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

[japhy]

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?

The Mass is structured the way it is to ensure proper reverence to God. That is why we stand for the Gospel, that is why we kneel at the consecration, that is why only an ordained minister may read the Gospel and preach the homily, and why only a priest or bishop may confect the Eucharist.

Fr. “Bill”, in celebrating the Mass the way he did, made it distracting for those of us who knew better, and is planting seeds of confusion in those who didn’t know better. I don’t know for certain the reasons behind his changes (I could speculate) but I know his changes were inappropriate. I’d really like to know why he changed things. Does the traditional and proper way of celebrating Mass fail to do something that his innovation succeeds at?

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.

The “deeper truth in the Mass” was clouded and obscured by Fr. Bill’s conduct. Is the truth that we needn’t reverence the Gospel? That the miracle of transubstantiation, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament, is something casual? That we need some additional rituals (I refer to the holding of the paten and praying over the bread) in order to connect ourselves to the Sacrifice of the Altar? That’s not the “deeper truth in the Mass”, because those things aren’t in the Mass proper, they’re in his additions and subtractions and modifications to the Mass.

I don’t know what Fr. Bill’s motives or intentions were. I think he was more concerned with being a likable, laid-back, buddy-buddy guy instead of a priest. He was more interested in a “casual community event” than the Sacrifice of the Mass. It was more about having a good time than about standing at the foot of Calvary. It was more about US than about Jesus.

 

[japhy]

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.

Every Mass is supposed to be a “very close encounter with Christ”. It has been structured for that very purpose! Mass is personal, just not in the way secular society sees “personal”.

In trying to “make the celebration of the mass more personal”, Fr. Bill sacrificed reverence to Christ and obedience to His Church.

 

[FAB]

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

QUOTE]

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” John15:13

I’m not certain how much personal it can get. Yes the rubics of the mass are important to enshure the continuity of the mass, but should not interfer with this most personal of relationships.

There is a verse of one of my favorite songs, “look beyond the bread you eat, see your savior and your Lord” , I think after reading some of these post it could read “look beyond the rubics, see your savior and your Lord” .

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3020161:

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

QUOTE]

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” John15:13

I’m not certain how much personal it can get. Yes the rubics of the mass are important to enshure the continuity of the mass, but should not interfer with this most personal of relationships.

There is a verse of one of my favorite songs, “look beyond the bread you eat, see your savior and your Lord” , I think after reading some of these post it could read “look beyond the rubics, see your savior and your Lord” .

Peace,
FAB

I am aware of that hymn. That is one of the hymns that we ceased doing because of some issues. There are some doctirnal issues with it, as with your posts. Rubrics are important, very important. You don’t seem to put stock in them. Yes, the Lord is present. I don’t need for you to point that out. However, your apparent lack of respect for the norms and rubrics seems to indicate to me that you don’t have much of an understanding of the Holy Sacrifice.

The Mass is not some do-it-yourself experiment in creativity, as Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly said. It is precisely in following the rubrics that the validity and the integrity of the Mass is assured. You should study the writings of the Holy Father on this matter. They might prove most helpful to you.

Furthermore, as I said in my posts, you don’t need a tiny group of the faithful to have a “personal” encounter with Jesus. Are you trying to say that the 5,000 Jesus fed didn’t have that kind of encounter? Or, how about the close to 2,000,000 who attended John Paul’s funeral?

 

[japhy]

Furthermore, as I said in my posts, you don’t need a tiny group of the faithful to have a “personal” encounter with Jesus. Are you trying to say that the 5,000 Jesus fed didn’t have that kind of encounter? Or, how about the close to 2,000,000 who attended John Paul’s funeral?

The benefit of having fewer people at the Mass is not so it becomes “more personal” – in the sense that, I can relate better to the people because there are so few of them – but that there is less for each of us to be distracted by as we pray and meditate on the mercy of God as we witness the Sacrifice of the Altar.

But that was made essentially impossible by Fr. Bill’s introducing all sorts of other distractions that caused me (and at least one other person) distress.

 

[benedictgal]

The benefit of having fewer people at the Mass is not so it becomes “more personal” – in the sense that, I can relate better to the people because there are so few of them – but that there is less for each of us to be distracted by as we pray and meditate on the mercy of God as we witness the Sacrifice of the Altar.

But that was made essentially impossible by Fr. Bill’s introducing all sorts of other distractions that caused me (and at least one other person) distress.

