"Jenga" Mass last night (with rubrics instead of wood-bricks)

[japhy]

From the situation you discribed it sounds as if the mass / eucharist was celebrated in an informal manner for a small group in a monastic setting.

It was done for a small group: a group of Catholics in their 20’s and early 30’s who are seeking fellowship with Catholics their own age. I will also agree that it was celebrated in an informal manner.

It is not uncommon for the monks sitting in the choir to sit during the readings and to read from the choir where one is vs going to the ambo to read.

That I can accept.

While it is not common to sit for the gospel reading (usually all stand) it is not unheard of, especially in a small informal group.

But why not stand? What does the size of the group have to do with following simple instructions about showing reverence to the Gospel as, not only the Word of God, but the words of Jesus Christ?

You mentioned how the priest was dressed, something about his frayed jeans, well I can not speak for him but a a monk following the Rule of St Benedict, you know we have a habit to wear as outlined in the rule.

This particular priest was wearing his black clericals (if that’s the proper term… the “standard” black attire a priest wears when he’s not in liturgical vestments). A previous priest had been in casual attire.

The reason that I mentioned the reading from Mark is that Jesus and his disciples were questioned by the pharisees for not following the ritual / law of washing before eating. The question is, is it the following of the rule / law which is of most importance or is it the inner most reality , which the rule is to reflect which is of most importance? Again the same question asked in a different way, Is man made for the sabbath, or is the sabbath made for man?

The context of the “sabbath” issue with Jesus and his disciples eating grain in a field is vastly different (I think) than the context of a small group of people requesting a Mass. I can think of no rational explanation for why we would not stand for the prayers or the Gospel, or why the priest would delegate the reading of the Gospel to a layman. This is why I will be writing the priest a letter explaining my concern and suggesting a dialogue.

 

[japhy]

I think I’ll do just that.

I’ve decided to write a letter to the priest. Here is the content of the letter:

Dear Father X,

Greetings to you in Christ Jesus. I am writing this letter to you in an effort to explain my attitude (which I would describe as uneasy or anxious) at the Mass you celebrated for the X group at the Miraculous Medal Chapel on Thursday evening, November 8th. I do thank you for taking the time to celebrate Mass at our request, but I have some real concerns about the manner in which Mass was said: certain parts (including gestures and postures) of the Mass were omitted, certain actions were added, and certain roles proper to an ordained minister were relegated (in whole or in part) to laymen. While I have no desire to present a list of “offenses”, I do think it is important to explain why I think that particular celebration of the Mass was detrimental to the individual spiritual growth of the members of the group and how it actually served against your purpose of seeking to make the Mass “open” to us by answering questions and explaining the elements of the liturgy. I hope that a dialog can follow this letter (if you wish it).

Let me first explain my background. Yes, I was an altar boy when I was growing up; I probably served for around 7 years or so, and my training is still with me. My oldest brother is the pastor at the Church of the Guardian Angel in Allendale, NJ (in Bergen County, where my family grew up). When I moved to Plainsboro two-and-a-half years ago, it was after a spiritual wasteland of sorts: I was not a practicing Catholic at college. I was determined to find a parish (Queenship of Mary), get involved, and get back to being Catholic: now I am a reader (a non-instituted lector) and I serve on the Parish Pastoral Council. During Lent of 2007, I attended a series of lectures on Deus Caritas Est at a nearby parish. This got me interested in the writings coming out of the Church, so I read the encyclical, then I read Sacramentum Caritatis, and then I spent a lot of time searching out and reading the Church’s documents and teachings on the Holy Eucharist as well as the Mass. I own a copy of the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, a chapel-sized copy of the Sacramentary, and I printed out a booklet version of Redemptionis Sacramentum. I’m not formally trained in the liturgy nor a seminarian, but I love the Mass and wish to see it celebrated with the reverence and solemnity it is owed, regardless of the right which every Catholic has “that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms”.[1] With my knowledge about the liturgy, though, I have found that I grow increasingly uneasy when I notice incorrect practices – even abuses – during the celebration of Mass. I want you to know, before I continue, that I do not attend any Mass seeking out liturgical abuses, butbecause I pay attention to the Mass and have knowledge of the order of the liturgy, I recognize abuses when I see them. I am sure some things that happen are mistakes, but some things are deliberate and calculated.

