Is there an overemphasis of community in our Worship

[pnewton]

No, at least for me. One thing about this question is that it really depends on one’s parish. We are a very social parish and very diverse. We linger outside an talk quite a bit and at the sign of peace we are all handshakes and hugs. However, one could hear a pin drop during the Eucharist. Through homililies and teaching, there is no doubt that we are orthodox in belief. I would bet anyone here that our priest is the most deliberate and careful when saying the Eucharistic prayers and we actually observe a time of silence afterwards. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, nor should they be.

 

[grandfather]

We linger outside an talk quite a bit and at the sign of peace we are all handshakes and hugs. .

One of the innovations that was the hardest for me to deal with was the sign of peace. When it first was imposed the people were instructed to turn to the person on either side and shake their hands and say peace be with you, or peace of Christ. One reason I do not like it is the timing. It comes when I want to be 100% focused on the altar. The Son of God is present. I want my mind to be focused on God and be inwardly listening and my soul to be in deep communion and prayer. Instead this horrendous distraction comes. Hugs and kisses for all, how have you been, how is your job search going, congrats on being pregnant, say hello to your mom. People feel compelled to leave their pews and go say hi to others they see nearby and give them a special hug. The priest may leave the altar and has to work the crowd up and down the aisle. It went from a quiet sign of peace to a party. We have plenty of time to visit with anyone we choose any time we choose. We can hug and kiss one another all day long and catch up on the news. All the while Jesus has come to us and we are supposed to be worshipping Him and preparing to receive Him as food. It has been turned into a circus. I do not have any say about what form Rome decides worship should take, but I do not have to like it. Thank God the Vatican finally seems to be figuring out it has made a mess of worship. That will never be admitted, but it is implied in the moto proprio and Benedict’s earlier writing on the Mass. We are there to offer sacrifice, the most solemn thing possible for man to do. We are offering God to God for pardon and remission of our sins and at the highest moment of worship we end up jabbering with one another as if we bumped in to one another at McDonalds. If people think this is worship it is no wonder the Church is in crisis. I should change my sign-in from grandfather to curmudgeon. I realize I am soured on the innovations. I can not change and also can’t help but wonder why so many people think it is working and do not see the problems and connect the dots.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

One of the innovations that was the hardest for me to deal with was the sign of peace. When it first was imposed the people were instructed to turn to the person on either side and shake their hands and say peace be with you, or peace of Christ. One reason I do not like it is the timing. It comes when I want to be 100% focused on the altar.

There’s a reason the Church placed that sign of peace there and at that time: precisely to remind you that Christ isn’t ONLY present on the altar.

 

[grandfather]

There’s a reason the Church placed that sign of peace there and at that time: precisely to remind you that Christ isn’t ONLY present on the altar.

Maybe we need that reminder precisely at that time. Maybe it could have been kept under control better. What we do not need is the circus it has turned into. In places in South America young men arrange to sit near young women they admire. It is an opportunity to give them a squeeze and not be repelled. It is irreverantly called “light sex for Jesus”. Whatever the intention was for the hugs and kisses it has not worked. Do you really think that when this is going on people are thinking Jesus is in the recipients of their greetings, that their prayer has not been disrupted, or are they just saying hello and making small talk? Next Sunday observe it and see if it seems to you people are worshipping God during this time.

 

[benedictgal]

There’s a reason the Church placed that sign of peace there and at that time: precisely to remind you that Christ isn’t ONLY present on the altar.

True, but, the documents (inclusive of Sacramentum Caritatis) call for this portion of the Mass to be observed with sobriety and to only exchange the sign of peace with those who are closest to us. There are those who will walk up and down the aisle, all over creation, to shake hands. This is certainly not what the documents call for us to do.

Granted, Christ is present in the faithful; He is present, first and foremost, in the Eucharistic Species.

 

[Pug]

I"Eagles Wings" to “O Sacred Head”. Architecture is another area of comparison…

Go find an old missal and read the ordinary of the old Mass side by side with a novus ordo Missal. Really do it. It will take fifteen minutes.

