Multi-Culture Mass... Had a blast...

[benedictgal]

Rebecca, don’t be put down by some of the comments here. there is nothing wrong with what occured, and its wonderful you saw the beauty of people of different backgrounds coming together to praise God

However, there is a danger when we make the cultural diversification more important than the Mass itself. Even the Papal Masses, which use several different languages for the readings and the General Intercessions, maintain the solemnity and dignity of the Holy Sacrifice. Even those who bear the offertory gifts do have some share in multiculturalism because they wear their native dress.

What, with all due respect, you seem to ignore, is what was stated in Sacramentum Caritatis regarding the use of Latin. Latin is the unifying force here. It is, as much as you may not want to admit it, a universal language, the universal language.

The cultural diversity could have occurred outside of the Mass, not during the Holy Sacrifice.

 

[choy]

However, there is a danger when we make the cultural diversification more important than the Mass itself. Even the Papal Masses, which use several different languages for the readings and the General Intercessions, maintain the solemnity and dignity of the Holy Sacrifice. Even those who bear the offertory gifts do have some share in multiculturalism because they wear their native dress.

What, with all due respect, you seem to ignore, is what was stated in Sacramentum Caritatis regarding the use of Latin. Latin is the unifying force here. It is, as much as you may not want to admit it, a universal language, the universal language.

The cultural diversity could have occurred outside of the Mass, not during the Holy Sacrifice.

you are the one thats ignoring what is said in the SC about Latin. there is nothing there that says Latin is mandatory. therefore these good people here did nothing wrong. and you’re making it like they did, because of your own personal bias

 

[mick321]

You uptight Traditionalist should leave 'becca 'lone!

Our parish offers the approved multicultural version of the Extraordinary Form twice weekly. Catholics from many different races, cultures, ethnic groups and nations of origin travel untold miles to assist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Honestly, it is all basically the same as we all do. As Roman Catholics, we respond to the prayers in unison, using our native language. Likewise, we dress in our native clothing. The womenfolk - regardless of cultural affiliation - seem to prefer the mantilla-style head-covering. This has not caused a problem, yet. I would say the only huge difference was the music. Each Ethnic group has distinctive music presets programmed into their car audio systems.

Please keep in mind, this is something we do all the time. The Bishop has never attended. Apparently, this is not what he wants. That’s OK though. It’s what the Holy Father wants. We all may be different, but we are all one as Catholics.

Isn’t it great?

 

[ProVobis]

had us all recite the Lord’s Prayer in our native language,

Pity the poor kids who were trying to learn it.

 

[ErichK]

The Bishop has never attended. Apparently, this is not what he wants. That’s OK though. It’s what the Holy Father wants.

That sounds dangerously like protestantism. Considering God has not come down from heaven to speak to mankind for over 2,000 years, and that He speaks through the Pope with the Holy Spirit, (whom has urged a return to more traditional music)…hm.

So to all of you supporting this blasphemy against tradition, the following are excerpts from His Holiness Benedict XVI’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Lo*gos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)… (P.151)

Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. Before the Passion, Christ had abandoned the body that in any case he had never really assumed. Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes—incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy— none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly—it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. None of the Christian rites includes dancing. (P. 198)

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[ErichK]

The 21st century sickens me as each day draws past. Beautiful and precious traditions are destroyed by this “political correct” liberalism that makes itself more prominent every day. No matter what someone says, no matter what someone does, at least SOMEONE gives that person a trophy or a certificate just for existing, and then curses shame upon everyone that spoke the truth. We cannot deny truth, especially with religion, because if we began to view our truths of the Church as objective, we would turn into just another protestant sect. The Traditions of the Church are part of Her truths, handed down to us from the Apostles, who followed Christ, who was GOD IN FLESH. As far as I’m concerned, by tossing aside tradition for ecumenical modernity, we are tossing aside a gift from God. It’s absolutely DISGUSTING that you people are tossing these aside, and then CURSING those of us who cherish them, in order to appease your senses; to fulfill your temptations, and to please the very Satan himself whom has infiltrated the Church.

This is not my opinion - this is how it is, and every single one of you that support the casting away of precious and beautiful God-inspired Holy tradition and replace it with something dumbed down to appease to the finite-minded people are no better than the next Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, or strip-mall-church-goer out there. Shame, shame, shame!

The next time you go to Church, look around, and ask yourself if the Church walls will stand the test of time. Look at the mass closely, and ask if it will be remembered exactly how it is being performed today in 500 years. Listen closely to the songs, and ask yourself if they will be sung in 500 years.

Then, look at the Tridentine Mass, and ask yourself how long that has lasted. Look at the Churches and Cathedrals of Europe and 18th century America / Colonization-era nations, and ask yourself how they are standing the test of time.