Before you began Mass on Thursday, you stated that you would welcome any questions about what was being said and done, and provide explanations. This is truly a noble task, because “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”.[2] I do not know the level of liturgical formation of the other members of the X group, but I expect we all would have welcomed explanations of certain parts of the Mass (especially those parts which are said silently or in a low voice by the priest). However, I believe you worked against that purpose by not celebrating the Mass as we would expect to see it celebrated under other circumstances; the changes served to hinder a more complete understanding of the Mass. As a result, the questions I wanted to ask (but held back due to charity) had to do with why we weren’t doing things properly. I do not know entirely what your intentions that evening were.

[continued…]

 

[japhy]

Because we started Mass sitting down together, I don’t think you ever approached the altar and kissed it; and since we were sitting, we did not stand for prayer or the Gospel. There was no Act of Penitence – the Kyrie, yes, but nothing before it. You had Chris read the Gospel (and invited laity to comment on or add to the Homily) – which, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum, is a “grave matter”.[3] Because you did not read it, I do not know if the sign of the cross was traced on it, nor if the prayers before and after its proclamation were prayed. If you had done these things (specifically, had you prayed the silent prayers in a low voice which we would hear), it may have evoked a question from the group; but many things were omitted which would have done well to be explained!

When you invited us to gather around the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer,[4] you gave us the opportunity to hold the paten and pray over the bread, asking God to make us part of the Sacrament we were about to receive. Here I think a prime opportunity for explaining the “actual participation” of the assembly of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was lost; it was replaced with an illicit addition to the liturgy designed to give us more “active participation” which we will simply not find outside the small-group Mass we attended. You could have spoken about how the faithful of Christ offer themselves up as the priest (in persona Christi) offers the Body and Blood of God the Son to God the Father; Pope Pius XII wrote beautifully about this joining of ourselves to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
[T]here is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice. … Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. … [T]he conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; … rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. … In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim. … But at that time especially when the faithful take part in the liturgical service with such piety and recollection that it can truly be said of them: “whose faith and devotion is known to Thee,” it is then, with the High Priest and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, that each one’s faith ought to become more ready to work through charity, his piety more real and fervent, and each one should consecrate himself to the furthering of the divine glory, desiring to become as like as possible to Christ in His most grievous sufferings.[5] Instead of making up a “visible liturgical rite” for us to perform, you could have explained the sense in which we join our prayers with yours (the Eucharistic Prayer) to the Father, and join ourselves with the oblation on the altar as “a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God”.[6] The other problem encountered by having us around the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer is that kneeling there is quite uncomfortable – I know that from experience now – although kneeling is the prescribed universal posture for the consecration.

[continued]

 

[japhy]

Among the changes to the words of the Mass, the one that caused me the most grief was “Let us proclaim our faith”, spoken immediately before the Memorial Acclamation. Now, I am not a fan of the current ICEL translation of “mysterium fidei” (“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”), but at least it retains the words “mystery of faith” which are the direct translation of the Latin words in the official Missal. While I expect the Eucharistic Prayer you prayed was one with the approval of the Holy See, I cannot believe it would have rendered “mysterium fidei” as “Let us proclaim our faith” and have received that same approval! The Eucharistic Prayer is the climax of the celebration of the Mass, and so to alter the words is wholly inappropriate.[7] At least one prayer after the Our Father was truncated somewhat; to what end, I do not know.

Your remark after Mass had concluded – “Do you know what we forgot?” – made me wonder what might have been omitted that I had failed to notice. That was the state of mind I was in by the time you gave us the blessing, and it upset me to be so on edge during the Mass. However, I cannot help but feel your answer – “A collection. I’ll have to check the book to see if this was a valid Mass.” – was directed particularly at me. Father X, I take the Mass seriously. Not without joy or elation, but seriously, without frivolity and recklessness. What you may have intended as a jest, I took as an implicit admission to altering the Mass just enough so as not to render it invalid. The Mass we attended is not one we should expect to see often, and I hope it does not make people lose interest in “normal” Mass. Furthermore, if we see this kind of care-free attitude – which in the end can be described as “disobedience” – from a priest, how long will it be before priests start seeing the same care-free, disobedient attitude from the faithful? If we must accept disorder from the celebrant of the Mass, will the celebrants accept disorder from the congregation?