Direct address to God and eyes on God:

O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!

Not directly addressed to God in the words, but Providence is the theme:

**For to His angels He’s given a command,
To guard you in all of your ways,
**
Priest not facing tabernacle/up/forward then fits in this theme as being less directly towards God than could be. Ugly church building is less likely to draw the heart up to God in complete poverty/humility (I mean poverty in a sense of our nothingness) than an inspiring building.

Perhaps there is more of a tone of our baseness or smallness in the old missal translation that I have. Is this what you mean? Like “we beseech thee” and “deign in thy mercy”.

 

[Pug]

There’s a reason the Church placed that sign of peace there and at that time: precisely to remind you that Christ isn’t ONLY present on the altar.

I’d always associated it with that gospel thing in the sermon on the mount where we are supposed to leave our gift at the altar and go make up with our brother if we are in strife with him, and then come back and offer our gift. I assumed it was about our inner disposition to receive communion. It doesn’t seem to me to be about Christ in the person next to us. We wish them peace. You know how it says in 1John4 about how if we can’t love our brother whom we can see, how can we love God? I thought it was about charity.

I supposed I don’t really like it before the Lamb of God, though. Well, at least I’d like some silence in between it and the Lamb of God. As it is, I find that I refocus during the Lamb of God, rather than being focused before the Lamb of God.

BTW, I’m not saying I am right about what the sign of peace is supposed to mean. I’m only saying how it has always struck me. Oh, it might also be related to where it says in the bible “greet one another with a holy kiss.”

 

[brigid12]

I’d always associated it with that gospel thing in the sermon on the mount where we are supposed to leave our gift at the altar and go make up with our brother if we are in strife with him, and then come back and offer our gift. I assumed it was about our inner disposition to receive communion. It doesn’t seem to me to be about Christ in the person next to us. We wish them peace. You know how it says in 1John4 about how if we can’t love our brother whom we can see, how can we love God? I thought it was about charity.

I supposed I don’t really like it before the Lamb of God, though. Well, at least I’d like some silence in between it and the Lamb of God. As it is, I find that I refocus during the Lamb of God, rather than being focused before the Lamb of God.

BTW, I’m not saying I am right about what the sign of peace is supposed to mean. I’m only saying how it has always struck me. Oh, it might also be related to where it says in the bible “greet one another with a holy kiss.”

That’s how it struck me, too. I wish, when Bugnini wrote it he had put the passing of the Peace at a different place. IMHO, it seems it could have been put after communion (after the post-communion prayer) and right before the priest tells us that the mass is ended. (I really do understand, grandfather, how numerous people have been turned off by the passing of the Peace and how it’s been turned into something that it wasn’t intended to be, but wonder if that isn’t more because of the fallenness of humans.)

 

[anamchara]

Jim, you’re misreading what many of us are trying to say. When we begin to “celebrate” ourselves, when we make the “community” assembled in the pews more important than God, then there are some serious problems.

And who makes the decision when this has happened? By what definition? Where precisely do you draw the line?

 

[THurifer2]

I am wondering if some “liturgists” have (name removed by moderator)ut. I am taking a class on the Liturgy and the community aspect is the sole focus…In fact one of the texts we are using is a booklet written by Kim Aldi that states the ASSEMBLY is the primary symbol of Mass.

 

[stmaria]

Offering Mass alone is not “less of a Mass” but it is discouraged by 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

Regarding the Traditional Mass
Council of Trent Session XXII
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent22.htm

CHAPTER VI
THE MASS IN WHICH THE PRIEST ALONE COMMUNICATES
The holy council wishes indeed that at each mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire but also by the sacramental partaking of the Eucharist, that thereby they may derive from this most holy sacrifice a more abundant fruit; if, however, that is not always done, it does not on that account condemn as private and illicit those masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, but rather approves and commends them, since these masses also ought to be considered as truly common, partly because at them the people communicate spiritually and partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only but for all the faithful who belong to the body of Christ.