Japhy, I meant that from the way I read, his post,FAB seemed to think that it should be this “personal” experience. You had already made your point to him in a previous post. I understand your drift, though.

We have a monastery in my city. Whenever I can, I try to get to Mass there, precisely because the quietness of the place helps engender a better sense of the mercy of God that you described. In fact, I particularly enjoyed Ash Wednesday Mass there because it was the first time that I didn’t have to face a sea of humanity which was more interested in securing the ash than anything. In fact, during my last Ash Wednesday at our Cathedral, I was mobbed by people outside who wanted to get the ash (there were a lot of folks gathered on the esplanade).

Don’t get me wrong. I am very happy when I see a lot of people coming to Mass, even if it is just for the aforementioned reason. But, sometimes, I just need to get away for a bit and pray. Having the monastery in town helps.

 

[FAB]

FAB;3020303:

I am aware of that hymn. That is one of the hymns that we ceased doing because of some issues. There are some doctirnal issues with it, as with your posts. Rubrics are important, very important. You don’t seem to put stock in them. Yes, the Lord is present. I don’t need for you to point that out. However, your apparent lack of respect for the norms and rubrics seems to indicate to me that you don’t have much of an understanding of the Holy Sacrifice.

The Mass is not some do-it-yourself experiment in creativity, as Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly said. It is precisely in following the rubrics that the validity and the integrity of the Mass is assured. You should study the writings of the Holy Father on this matter. They might prove most helpful to you.

Furthermore, as I said in my posts, you don’t need a tiny group of the faithful to have a “personal” encounter with Jesus. Are you trying to say that the 5,000 Jesus fed didn’t have that kind of encounter? Or, how about the close to 2,000,000 who attended John Paul’s funeral?

You have no idea of my understanding of the Holy Sacrifice and yes I have read the writings of the Holy Father.
There were six at this Eucharist, four were able to witness the mystery of the Sixth, one seemed to have been more concerned with if the proper rules were followed. I kow and understand the rubics of the mass. I understand the Pope’s issues with abuses in the liturgy, but even when they occur, they are still less important than hearing the word and becoming what we recieve.

Look beyond the bread you eat, see your savior and your Lord.
Look beyond the cup you drink, see his love poured out in blood.

Give us a sign, that we might believe in you.
Moses brought us manna from the sky.

I am the bread which from the heavens came;
Those who eat this bread will never die.

The bread I give you will be my very flesh;
my blood will truly be your drink.

This man speaks harshly; who can listen to his word?
We shall no longer follow him.

You my disciples, will you also leave?
Lord to whom can we go.
John 6

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3020380:

You have no idea of my understanding of the Holy Sacrifice and yes I have read the writings of the Holy Father.
There were six at this Eucharist, four were able to witness the mystery of the Sixth, one seemed to have been more concerned with if the proper rules were followed. I kow and understand the rubics of the mass. I understand the Pope’s issues with abuses in the liturgy, but even when they occur, they are still less important than hearing the word and becoming what we recieve.

The rubrics are highly important because they preserve the integrity of the Mass. In the Old Testament, God, Himself, set rubrics (just read Deuteronomy and Leviticus) on how worship should be conducted. When Israel failed to adhere to the rubrics, the punishment was severe. They were invaded and their Temple was destroyed.

You say that you are aware of what the Holy Father says, but your posts say the opposite. Granted, we are under the new covenant, but, abuses in the liturgy are a grave matter and something that even St. Paul had to chastise the Corinthians about when he wrote the first epistle to that church.

If the rubrics weren’t so important, why would the late Pope John Paul the Great have ordered the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum and why would he have called a Synod on the Eucharist to address the problem? You are still missing the point.

Regarding the song you quoted, there are much better hymns that have their basis in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel and a richer and deeper expression of the Holy Eucharist and have been sung by the Church. One of the more modern hymns, such as Eat this Bread, Drink This Cup, captures the mystery and has a more traditional melody than the one you quoted:

Eat this bread, drink this cup, come to me and never be hungry. Eat this bread, drink this cup, trust in me and you shall not thirst.

I am the bread of life, the true bread sent from the Father.

Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but this is the bread come down from heaven.

Eat my flesh and drink my blood and I will raise you up on the last day.

Anyone who eats this bread will live forever.

If you believe and eat this bread, you will have eternal life.

There is also Tatem Ergo, which the Church has sung for several centuries:

Down in Adoration Falling

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! over ancient forms departing,
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith for all defects supplying
Where the feeble senses fail.