I sincerely hope you take this letter to heart. I am praying for you, and I ask that you pray for me as well. The Lord be with you.

1. Redemptionis Sacramentum RS], n. 12
2. Ibid., n. 170
3. Ibid., n. 173, cf. n. 153
4. “During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the ‘presbyterium,’ which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers.” (Notitiae 17 (1981) 61)
5. Mediator Dei, nn. 91-99
6. Ibid., n. 99; cf. Romans 12:1
7. “Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. ‘It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers’ or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.” (RS, n. 51)

 

[newbetx]

I’m afraid I’d have to look up “Jenga”, but I am currious what you expect you will get if you send this letter?

I have attended numerous “home Masses” and they are not very formal. They have some more of the elements you describe but we didn’t stand up and sit down or kneel.

While you have some very good points about what did and did not happen, I think you might be better served with this priest if you just reduce your letter to the opening paragraph or two. What I think you have is an inbalance in expectations. You see a place where formal Mass can be held and he may have seen a group of people that he thought a more informal process was wanted.

I suggest you meet face to face with him and discuss your concerns, and questions. I’m sure once he gets your feedback, and you, his, things will be better understood between you.

Peace to you!

 

[japhy]

I’m afraid I’d have to look up “Jenga”, but I am currious what you expect you will get if you send this letter?

Google will help you there. Wikipedia too.

I have attended numerous “home Masses” and they are not very formal. They have some more of the elements you describe but we didn’t stand up and sit down or kneel.

But this wasn’t a “home Mass”. It took place in a chapel that is well-equipped for a “normal” Mass.

While you have some very good points about what did and did not happen, I think you might be better served with this priest if you just reduce your letter to the opening paragraph or two. What I think you have is an inbalance in expectations. You see a place where formal Mass can be held and he may have seen a group of people that he thought a more informal process was wanted.

If I wasn’t clear in my letter, I’m not sure I would have gotten anything across. It’s that time “informal process” that leads to people misunderstanding the Mass, and as he wanted it to be an explanatory and learning experience, he really shot himself in the foot.

 

[benedictgal]

That was a very powerful letter. You were charitable and respectful in airing your concerns. I am most curious as to what his response will be.

 

[martinporres]

japhy, well-spoken original post and well-written letter. Your love for the Sacrifice is admirable and I can tell your concern comes from a deep-seated desire to serve and obey God.

I am interested to hear what comes of it; please keep us up-to-date!

In Christ,
mp

 

[japhy]

japhy, well-spoken original post and well-written letter. Your love for the Sacrifice is admirable and I can tell your concern comes from a deep-seated desire to serve and obey God.

Thank you for your kind words. Please pray for this priest and for myself, that we may both receive an increase in charity.

I am interested to hear what comes of it; please keep us up-to-date!

The priest has received it; a friend who works at his residence confirmed that for me. What will come of it, however, is still up in the air.

During Advent, I will be attending daily Mass, which will most likely involve being at that particular chapel a couple days during the week, so I may encounter him again and hang around after the conclusion of Mass to speak with him.

 

[twosweetgirls]

I’ve been reading this with interest, and will definitely be looking for an update from you.

Our Monday evening Masses are what I’d call “informal”; there’s maybe 30 of us total (mostly senior citizens and me with the girls), everything is sung a’capella and it’s all done very simply. However, there’s every bit of reverence there–we stand when we should, and kneel as we should. I love how it can be so reverent even though it’s such a small gathering.

Hope Fr. Bill comes back with good things to say to you.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m afraid I’d have to look up “Jenga”, but I am currious what you expect you will get if you send this letter?

I have attended numerous “home Masses” and they are not very formal. They have some more of the elements you describe but we didn’t stand up and sit down or kneel.