Canon 8. If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema

 

[benedictgal]

And who makes the decision when this has happened? By what definition? Where precisely do you draw the line?

Pope Benedict XVI has made this very serious point in many of his books (as Cardinal Ratzinger) and his current statements on liturgy. If it were simply my idea, then that’s fine, but when the statements come from the TOP, from no less than Peter, himself, then, we need to sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, the Pope’s remarks and written statements have also been affirmed by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation on Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. www.adoremus.org has many of both Benedict’s and Arinze’s remarks and statements on the issue.

 

[benedictgal]

I am wondering if some “liturgists” have (name removed by moderator)ut. I am taking a class on the Liturgy and the community aspect is the sole focus…In fact one of the texts we are using is a booklet written by Kim Aldi that states the ASSEMBLY is the primary symbol of Mass.

A priest friend of mine said that Chesterton, I think, defined heresy as a “truth gone wild.” If we use Chesterton’s definition, then the text seems to fall under that category. While the faithful play an important part in the Mass, after all, “liturgy” is defined as the “work of the people”, it is the Holy Sacrifice that is the most important thing. Without the Sacrifice, the Mass would merely be a service of the Word.

 

[stmaria]

There’s a reason the Church placed that sign of peace there and at that time: precisely to remind you that Christ isn’t ONLY present on the altar.

The truth is there is no good reason why the sign of peace is placed after the consecration. I am quite sure that this will be one of the changes that Pope Benedict will make. he spoke of this in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, where he praises the Church of Zaire for placing it before the Presentation of the Gifts. He adds that this placing “would be desirable for the whole Roman Rite, insofar as the sign of peace is something we want to retain” (p. 170).
You need to remember that the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary. It is as if the faithful are taken back in time. We are all there at the foot of the cross. Jesus is being sacrificed. Christ is physically present on the altar. That is NOT the time to be hugging and shaking hands. That is the time to prepare ourselves for receiving the Body and BLood of Christ.

 

[benedictgal]

The truth is there is no good reason why the sign of peace is placed after the consecration. I am quite sure that this will be one of the changes that Pope Benedict will make. he spoke of this in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, where he praises the Church of Zaire for placing it before the Presentation of the Gifts. He adds that this placing “would be desirable for the whole Roman Rite, insofar as the sign of peace is something we want to retain” (p. 170).
You need to remember that the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary. It is as if the faithful are taken back in time. We are all there at the foot of the cross. Jesus is being sacrificed. Christ is physically present on the altar. That is NOT the time to be hugging and shaking hands. That is the time to prepare ourselves for receiving the Body and BLood of Christ.

That’s why I get down on my knees every day and thank God that Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope. I think the best thing JPII did was to bring Ratzinger to Rome:thumbsup:

 

[anamchara]

Pope Benedict XVI has made this very serious point in many of his books (as Cardinal Ratzinger) and his current statements on liturgy. If it were simply my idea, then that’s fine, but when the statements come from the TOP, from no less than Peter, himself, then, we need to sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, the Pope’s remarks and written statements have also been affirmed by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation on Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. www.adoremus.org has many of both Benedict’s and Arinze’s remarks and statements on the issue.

Yes, I’m aware of Cardinal Arinze but the problem is certain Catholics in general like to jump to conclusions about what is in the minds are hearts of their fellow Catholics and start accusing of them of being to self- focused in mass when they do things like hold hands during the Lords prayer or maybe like more guitar music at Mass etc. Too me it’s more about agenda’s with certain Catholics who are trying very hard to push us back to everything pre-VACII.

I’m all for becoming more reverent and getting on the same page but I don’t like the liturgy police to come in and start telling me I’m “self-worshiping” just because I like certain music or because I like to hold my husbands hand during the Lords Prayer or because I support female altar severs…the list goes on. I’m sorry but often people on here come to that conclusion.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I’m aware of Cardinal Arinze but the problem is certain Catholics in general like to jump to conclusions about what is in the minds are hearts of their fellow Catholics and start accusing of them of being to self- focused in mass when they do things like hold hands during the Lords prayer or maybe like more guitar music at Mass etc. Too me it’s more about agenda’s with certain Catholics who are trying very hard to push us back to everything pre-VACII.

