Mass as worship?

[jdconvert]

I hear lots of complaints about the OF liturgy. The music is awful, there’s no reverence, etc…
A lot of times when someone voices such a complaint, the response is something like “the mass is about the eucharist; don’t worry so much about all the other stuff.”

But isn’t the mass about the worship of God, culminating in receiving His body and blood? If it’s solely about communion, then why bother with the opening rites, the liturgy of the word and other stuff? All these things are there to create an atmosphere of worship and reverence, and if that’s lacking, how can we say that we’re attending a Sacred Liturgy?

I think that Eastern and EF liturgies might have a different focus. In them, all aspects of the service work together and build up to the crescendo of the Eucharist. There’s a connection and seamless flow between one aspect of the liturgy and the other. They’re not just about receiving the Eucharist, but about creating a space for God to be adored and glorified.

Any thoughts?

 

[YoungTradCath]

There have been various comments about this very topic in other threads as of late. It seems that many people are in agreement with you, and so am I.

There is always argument on this board from some users that people should generally overlook abuses except the gravest ones. I think that’s a ridiculous and horrific (to put it basically) attitude to have. The people of this particular opinion posit the idea that as long as a mass is valid, then there is nothing to complain about. I cannot disagree with this anymore than I do already. They say that somehow an abuse-laden mass should be our “cross to bear,” and that we will gain graces from doing so. I think that is utterly flawed and completely asinine. I believe it is the duty of anyone who recognizes an abuse to bring it to the attention of the priest celebrant, then to the pastor, then to the bishop, then to the Vatican, but only escalating the issue if necessary.

I think it is prudent to of course consider that some things are, indeed, mistakes. One must exercise proper judgment. I think it is a bit foolish to point out the tiniest mistakes to the priest celebrant, and should only be done if they reoccur, even if only a second time. However, moderate and grave mistakes, I think, should be pointed out the first time they occur. Purposeful abuses, likewise, should be pointed out the first time they occur even if they are seemingly minor (it is usually hard to determine whether an abuse is simply a mistake or a purposeful abuse, but it can be done in some instances).

 

[Nelka]

What is all tthis OF and EF stuff?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

What is all tthis OF and EF stuff?

OF = Ordinary Form

EF = Extraordinary Form

Both are forms of the Roman Rite of Mass.

The OF uses the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI until this weekend and then will use its third edition (promulgated by Blessed John Paul II) from this coming weekend.

The EF uses the Roman Missal of 1962 promulgated by John XXIII. It is the pre-Vatican II Mass.

OF may be in Latin or a vernacular language or a mixture of both. The EF is in Latin but the readings may be in the vernacular as may the homily.

 

[MarkThompson]

I hear lots of complaints about the OF liturgy. The music is awful, there’s no reverence, etc…
A lot of times when someone voices such a complaint, the response is something like “the mass is about the eucharist; don’t worry so much about all the other stuff.”

But isn’t the mass about the worship of God, culminating in receiving His body and blood? If it’s solely about communion, then why bother with the opening rites, the liturgy of the word and other stuff? All these things are there to create an atmosphere of worship and reverence, and if that’s lacking, how can we say that we’re attending a Sacred Liturgy?

I think that Eastern and EF liturgies might have a different focus. In them, all aspects of the service work together and build up to the crescendo of the Eucharist. There’s a connection and seamless flow between one aspect of the liturgy and the other. They’re not just about receiving the Eucharist, but about creating a space for God to be adored and glorified.

Any thoughts?

The mistake is in thinking that the Mass is, or should be, “about” only one thing. People will say “the Mass is exclusively about God!”, but then, as you notice, that leads to other errors and misconceptions, such as seeing the Liturgy of the Word as irrelevant or as something done only to honor God, and ignoring the teaching function of the Mass. “The Mass,” this line of argument goes, “is supposed to be ‘vertical,’ not ‘horizontal’ – about God, not about us.”

It is better, I think, to say that the Mass is about our relationship with God. Remember that the Mass is, ultimately, not man’s gift to God, but God’s gift to man. To take man, and thus one’s fellow man, and thus the effect of the Mass upon each and all of us, out of the equation entirely is to deny a part of the fundamental nature of the Mass. On one hand, we go to offer God praise and adoration; on the other hand, He nourishes us with the Bread of Life. On one hand, other people and the “community” are irrelevant to the incredible intimacy of worship and Communion; on the other hand, the presence of community is vital to the corporate act of worship of the whole Church, so much so that even when we hear Mass alone the Church teaches that we are joined by the entire community of saints and angels. Likewise, to take an example, on one hand baptism is about the individual’s salvation and relationship with God; on the other, it is about joining with the community of the Church (Militant, if you like), which is the whole Body of Christ manifest on earth.

Accordingly, we are right to spurn the Manichaean view that posits that the Mass must be “about” one single thing, to the exclusion of everything else. Is it about repentance? Redemption? Giving? Receiving? Adoration? Education? The Last Supper? Calvary? The answer is “Yes, in the proper measure of each, as the Holy Church shall have provided.”