While you have some very good points about what did and did not happen, I think you might be better served with this priest if you just reduce your letter to the opening paragraph or two. What I think you have is an inbalance in expectations. You see a place where formal Mass can be held and he may have seen a group of people that he thought a more informal process was wanted.

I suggest you meet face to face with him and discuss your concerns, and questions. I’m sure once he gets your feedback, and you, his, things will be better understood between you.

Peace to you!

I, too, attended a couple of “home” Masses when I lived in Austin and was part of my former parish’s Small Christian Communities. One was even offered for the repose of the soul of my mother who had just died (this was almost 14 years ago). The elderly priest who celebrated the Mass was extremely reverent and paid so much attention to detail, for his part. But, on our part, there was some laxity on things.

All of this was before my study and involvement in liturgy. What bothered me was precisely the “informality” that you cited. The Cursillo movement has what is called a “Mass” social where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated in one of the team member’s homes and then there is a get-together. This is a little unsettling as well, and, I opted out of that one.

As well-meaning as these folks were in having “home” Masses, there is something intrinsically disturbing about this because the proper place for the Mass is the Church. Granted, for obvious reasons, venues such as Yankee Stadium and the Retama Race Track were used for Papal Masses because of the enormous crowds, the Mass generally should be held in a Church. The one exception that I can see is when the Church is facing a deadly persecution (as have been the cases with the Elizabethan regime in reformation England and the Mexican revolution of the early 20th century, which saw many Masses celebrated clandestinely in people’s homes).

 

[newbetx]

I, too, attended a couple of “home” Masses when I lived in Austin and was part of my former parish’s Small Christian Communities. One was even offered for the repose of the soul of my mother who had just died (this was almost 14 years ago). The elderly priest who celebrated the Mass was extremely reverent and paid so much attention to detail, for his part. But, on our part, there was some laxity on things.

All of this was before my study and involvement in liturgy. What bothered me was precisely the “informality” that you cited. The Cursillo movement has what is called a “Mass” social where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated in one of the team member’s homes and then there is a get-together. This is a little unsettling as well, and, I opted out of that one.

As well-meaning as these folks were in having “home” Masses, there is something intrinsically disturbing about this because the proper place for the Mass is the Church. Granted, for obvious reasons, venues such as Yankee Stadium and the Retama Race Track were used for Papal Masses because of the enormous crowds, the Mass generally should be held in a Church. The one exception that I can see is when the Church is facing a deadly persecution (as have been the cases with the Elizabethan regime in reformation England and the Mexican revolution of the early 20th century, which saw many Masses celebrated clandestinely in people’s homes).

Greatings from Austin!

Well, when I was in the youth group, we had one of our priests come and do mass for us before going out as a group. Our church didn’t have a “youth Mass” at that time and we had three priests, so it made it special for us. I didn’t like the fact that it was hosts only.

And my wife’s family has a relative that is a Priest. When visiting on the weekend, we’ll all gather around the table and my kids get to read the readings and we get both body and blood. Everything except standing and knealing. Actually, the Homily is rather interactive. We think it’s pretty special.

 

[japhy]

I didn’t like the fact that it was hosts only.

How come?

And my wife’s family has a relative that is a Priest. When visiting on the weekend, we’ll all gather around the table and my kids get to read the readings and we get both body and blood. Everything except standing and knealing. Actually, the Homily is rather interactive. We think it’s pretty special.

My eldest brother is a priest. Come to think of it, when he would say home Masses, I’m not sure we kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer – because there are no kneelers at home, and it would be difficult for my parents (over 60) to kneel on the floor and get up. We haven’t had a home Mass in several months, though – not since I gained my liturgical knowledge, at least.

You “get both body and blood” [sic] when you receive only the Host, which contains in each particle the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Homilies are not supposed to be interactive: they are the function of the ordained minister (bishop, priest, or deacon).

 

[newbetx]

How come?

You “get both body and blood” [sic] when you receive only the Host, which contains in each particle the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Really? I didn’t know that. That’s why I’m here. To learn and explore. Why did Christ bother with the cup at the last supper, then?

My eldest brother is a priest. Come to think of it, when he would say home Masses, I’m not sure we kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer – because there are no kneelers at home, and it would be difficult for my parents (over 60) to kneel on the floor and get up. We haven’t had a home Mass in several months, though – not since I gained my liturgical knowledge, at least.