I’m all for becoming more reverent and getting on the same page but I don’t like the liturgy police to come in and start telling me I’m “self-worshiping” just because I like certain music or because I like to hold my husbands hand during the Lords Prayer or because I support female altar severs…the list goes on. I’m sorry but often people on here come to that conclusion.

There are some serious underlying problems. Perhaps the reason why many want to return to the way certain things were before 1967 was because there was something like “conformity”. At least when you walked into a Mass prior to the current reforms, (whether you were in Rome, New York, Carl’s Corner, Texas or Johannesburg (sp?), the Mass was always the same.

I’m not saying that hand-holding is “self-worshipping”, but I do take exception to someone coming towards me from the other end of the pew and grabbing my hand during the Our Father. The focus on the Our Father is not about the community; it’s the prayer to God the Father. I like what Msgr. Peter Elliott says in his book, “The Liturgical Question Box”: to paraphrase: looking at it from the altar, a bunch of people holding hands looks, well, silly." I’ll try to get the original quote because I don’t want to be accused of taking things out of context.

Although I do not like guitar music for the Mass, there are some musicians who are very skilled and can make it work and not sound like someone is picking and grinning.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry but often people on here come to that conclusion.

I have found this to be a problem more here than in any parish. I guess it is easier to be judgemental when people are anonymous. I have also noticed here that this sort of condescending tone is pretty much a one way street.

 

[ncjohn]

There are some serious underlying problems. Perhaps the reason why many want to return to the way certain things were before 1967 was because there was something like “conformity”. At least when you walked into a Mass prior to the current reforms, (whether you were in Rome, New York, Carl’s Corner, Texas or Johannesburg (sp?), the Mass was always the same.

I guess this is where the difference ultimately comes in. Some consider this “lack of conformity” a “serious underlying problem.” And those that do tend to get all condescending and judgmental about those who do not consider this to be a problem at all, much less a serious one.

The Fathers at Vatican II clearly wanted a greater sense of both community and active participation in the Mass. I know that many make the statement that involving one’s self in the prayers of the Mass in “active”, but it is clearly NOT what was being talked about at Vatican II, which specifically described vocal prayers and singing, gestures, etc. The Church also took the stance that absolute conformity in gestures, etc was not necessary and could be counter-productive.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with those whose preference is toward greater conformity. But I do think that there will be umbrage taken if one tries to imply that it is a “serious problem” to not have it when the Church has said otherwise, and to imply that those who don’t see that as a problem are somehow less pious, devout or devoted to God or Church.

Now in saying all of this, I don’t mean to imply at all that there are not true abuses that truly are serious problems. But they are not serious underlying problems as they are not the intended form. They are simply abuses that need to be rectified and have nothing to do with the conformity question.

As to the question of the OP, it is possible for there to be an overemphasis on community, but I have not seen it in any of the many parishes I have attended Mass at, nor do I see the things that many seem to cite as evidence to be evidence of any such thing. Some may infer that certain actions glorify the self or that some people are worshipping men rather than God, but that is purely a subjective judgment which one has no ability to prove. I tend to believe that those whose mind runs toward such things will do so regardless of whether they are at an OF or and EF Mass and that those whose hearts are directed toward God will be so regardless of which Mass form they happen to be present at.

In the end, we all really just need to be more focused on God rather than what others are doing, much less trying to judge whether what someone else is doing or thinking measures up on our “worthiness meter”.

Peace,

 

[anamchara]

I don’t think anyone has a problem with those whose preference is toward greater conformity. But I do think that there will be umbrage taken if one tries to imply that it is a “serious problem” to not have it when the Church has said otherwise, and to imply that those who don’t see that as a problem are somehow less pious, devout or devoted to God or Church.