 

[MariaGoretti88]

Hello all! Glad to finally be posting here instead of just reading (which I do very frequently); it’s very thought provoking.

But isn’t the mass about the worship of God, culminating in receiving His body and blood? If it’s solely about communion, then why bother with the opening rites, the liturgy of the word and other stuff? All these things are there to create an atmosphere of worship and reverence, and if that’s lacking, how can we say that we’re attending a Sacred Liturgy?

I agree. Saying that It’s just about the Consecration and Holy Communion; don’t pay so much attention to the other stuff is a little dangerous and could give the unfortunate impression that those other things are not that important. They are important and are there for a reason: To edify the faithful (and those otherwise present) and aid them in adoring God, giving thanks to Him, atoning for their sins, and begging His Grace. These things are supposed to reach their climax during the Consecration and, depending on one’s dispositions, reception of Holy Communion.

On the other hand, the essence of the Holy Mass comes from the Proclamation of the Holy Gospel and the words of Consecration said by the priest. If these two things are at least present, one can draw some fruit and Grace (Actual and/or Sanctifying) from assisting at the Sacred Mysteries; if your goal was to atone and make satisfaction for some venial sins by assisting, regardless of the atmosphere, you can still do that under most circumstances I would say. Even in the “less than ideal”

But still, those other things prescribed in the rubrics, GIRM, Missale Romanum, etc. are there for a reason and should not be taken as suggestions. No prayers should willfully be omitted, nor any part of the priest’s vestments, altar decorations, and so on and so forth. These things are part of the Mass and deserve the proper reverence.

It’s very sad that many Catholics have to fight for Masses that are at least valid, notwithstanding trying to increase reverence for other parts of the Mass.

I hardly have this problem in the EF though ^^

Pax Christi,
Christopher

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve not been on these forums for a day. I thought this would have been a very hot thread.

 

[zab]

I hear lots of complaints about the OF liturgy. The music is awful, there’s no reverence, etc…
A lot of times when someone voices such a complaint, the response is something like “the mass is about the eucharist; don’t worry so much about all the other stuff.”

But isn’t the mass about the worship of God, culminating in receiving His body and blood? If it’s solely about communion, then why bother with the opening rites, the liturgy of the word and other stuff? All these things are there to create an atmosphere of worship and reverence, and if that’s lacking, how can we say that we’re attending a Sacred Liturgy?

I think that Eastern and EF liturgies might have a different focus. In them, all aspects of the service work together and build up to the crescendo of the Eucharist. There’s a connection and seamless flow between one aspect of the liturgy and the other. They’re not just about receiving the Eucharist, but about creating a space for God to be adored and glorified.

Any thoughts?

Mass celebrated in the Ordinary Form at my parish has beautiful music and is very reverent. It is a shame that you have been led to believe that “Eastern and EF liturgies have a different focus.”

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I’ve not been on these forums for a day. I thought this would have been a very hot thread.

Greetings YoungTradCath,

Give it time, I am sure it will become one. I checked it out and was suprised by the pleasant discussion so far. I pray that it continues.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[PerfectTiming]

I think perhaps the problem you describe is not to do with the particular rite of Mass itself but perhaps the people that go to it. In the end, the EF is not as common as the OF so one often has to go slightly more out of their way to find one to attend. A person who will go that distance is probably stronger in their faith than one who will not. With the OF being the more common practice, you then get both those who are stronger in faith and just prefer the OF and those who are simply ‘Sunday Catholics’ and go to Mass out of habit rather than anything else. That in mind, there would be more people who don’t care about reverence in an OF than and EF, not by fault of the rite itself. And of course there is an effect of our culture and society - in Western society we are losing our sense of respect and honour to others, it’s all about ‘me, me, me’.

Mass celebrated in the Ordinary Form at my parish has beautiful music and is very reverent. It is a shame that you have been led to believe that “Eastern and EF liturgies have a different focus.”

I agree with you. I hear people constantly complain on these forums yet I have never experienced anything remotely negative in the OF. I find both forms of the Mass to be beautiful, there are things I prefer in one form over the other but I enjoy each. I think the EF is more private in the way people worship whereas in the OF it’s more of a sense of the congregation all worshipping together. It’s perfectly legitimate to prefer one style over the other, as long as one is charitable about the other.

 

[Nelka]

OF = Ordinary Form

EF = Extraordinary Form

Both are forms of the Roman Rite of Mass.

The OF uses the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI until this weekend and then will use its third edition (promulgated by Blessed John Paul II) from this coming weekend.

The EF uses the Roman Missal of 1962 promulgated by John XXIII. It is the pre-Vatican II Mass.

OF may be in Latin or a vernacular language or a mixture of both. The EF is in Latin but the readings may be in the vernacular as may the homily.

Thanks.

I’m terrible with abbreviations.