Are you saying you have something to do with not having home Mass, anymore? Or are you saying with your new understanding you look forward to one?

Homilies are not supposed to be interactive: they are the function of the ordained minister (bishop, priest, or deacon).

One way only? Wow. I’ll have to tell our Priest to stop asking us questions, then! I freeze up when he walks up to the pew and asks us questions…

 

[benedictgal]

Greatings from Austin!

Well, when I was in the youth group, we had one of our priests come and do mass for us before going out as a group. Our church didn’t have a “youth Mass” at that time and we had three priests, so it made it special for us. I didn’t like the fact that it was hosts only.

And my wife’s family has a relative that is a Priest. When visiting on the weekend, we’ll all gather around the table and my kids get to read the readings and we get both body and blood. Everything except standing and knealing. Actually, the Homily is rather interactive. We think it’s pretty special.

I’m curious as to which parish you’re attending in Austin. Mine was across from good old UT (it’s on the Drag). I actually learned a lot from their previous director of liturgy, and became friends with quite a few of the priests stationed there. In fact, I plan to go back for the parish’s 100th anniversary. My grandmother and step-grandfather (now deceased) used to go to St. Ignatius and I would visit San Jose (has a 24-hour adoration chapel). In fact, I found myself there a few times after visiting the Broken Spoke.

By the way, a priest doesn’t “do” Mass, he celebrates the Holy Sacrifice. I have to agree wth japhy in that the Sacred Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. It is not necessary to communicate under both species. In other words, you needn’t receive the Precious Blood in order to receive the complete Jesus. He is totally present in the Sacred Host.

The homily is not supposed to be interactive. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum, only ordained clergy (deacon, priest bishop) is supposed to preach. And, the rubrics and norms do call for kneeling during the Consecration. That much we did at the home Mass I described in my previous post.

When the Mass becomes “too” informal, we run the danger of downplaying the Sacrificial element. Yes, there is the element of the Eucharistic Banquet, but it is very much a Sacrifice.

 

[newbetx]

I’m curious as to which parish you’re attending in Austin. Mine was across from good old UT (it’s on the Drag). I actually learned a lot from their previous director of liturgy, and became friends with quite a few of the priests stationed there. In fact, I plan to go back for the parish’s 100th anniversary. My grandmother and step-grandfather (now deceased) used to go to St. Ignatius and I would visit San Jose (has a 24-hour adoration chapel). In fact, I found myself there a few times after visiting the Broken Spoke.

By the way, a priest doesn’t “do” Mass, he celebrates the Holy Sacrifice. I have to agree wth japhy in that the Sacred Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. It is not necessary to communicate under both species. In other words, you needn’t receive the Precious Blood in order to receive the complete Jesus. He is totally present in the Sacred Host.

The homily is not supposed to be interactive. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum, only ordained clergy (deacon, priest bishop) is supposed to preach. And, the rubrics and norms do call for kneeling during the Consecration. That much we did at the home Mass I described in my previous post.

When the Mass becomes “too” informal, we run the danger of downplaying the Sacrificial element. Yes, there is the element of the Eucharistic Banquet, but it is very much a Sacrifice.

We go to St Theresa’s. Where I went through RCIA many years ago, got married, where my three kids were baptized, attend RE…

We have two great priests and two deacons. It’s a very active parish.

If you can, I hope you can visit and hear Fr. Justin. He has a great deal of experience and unlike most, you will get a lecture and enjoy it! I’m truely inspired by this man.

Did I say “do mass”? I didn’t think so…

I’ve forgotten more than I should have from RCIA. But like I said. that is why I’m here.

While I’ll take at face value the assertion about only needing the body, why did Jesus use the cup? I guess I’m simple in this regard. If both were at the table, I prefer to have both. I feel more complete with both. It seems like a rationalization to say hosts are all that is required, but I can see it and I know I’ve heard it before. I just forgot it.

Sorry. I did not want to hijack this thread.

Japhy, I hope all goes well when you see that priest again.