To the Everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high,
With the Spirit Blest proceeding
Forth from Each eternally,
Be salvation, honor, blessing,
Might and endless majesty. Amen.

Priest: Thou hast given them Bread from Heaven.
[During Eastertide: Alleluia.]
People: Containing in Itself all delight.
[During Eastertide: Alleluia.]

 

[newbetx]

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.

No. Mostly my tounge. I say the wrong words.

Like above when I said “interactive.” You guys took it wrong, I think. The priest asks directed questions. They are to invoke a response of yes or no. Like, “Do you understand who the Samaritans were?” or “Do you understand why…” These are key to understanding a homily. Especially for a teenager.

But maybe you can comment on the following:

I was at Mass in Albuquerque last month. There was only a Deacon and the Priest. The Deacon did all the readings. However, he explained each, like a homily, prior to the actual reading and there was no homily to tie them together, afterward. The Priest, was, for the most part, the Cantor.

 

[FAB]

FAB;3020949:

The rubrics are highly important because they preserve the integrity of the Mass. In the Old Testament, God, Himself, set rubrics (just read Deuteronomy and Leviticus) on how worship should be conducted. When Israel failed to adhere to the rubrics, the punishment was severe. They were invaded and their Temple was destroyed.

You say that you are aware of what the Holy Father says, but your posts say the opposite. Granted, we are under the new covenant, but, abuses in the liturgy are a grave matter and something that even St. Paul had to chastise the Corinthians about when he wrote the first epistle to that church.
:

It was a great deal more than just how sacrafices were made in the temple that brought down the Hebrews, and at the time of Paul there was no liturgy, certainly not as we know today. There were as many ways of remembering Christ’s sacrafice as there were communities. The development of the liturgy took hundreds of years and have constantly changed since the last supper. Even today from parish to parish, even with mass in a parish, the liturgy varies, but the basic nature is always there.
When the law has become more important than the meaning, then meaning is also lost. The mass becomes routine, stale, just a series of actions with no connection to the congregation. I don’t believe that this is the intent of John Paul the Great, who’s celebration of the mass included dance and song from many nations, or even from Pope Benidict, who is not rolling back the reforms from Vatican II only fine tuning them.
Niether do I believe that a priest who bring the sacred mystery closer to a group of individuals, so they will more fully understand the sacrfice made, will some how bring down the pillars of the church or cause God’s wrath.
Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

FAB, there’s much more tho this. There was certainly liturgy when St. Paul was around. Don’t discount what happened in the Temple as a non-liturgical event. It was worship. And, yes, whenever Israel deviated from the prescribed rituals and practices, there was a severe penalty to pay.

In Exodus, God orders Moses to tell Pharoah that He wants His people set free so that they can go worship the Lord. Worshipping God was the first order of business. He spells out to Moses just how this is must be done, right down to specifying the color of vesture and the rituals to be employed. To say that liturgy didn’t exist even then is a misunderstanding.

Just what do you think was happening in Corinth and in the other early Christian communities? It was the Holy Sacrifice. There were already norms in place for the proper celebration of the Sacrifice. Because the community in Corinth was already, unfortunately, practicing the first forms of liturgical abuse, St. Paul had to intervene.

Regarding John Paul II, please read a question that Cardinal Arinze answered (as published in Adoremus):

[Edited by Moderator] Somebody can say, “but the pope visited this county and the people danced”. A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father – he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny – is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go.

Thus, Cardinal Arinze refutes your JPII argument…

Japhy, I didn’t mean to hijack your thread by mentioning liturgical dance, but I had to offer the quote so as to not be accused of pulling something out of the air.

 

[martinporres]

FAB, you clearly desire personal and meaningful worship. I think though you have to be truthful in that what you’re pushing for – a deemphasis on the importance of following rubrics so long as the meaning or spirit is there – is completely contrary to our patrimony in the Latin church. This assumes that strict adherence to rubrics somehow lessens the liturgy’s potential for reaching people at their deepest levels (as if that’s the reason for mass in general – a belief I don’t subscribe to personally).

In this sense, you have to at least admit that what you’re gunning for is something completely new and that benedictgal is supporting the Church’s historical position (excluding a period of just a year or so near the introduction of the Pauline mass where innovation in liturgy wasn’t entirely forbidden).

I don’t believe you’ve been asked or answered this question (apologies if so): but does strict adherence to the rubrics and organization of the liturgy pull you away from the Sacrifice?