The acceptance of modernity is the acceptance of an egotistical ideal that serves nothing more than the present with little or no regard to the future or the longevity of the future, and it’s because of people like myself and the blessed but dwindling others out there that the Church has survived for 2,000 years. I’m quite confident that if these sorts of travesties had befallen the Church, even as little as 100 years ago, the Catholic Church would be destroyed. It’s time to change back to long-lasting permanence before She becomes just another “sect” of Christianity, and not the one true Faith.

Part of being a Catholic is submitting to the Church, not trying to force the Church to submit to you. Shame.

 

[ErichK]

See this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6737875

 

[choy]

The 21st century sickens me as each day draws past. Beautiful and precious traditions are destroyed by this “political correct” liberalism that makes itself more prominent every day. No matter what someone says, no matter what someone does, at least SOMEONE gives that person a trophy or a certificate just for existing, and then curses shame upon everyone that spoke the truth. We cannot deny truth, especially with religion, because if we began to view our truths of the Church as objective, we would turn into just another protestant sect. The Traditions of the Church are part of Her truths, handed down to us from the Apostles, who followed Christ, who was GOD IN FLESH. As far as I’m concerned, by tossing aside tradition for ecumenical modernity, we are tossing aside a gift from God. It’s absolutely DISGUSTING that you people are tossing these aside, and then CURSING those of us who cherish them, in order to appease your senses; to fulfill your temptations, and to please the very Satan himself whom has infiltrated the Church.

This is not my opinion - this is how it is, and every single one of you that support the casting away of precious and beautiful God-inspired Holy tradition and replace it with something dumbed down to appease to the finite-minded people are no better than the next Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, or strip-mall-church-goer out there. Shame, shame, shame!

The next time you go to Church, look around, and ask yourself if the Church walls will stand the test of time. Look at the mass closely, and ask if it will be remembered exactly how it is being performed today in 500 years. Listen closely to the songs, and ask yourself if they will be sung in 500 years.

Then, look at the Tridentine Mass, and ask yourself how long that has lasted. Look at the Churches and Cathedrals of Europe and 18th century America / Colonization-era nations, and ask yourself how they are standing the test of time.

The acceptance of modernity is the acceptance of an egotistical ideal that serves nothing more than the present with little or no regard to the future or the longevity of the future, and it’s because of people like myself and the blessed but dwindling others out there that the Church has survived for 2,000 years. I’m quite confident that if these sorts of travesties had befallen the Church, even as little as 100 years ago, the Catholic Church would be destroyed. It’s time to change back to long-lasting permanence before She becomes just another “sect” of Christianity, and not the one true Faith.

Part of being a Catholic is submitting to the Church, not trying to force the Church to submit to you. Shame.

you’re forgetting the part that all these traditions you’re speaking about were modern and new at one point of history. they weren’t age old traditions all the time. when the churches were founded, they took the culture and the practice of that time, meaning it was the modern practice at that time. it wasn’t an evil back then, why should it be an evil today. the Church needs to adjust to where the world is today to continue its mission of saving souls. Jesus Himself said He didn’t come for the righteous. why should we keep the Church only for the devout? if the nets are on one side of the boat and are not catching any fish, then it should be pulled out and cast the other side of the boat where it will catch many fish

 

[benedictgal]

you’re forgetting the part that all these traditions you’re speaking about were modern and new at one point of history. they weren’t age old traditions all the time. when the churches were founded, they took the culture and the practice of that time, meaning it was the modern practice at that time. it wasn’t an evil back then, why should it be an evil today. the Church needs to adjust to where the world is today to continue its mission of saving souls. Jesus Himself said He didn’t come for the righteous. why should we keep the Church only for the devout? if the nets are on one side of the boat and are not catching any fish, then it should be pulled out and cast the other side of the boat where it will catch many fish

However, that does not mean abandoning what the Church holds sacred. One can certainly have a multi-cultural celebration and introduce elements like the proclamation of the readings and General Intercessions in particular native languages. But, there needs to be a unifying factor. That factor should be Latin. Why do you think that the Holy Father wrote what he wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Wow. This thread is really sad. Apparently people from different cultures combined to have a Mass in which the way each of their cultures has Mass is put together and the thread devolves into a thread about why Latin would be better. Of course, there’s the usual demeaning of the way people worship God throughout different cultures. I have news for all of you, that’s how Mass is said in MANY parts of the world. Other cultures do not always view “solemn” in the same way that Western European cultures do.

There’s a million theads in which people can argue why Latin is the greatest language ever created, why hijack a thread about a simple celebration of the Church’s universality?