 

[japhy]

Really? I didn’t know that. That’s why I’m here. To learn and explore. Why did Christ bother with the cup at the last supper, then?

The Last Supper coincided with an anticipatory Passover meal (since Jesus was crucified at the very same time the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover). Jesus blessed the bread and said it was his body, and blessed the cup and said it was his blood. In doing so, Jesus (yet again) identified himself with the Passover lamb, but also with the sacrificial lamb/goat of Yom Kippur, which was slaughtered and had its blood drained: his body and his blood would be separated, he would suffer a bloody death, and after his death his side was thrust in with a spear, and blood and water came out.

Also, the Last Supper was the institution of the Eucharist (which for the Apostles was a pre-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, whereas for us it’s a re-presentation (not a representation) of the Cross), and so the Apostles were instituted as priests. Priests, when the celebrate Mass and offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, must consume both the Host and the Chalice, because the sacrificial offering is not acceptable without also being consumed by the priest.

In the history of the Church, there have been times when the laity received both the Host and Chalice regularly. There was a time when a Pope made it mandatory, because of a heresy involving the belief that wine was instrinsically evil, and therefore to drink the Precious Blood (which is under the form of wine) is evil; to combat this, the Pope at that time forbade people to “skip” the Chalice, so that the adherents to this heresy would be made known by their behavior. That practice eventually ceased.

At the Council of Trent (session 21), it was formally defined that laity need not receive from the Chalice – in fact, they don’t have the obligation to. Furthermore, they formally defined what was already believed: that both species (bread and wine) when consecrated, contain the whole of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that communication under either species is sufficient unto salvation. Session 13 explained how both the Body and the Blood are present in both species:
And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

Are you saying you have something to do with not having home Mass, anymore? Or are you saying with your new understanding you look forward to one?

We only have a home Mass for very particular causes… such as my parents’ anniversary. I think that’s the only time we have one regularly, really. Knowing what I now know, I think I’ll kneel in the future. Everything else about the home Mass that my brother celebrates is tip-top.

One way only? Wow. I’ll have to tell our Priest to stop asking us questions, then! I freeze up when he walks up to the pew and asks us questions…

That might be your conscience.

 

[ErikaA]

I read this thread with much interest, but it saddens me in a strange and suprising way. Granted, I am not a Catholic, although I’ve been exploring the faith and found myself inexplicably drawn to it. I am nonetheless a Lutheran at present.

That said, what I read caused me to think that Catholics may not be as enlightened as I had previously believed. There is such intractability in all this talk of the sanctity of the Mass. While in some regards, I find this piety refreshing and sincere. It seems it can also belie the love of Christ by encouraging one to focus on the ceremony for ceremony’s sake. The intent of the Mass should be the focus in my humble opinion. While this Priest may not have followed traditional instruction nor may he have led the Mass with the formality you and others expect, does that mean he has no reverence for God or Christ? If we cannot clearly ascertain that, then why such condemnation?

I agree that the Mass should not be disrespected. But is the recitation of words and performance of certain perfunctory actions always indicative of respect? A person could kneel as expected and follow all the rites and still not internalize a single thing. The mind could wander and thus the Mass in that situation is meaningless.

My problem with contemporary Protestantism is that it glosses over the surface of the Bible and faith, encouraging a literal interpretation of things as opposed to digging dip into the meaning. What I have always loved about the Catholic writers and theologians is their emphasis on the mystery of faith and the contemplative life. But in this thread, I do not see a search for the deeper truth in the Mass but an unwavering fixation on the superficial aspects of it. You can argue that if you disregard one, you disregard the other, but I don’t know if Jesus would agree with such a statement. He consistently emphasizes the intent over the action, condemning the self righteous by revealing their true motives. I guess, for me, the ultimate question is - do we show the love of Christ in what we do/say?

Perhaps I don’t understand the Mass fully, being that I am not Catholic. But do I want to if this understanding makes me more intolerant and judgmental of others?