Believe me, sometimes I wish I didn’t know so much about our history as a Church, about our liturgy, about how it developed, and the reasons the clergy are supposed to do things certain ways. Perhaps not knowing would make me feel closer to my community at mass. But in knowing these things, and by knowing the actual reason I should be at mass in the first place, I feel I am more fully practicing Holy Religion, rather than something I considered Holy Religion to be.

In Christ, and in peace,
mp

 

[FAB]

FAB, you clearly desire personal and meaningful worship. I think though you have to be truthful in that what you’re pushing for – a deemphasis on the importance of following rubrics so long as the meaning or spirit is there – is completely contrary to our patrimony in the Latin church. This assumes that strict adherence to rubrics somehow lessens the liturgy’s potential for reaching people at their deepest levels (as if that’s the reason for mass in general – a belief I don’t subscribe to personally).

In this sense, you have to at least admit that what you’re gunning for is something completely new and that benedictgal is supporting the Church’s historical position (excluding a period of just a year or so near the introduction of the Pauline mass where innovation in liturgy wasn’t entirely forbidden).

I don’t believe you’ve been asked or answered this question (apologies if so): but does strict adherence to the rubrics and organization of the liturgy pull you away from the Sacrifice?

Believe me, sometimes I wish I didn’t know so much about our history as a Church, about our liturgy, about how it developed, and the reasons the clergy are supposed to do things certain ways. Perhaps not knowing would make me feel closer to my community at mass. But in knowing these things, and by knowing the actual reason I should be at mass in the first place, I feel I am more fully practicing Holy Religion, rather than something I considered Holy Religion to be.

In Christ, and in peace,
mp

First, I have not problems with the rubics of the liturgy. Second I do believe they should be followed. Third, stict adherance does not pull me from sacrafice.

What does bother me is the idea if that there is not a strict adherance that it should personally diminish an individual’s involment in the sacrafice. By doing so, that indivudal has put the law above all else and is missing the purpose for being there to start with.

 

[benedictgal]

First, I have not problems with the rubics of the liturgy. Second I do believe they should be followed. Third, stict adherance does not pull me from sacrafice.

What does bother me is the idea if that there is not a strict adherance that it should personally diminish an individual’s involment in the sacrafice. By doing so, that indivudal has put the law above all else and is missing the purpose for being there to start with.

FAB, then, you are saying that Cardinal Arinze and the others who formulated Redemptionis Sacramentum put the rubrics above the worship. The point is that rubrics exist for the integrity of the worship. When the rubric and the norms are not followed, then we have strayed from the Sacrifice.

You say that you do believe that they should be followed. However, you must realize that strict adherence prevents abuses from cropping up. When a priest does, says or uses something that will invalidate the Holy Sacrifice, then there is cause for great concern. You still do not seem to understand the points that many of us are trying to make.

 

[japhy]

To all those interested: I have receive a reply from the priest. Because CAF has rules against posting private communications from another person, I will not disclose the contents here, but I will soon be writing about it on my blog. I’ll leave another update to this thread when I have a post about it online.

 

[Refugium]

Has anyone here read “Why Catholics Can’t Sing” by Thomas Day? Chapter 5 is entitled “Ego Renewal”, and it talks (among other things) about the increase in priest-performers, who interject themselves and their whole personality into their “performance” of the Mass. Keep that in mind.

I attended Mass last night with a small group of young adults (Catholics in our mid-20’s to early 30’s). It took place at a chapel (dedicated to the Miraculous Medal) at a seminary, so one of the priests in residence said Mass for us. The chapel is old enough that the seating is antiphonal – that is, the pews are arranged along the sides of the church facing each other. (Examples: execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/antiphonal.jpg and wm.edu/about/wren/wrenchapel/images/chapelplot.jpg) There were only five of us (plus the priest), so we all (including the priest) sat in a group, in the pews up on the level of the sanctuary.

I was to read the First Reading (from Romans 14), and I was curious where I would read from – there was a podium at the opposite end of the chapel, and I had suggested moving it up near the sanctuary. This wouldn’t be necessary, I was told by “Bill” (name changed). Bill – that is, Fr. Bill – said I could read it from where I was. Bill had asked, before Mass, whether he should put on his vestments. Thankfully, he did. Before Mass, he told us that since we were such a small group, we should feel free to relax, and to interrupt him to ask questions at any point, and that he would probably be interjecting at times to explain what he was doing (I suppose as the “commentator” of GIRM 105b). Throughout the rest of this post, [bracketed text in bold red] are things I wanted to ask, but held back because of charity.

