus Christ left us His Church to guide the faithful. The Church says what is and is not appropriate at Mass. We are only reiterating what the Bride of Christ has to say about the Mass. Now, if you wish to argue with the Church, then that’s another discussion for another thread.

~Liza

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Isn’t the only thing you HAVE to do to make it a Mass is the consecration? I know there is a set Mass, but can’t you leave parts out and it’s still fine (as long as you don’t drop out the consecration). I’ve been to Masses that drop readings, drop the creed, drop the penitential rite, drop any kind of entrance/exit hymn. These are still all valid. These people are for sure way out there on what they are doing with the Mass, but is it technically wrong?

There is a common misunderstanding on this issue. It isn’t the entire Mass that is valid or invalid. What is subject to these terms in the confection of the Most Holy Eucharist. In order for that to be valid the following requirements are to be met: 1) a validly ordained priest who has 2) the correct intent and uses the 3) proper matter (bread and wine) and says the 4) correct form which is the words of the institution.

 

[TimothyH]

Everyone should keep in mind that benedictine monastic communites have gathered around an altar just as the OP described for many centuries. The practice is authentically Catholic and very ancient.

I am not saying that it should be done by a secular priest outside of a monastic community, but just that we keep in mind that it does happen, and that it is legitimate, and even encouraged by the Church, and has taken place for over 1000 years.

-Tim-

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t the only thing you HAVE to do to make it a Mass is the consecration? I know there is a set Mass, but can’t you leave parts out and it’s still fine (as long as you don’t drop out the consecration). I’ve been to Masses that drop readings, drop the creed, drop the penitential rite, drop any kind of entrance/exit hymn. These are still all valid. These people are for sure way out there on what they are doing with the Mass, but is it technically wrong?

Consecration and the priest receives the Eucharist under both kinds.

Actually, Canon Law forbids consecration outside of Mass. So if you do not do everything else in Mass and you just do consecration, you are guilty of a serious offense against the Church. But as far as I know, the only thing that validates or invalidates a Mass is the priest receiving Communion under both kinds from bread and wine consecrated in that same Mass. Other than that, I haven’t seen anything else that says a Mass is invalid if a certain part is removes, say the Gospel.

 

[pilots13]

Nooooo! That would be like me saying, “I’m going to do brain surgery on you but cut half of it out and not stitch you back up.” Sure, its surgery but, umm, yeah…

It is completely illicit and a superb abuse to knowingly leave out any part of the mass. Readings must be done. The Penitential Act (one of the three) must be done. There are no exceptions, ever. The creed is not sung or recited during weekday masses. It is only sung or recited on Sundays and Holy Days of Obgligation (ie, Solemnities).

Yes, leaving things out is very technically extremely wrong.

I’ve been to many Masses that drop the creed. Normally if there’s something else going on (like presenting the Confirmation class as an example). I’ve also been to a couple Holy Saturday Masses where they drop a few of the 10 readings. I think the only time the Penitential Act has been dropped was particular feast days like Palm Sunday or Holy Saturday (where I’m assuming since it’s not part of those specific Mass settings, it’s OK then?)

 

[lizaanne]

I’ve been to many Masses that drop the creed. Normally if there’s something else going on (like presenting the Confirmation class as an example). I’ve also been to a couple Holy Saturday Masses where they drop a few of the 10 readings. I think the only time the Penitential Act has been dropped was particular feast days like Palm Sunday or Holy Saturday (where I’m assuming since it’s not part of those specific Mass settings, it’s OK then?)

All of the things you mention are acceptable, given the correct circumstances. What the OP states above is absolutely NOT acceptable in ANY situation. Period.

~Liza

 

[pilots13]

All of the things you mention are acceptable, given the correct circumstances. What the OP states above is absolutely NOT acceptable in ANY situation. Period.

~Liza

And I’m not arguing that it was right by any means. I’m just trying to clarify my original comment.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve been to many Masses that drop the creed. Normally if there’s something else going on (like presenting the Confirmation class as an example). I’ve also been to a couple Holy Saturday Masses where they drop a few of the 10 readings. I think the only time the Penitential Act has been dropped was particular feast days like Palm Sunday or Holy Saturday (where I’m assuming since it’s not part of those specific Mass settings, it’s OK then?)

Creed must, absolutely, positively be sung or recited on every Sunday and Solemnity, period. There are options for omitting certain readings on certain Sundays and Solemnities that have more than two. The Penitential Act is never dropped unless Asperges (sprinkling of water) is done. Mass setting doesn’t refer to the parts of mass, it refers to music. Mass settings don’t get to decide what parts of mass are done. The missal and the GIRM does.

 

[SMHW]

Creed must, absolutely, positively be sung or recited on every Sunday and Solemnity, period.

It is probably better to say that a Profession of Faith (rather than a recitation of a Creed) must occur on Sundays and Solemnities. Obviously the Creed is the most common profession of Faith.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It is probably better to say that a Profession of Faith (rather than a recitation of a Creed) must occur on Sundays and Solemnities. Obviously the Creed is the most common profession of Faith.

In the Roman Rite, there are two Creeds, and those are the only allowed texts during that time.

In the Eastern liturgies, I do not know.

 

[paperwight66]

You are mistaken, YoungTradCath. You are forgetting the dialogue used at the Easter Vigil - ‘Do you reject Satan’ etc. etc.