Regards,
Erika

 

[FAB]

That said, what I read caused me to think that Catholics may not be as enlightened as I had previously believed. There is such intractability in all this talk of the sanctity of the Mass. While in some regards, I find this piety refreshing and sincere. It seems it can also belie the love of Christ by encouraging one to focus on the ceremony for ceremony’s sake. The intent of the Mass should be the focus in my humble opinion. While this Priest may not have followed traditional instruction nor may he have led the Mass with the formality you and others expect, does that mean he has no reverence for God or Christ? If we cannot clearly ascertain that, then why such condemnation?

Erika

It is unfortunate at times that individuals get so caught up in the rules, that they fail to see the magesty before them. This forum often times cannot see the forest for the trees. This mass with five individuals sounded as a very close encounter with Christ. So the priest didn’t follow the rubics to the letter, it didn’t make any less the real presence of Christ. I have seen priest with small groups try to make the celebration of the mass more personal. That seems to be the case here, certanly not a reason for chastisment.
Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

It is unfortunate at times that individuals get so caught up in the rules, that they fail to see the magesty before them. This forum often times cannot see the forest for the trees. This mass with five individuals sounded as a very close encounter with Christ. So the priest didn’t follow the rubics to the letter, it didn’t make any less the real presence of Christ. I have seen priest with small groups try to make the celebration of the mass more personal. That seems to be the case here, certanly not a reason for chastisment.
Peace,
FAB

FAB, you do a disservice in your explanation. The Mass is not about being “more personal”. It is the Holy Sacrifice.

Furthermore, the rubrics and norms are important to the ritual. It is important enough that the Church had to address the abuses in a document called Redemptionis Sacramentum and in the Synod on the Eucharist. The Mass is not something that we can cobble up for ourselves to suit our own whims. ’

You can have just as “personal” an encounter with Jesus during a Papal Mass at St. Peter’s Baslica (with several thousand of your closest friends) as you can in mission church in the colonias.

Erika, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has rubrics and norms (rules) regarding its celebration. Unfortunately, over the course of the past 40 years, “creative” folks have tried to make their own “improvements” on the Mass. This has led to abuses in the liturgy that the Church is trying to curtail. The Mass carries out the mandate that Jesus issued on the Last Supper, “Do this, in memory of Me.” When he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist on the night before He died, He anticipated what was going to happen to Him on Good Friday. When He spoke the words, “This is My Body…This is My Blood,” he wasn’t merely saying that the bread and wine represented His body and blood, they became His Body and Blood. Therefore, at every Mass, when the priest says “This is My Body…This is My Blood”, he is not speaking for himself, he is speaking in Persona Christi, in the person of Christ.

This also goes back to the teaching of Jesus in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, where Jesus calls himself the “living bread come down from Heaven.” He makes it crystal clear that unless we eat HIs flesh and drink His blood, we shall not have life within us. In fact, what repulsed the Romans about the ancient Church was their interpretation of the Mass being some sort of cannabilistic ritual because the Christians gathered together to eat Someone’s flesh and drink His blood.

I am taking a course on the New Testament taught by my parochial vicar (assistant pastor of my parish). Yesterday, we discussed the Mass. He said that if you carefully study the Old Testament, you will find elements in the Mass. There is the Liturgy of the Word, where we read passages of the Old Testament (obviously, along with the New Testament) like Ancient Israel did. These are OUR stories. The Catholic Church considers Herself a descendant of Abraham in the Faith. His sacrifice (along with the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedek) are mentioned in the Roman Canon, the first Eucharistic Prayer. After the Liturgy of the Word, we have the Liturgy of the Eucharist, wherein the Sacrificial element of Ancient Israel is preserved, in an unbloody manner. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the veil between time and space is mystically lifted and we find ourselves at the foot of the cross, to witness the Moment of our salvation: the Sacrifice of the True Lamb of God, Jesus.

The sacrifice is once for all; however, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we become witnesses of this great salvific act. The same Jesus who cured the sick, forgave sinners and was crucified and who rose from the dead comes to us, body, blood, soul and divinity. The forms he chooses are bread and wine, but he is REALLY PRESENT in the Eucharist.

Nonetheless, the rubrics and the ritual are important for our liturrgy. There are those who are dismissive of the norms; however, they have no concept of Tradition, as handed down to us through the Apostles himself, who, as St. Paul said, received it directly from Jesus, Himself.