Mass began seated, not standing [GIRM 43, 124], in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. [Why don’t we stand, Fr. Bill?] The altar was not kissed [GIRM 123] – Bill hadn’t approached it. [Why didn’t you kiss the altar, Fr. Bill?] Bill told us about the readings we would hear (which is acceptable, since it’s following GIRM 31). The Act of Penitence [GIRM 51, 125] was skipped (we went directly to the Kyrie, without doing A, B, or C of the Act of Penitence). Then the opening prayer. Then I read the First Reading, sitting in my chair (rather than (standing?) at the ambo [GIRM 58]). Then I passed the Lectionary behind me to the woman who read the Responsorial Psalm from her chair (not the ambo, nor would I consider where we were a “suitable place” [GIRM 61])… she wasn’t very comfortable with the whole thing either, I might add.

When she finished, I turned around to receive the Lectionary back from her and hand it to Bill who was sitting next to me. Instead, he told her to give it to whomever she wished (such as the man sitting on the other side of Bill) to read the Gospel. [Why don’t you read the Gospel, Fr. Bill?] So a layman [GIRM 58], sitting (as we all were) [GIRM 60, 131], read the Gospel. [Why don’t we stand, Fr. Bill?] The Lectionary was not blessed with the sign of the cross [GIRM 134], it was not kissed [GIRM 134], and I highly doubt the layman (or Bill, for that matter) said the prescribed prayers before [GIRM 132, 175] and after [GIRM 134] reading it.

At this point, after the Gospel, I really wanted to turn to Bill and ask So who shall we choose to give the homily? But he gave it (or did he give in?). And when he was done, he asked for our (name removed by moderator)ut to add. Only one person offered. Then we prayed the general intercessions.

(Continued below)

Sigh All these A’s, B’s, C’s, GIRM 312, 573 , 673, 233, etc. are confusing to me. If you do option A you don’t have to do C but if you do B you have to do C or A, if you follow GIRM 122 you don’t have to do GIRM 321 but if you choose to do both you don’t do GIRM 133. Blah blah blah blah. The New Mass is more confusing than high school pre-calculus!
Can we PLEASE just have the Old Mass back!??

 

[sphilomena]

To all those interested: I have receive a reply from the priest. Because CAF has rules against posting private communications from another person, I will not disclose the contents here, but I will soon be writing about it on my blog. I’ll leave another update to this thread when I have a post about it online.

Gosh, I don’t usually have time to go through tons of posts, but I did with these today. The title caught my eye! Yes, japhy, I’ll be very interested to see what the priest said. When we feel disturbed, or turmoil within ourselves about these abuses, it is often the discernment the Holy Spirit gives us, to know right from wrong.

 

[japhy]

Sigh All these A’s, B’s, C’s, GIRM 312, 573 , 673, 233, etc. are confusing to me. If you do option A you don’t have to do C but if you do B you have to do C or A, if you follow GIRM 122 you don’t have to do GIRM 321 but if you choose to do both you don’t do GIRM 133. Blah blah blah blah. The New Mass is more confusing than high school pre-calculus!
Can we PLEASE just have the Old Mass back!??

I guess the “New Mass” is like the “New Math”, eh?

But in all seriousness, one of the drawbacks (some would say “defects”) of the Ordinary Form of Mass is that is has so many possible readings – multiple greetings, multiple penitential rites, multiple eucharistic prayers, multiple this, multiple that – that are not “propers”, that are not related to the particular day in the liturgical year. Added to that is the complication of the English translation which often says “the priests uses these or similar words” which is an invitation to chaos.

 

[japhy]

I have posted on my blog about the reply from the priest. It might be more prudent to continue discussion in my blog’s comment-box rather than here, but we can keep it here unless the moderators deem it inappropriate.

thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2008/02/jenga-mass-part-three-priests-reply.html

 

[benedictgal]

I have posted on my blog about the reply from the priest. It might be more prudent to continue discussion in my blog’s comment-box rather than here, but we can keep it here unless the moderators deem it inappropriate.

thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2008/02/jenga-mass-part-three-priests-reply.html

He certainly gives a whole new meaning to “standing in your presence and serving you.” Unfortunately, it conflicts with the Church’s understanding, especially where the posture of the faithful during the Eucharistic Prayer is involved.

One of the presidential debates centered on fuzzy math. I would venture to say that the response was extremely fuzzy liturgy, at worse and misguidance under the alleged “Spirit” of Vatican II.