 

[Julianna]

1st, yes this really happened…

2nd, I did enjoy it, I really did. To see how different ethnic groups, in their own country, celebrate the Catholic Mass is great. Honestly it was all basically the same as we all do, but in their native language. The also dressed in their native clothing. So it really made see how the Catholic Religion has spread among the different countries. I would say the only huge difference, besides their native tongue, was the music. Each Ethnic group had distinctive music, and I am so glad that I had that chance to be a part of that.

Please keep in mind, this is not something we do all the time, our Church had never never down this before, apparently this is what the Arch-Bishop wanted, and that was his key point, that although we all may be different, we are all one as Catholics…

Thank you for sharing this. Not all of us live a “fishbowl” like existence. There is a “real world” out there full of wonderful things to celebrate. And that is a good thing.

 

[Mary1973]

I think what drew me to this thread was “had a blast”. To me, one does not “have a blast” at Mass. However, I think the OP was just expressing the profound spiritual experience she had at the Mass, using an idiomatic expression.

What disturbs me about these types of Masses is that the emphasis does seem to be on the people and not on God and the sacrifice of Jesus. That is what must be avoided.

I also think that what some posters were trying to express is that the Mass should be the same no matter where it is celebrated. Of course, I mean if we are using the Latin Rite. The only difference should be the vernacular. No Catholic should ever be at Mass and scratching their head and thinking “what are they doing now?”. This has happened to me when attending Mass in a foreign country.

 

[damooster]

There is a “real world” out there full of wonderful things to celebrate. And that is a good thing.

The only thing we should be celebrating at Mass is Our Lord’s sacrifice; not cultures, musics, dancing, man etc.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

What saddens me is the OP was sharing their wonderful experience of multicultural worship of the LORD and some people quickly turned this into a scornful thread.
Yes, I agree mass should be solemn and sans flashy rock bands, but still.
By the way, the mass wasn’t always in Latin, there was a time when the Latin Mass was the “Novus Ordum”. Yes, I do enjoy the Tridentine mass, but I’d rather worship with my words in a more personal way.

 

[Paganus]

Sounds like an interesting Mass. I went a local Mass where everyone prayed the Our Father in their own language: we had Americans, Yankees, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Hmong and Togolese. It was nice.

“Break the conventions and keep the commandments.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

[ProVobis]

By the way, the mass wasn’t always in Latin

What about in the West? Didn’t Latin (and the Catholic Church, for that matter), lay the foundation for Western civilization, its liturgy, its art, its music, its culture, its laws, etc.? The Latin alphabet is still used throughout most of its languages. No small deal there.

, there was a time when the Latin Mass was the “Novus Ordum”.

I think you mean “Novus Ordo,” which, by the way was also promulgated in Latin?

 

[Timothysis]

What about in the West? Didn’t Latin (and the Catholic Church, for that matter), lay the foundation for Western civilization?

One could actually argue that the Greek world laid the foundation of Western civilization. The Roman culture was actually a barbarized version of the Greeks. There’s a reason why the story of Archimedes being cut down by a Roman soldier while working out a mathematical problem in the sand is told.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

What about in the West? Didn’t Latin (and the Catholic Church, for that matter), lay the foundation for Western civilization?

Greek was actually used in the early Church.
See Here
Even the Tridentine Mass wasn’t the Ordinary until 1570.

 

[ProVobis]

One could actually argue that the Greek world laid the foundation of Western civilization.

No doubt it did. As did Hebrew. But even today the Greek has managed to evolve into a transliterated language which now relies on the Latin alphabet. How did we allow that?

The Roman culture was actually a barbarized version of the Greeks. There’s a reason why the story of Archimedes being cut down by a Roman soldier while working out a mathematical problem in the sand is told.

The Greeks were most advanced people. Yes, they were solid in mathematics and science. They knew the earth was round millenniums before Copernicus. Even though the Romans conquered the Greeks, they did preserve their language and their brilliance.

But judging by the fact that the inscription on the cross was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, we could argue ad nauseam which had the wider appeal at the time of Christ. And do we know for a fact that ALL liturgies back then were in Greek? Seems as if somewhere in the ruins of Pompeii, archaelogists have traced Latin in the liturgy all the way back till at least then.

 

[Timothysis]

No doubt it did. As did Hebrew. But even today the Greek has managed to evolve into a transliterated language which now relies on the Latin alphabet. How did we allow that?

The Greeks were most advanced people. Yes, they were solid in mathematics and science. They knew the earth was round millenniums before Copernicus. Even though the Romans conquered the Greeks, they did preserve their language and their brilliance.

But judging by the fact that the inscription on the cross was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, we could argue ad nauseam which had the wider appeal at the time of Christ. And do we know for a fact that ALL liturgies back then were in Greek? Seems as if somewhere in the ruins of Pompeii, archaelogists have traced Latin in the liturgy all the way back till at least then.

For sure, but to suggest that the latin language was the foundation of Western civilization is a spurious argument at best.