Papal Mass at Nationals Stadium illustrates Problems within U.S

  • Thread starter Thread starter T.A.Stobie_SFO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

T.A.Stobie_SFO

Guest
I heard the Papal Mass on EWTN this morning.

Even though the pope has made his preferences clearly known about music, atmosphere, reverence, and respect for the Eucharist, the organizers choose to make it more like half-time entertainment at a football game than a reverent environment encouraging people in deep prayer.

This mass today is the least reverent of all the papal masses I have every heard and I have heard many of them on EWTN.

In the U.S., we need our bishops to listen clearly to the teachings of the church and the Holy Fsther and endeavor to embody reverence in all masses.

Those who publically choose to favor anti-Catholic teachings, such as abortion, should not have been permitted to recieve holy communion.

There was an effort to use Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at the mass, but fortunately the Holy Father blocked that insisted that priests present do their (the priest’s) jobs.

Many of the music choices are what I consider not suitable for mass.

Likewise, the applauding the music is wrong too.
 
We’re watching the rerun of the Mass at Nationals Stadium now… and I do agree with you, concerning the music. Some of it… has been, well… lets say “eye brow lifting”. It evokes memories of the early 70’s “folk Masses”.

I agree with your statement…

“In the U.S., we need our bishops to listen clearly to the teachings of the Church and the Holy Father and endeavor to embody reverence in all Masses”.

We must follow “the Shepard”… because he is Our Lord Jesus’ personal representative… here on earth.
 
Gosh, I watched the mass and never realized all that was
happening. It was a pleasant and holy experience for me.
Although I did have a problem with one of the reporters.
 
cheeto1 said:
Gosh, I watched the mass and never realized all that was
happening. It was a pleasant and holy experience for me.
Although I did have a problem with one of the reporters.
Click to expand...
It was prayerful, yes. But I thought some of the music was very “mod”, (not traditional) especially during the Liturgy of the Word.

I hadn’t realized that the Holy Father had requested more traditional music, atmosphere… etc… as OP said. But it didn’t seem to be traditional music.🤷
 
cheeto1 said:
Gosh, I watched the mass and never realized all that was
happening. It was a pleasant and holy experience for me.
Although I did have a problem with one of the reporters.
Click to expand...
Yes it was similar for me. I realized the music wasn’t what the Pope prefers, but I quickly let that thought go out of my head.

I did have a minor issue with watching the live feed from the USCCB on the internet and had a problem with one of the “reporters” commenting during a reading. If I remember right he was telling who one of the readers was. He should have known better to wait until a break in the readings. I can understand the secular reporters making that mistake, but not the ones on the USCCB website.

But I praise God that the USCCB had the live feed.
 
It was a pleasant and holy experience for me.
Although I did have a problem with one of the reporters.
Click to expand...
Me, too, Cheeto. It was very inappropriate for EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo and his priest/commentator to “lead” the listener to their own particular critique. This is not the first time Arroyo has done this, and it is in bad taste for a reporter to inject his own bias. His duty is to report neutrally and let the listener draw his own conclusions. I heard comments that the mass was an “amazon” of multicultural aspects, as opposed to providing “Mozart and Gregorian chant” — the Pope’s preference.

I do recall the phrase, expressed many times, that the Pope is a “Servant of the servants of God.” In that light, why is Arroyo concerned that the 46,000 who attended the mass must be servants of the Servant, arranging the mass only to his preferences?

Incidentally, IMO, the music left MUCH to be desired, and you and I can all express it as our opinions. But let the narrator be silent.
 
The thread title implies a judgment on U.S. Catholics that I don’t believe is true. "Mass illustrates poblems within U.S. "

When I was in Rome in St. Peter’s Square, the emotion that came over me when John Paul II came among us was overwhelming and one that I was not prepared for. Such joy! To be in the presence of the Holy Father with people of every nationality, culture and race, kinda reminded me of what heaven will be like. We were all one heart and one soul united together with our Pope.

Though some of us disliked the choice of music in Pope Benedict’s mass, it is not in itself a reflection of “problems in the U.S.” I’m sure those who arranged the mass took into consideration the many different Catholics who would be in attendance and tried to listen to the Spirit to bring forth that which would accomodate everyone. To say otherwise is to cast aspersions and be very hurtful to the coordinators if they were to hear of it.

It also casts a pall over our Pope, who comes in good will and good faith to meet with our citizens. He is not here prepared to be downcast over liturgy. To think he might be disappointed, as Arroyo suggests, is to suggest he is a sourpuss. 😉 Our clergy have experienced over their years, many variant liturgies and are well used to divergence.

Contrast the vesper service the evening before, where most of the music was latin and very much ordered for the participants, who were primarily the Bishops. That makes a huge difference, when you remember that in a crowd of 46,000 people, few would be able to participate if the choices were similar to the vesper service.
That was no doubt the consideration of the coordinators.
Those who publically choose to favor anti-Catholic teachings, such as abortion, should not have been permitted to recieve holy communion.
Click to expand...
May I ask how you know that with certainty?
There was an effort to use Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at the mass, but fortunately the Holy Father blocked that insisted that priests present do their (the priest’s) jobs.
Click to expand...
I missed this also. Did the Pope motion the EMHC’s away?
Likewise, the applauding the music is wrong too.
Click to expand...
I noticed that whenever there was clapping, Pope Benedict opened wide his arms along with the people, and gave a huge smile. Didn’t appear to me that he was upset, so should anyone else be?

One sentence stood out in A.B. Wuerl’s welcome, which for us is a duty we need to take seriously, “Make all things new in Christ, our Hope!”
 
At the conclusion of the Papal Mass… EWTN Anchor Raymond Arroyo said that they had received a lot of e-mails expressing confusion about the musical selections. The priest co-commentating with Raymond Arroyo… said that the music seemed to be a sort of ethnic “stew”. In other words, they tried to emphasize the ethnic diversity which exists in the United States. I don’t really see anything wrong with expressing the diversity of our country. We are afterall… an “ethnic stew”. 😉

But, it sounds like the Holy Father wanted more to emphasize our unity, as the Catholic Church. He wanted to underscore our unity, in Christ… not so much our diversity… as a nation. He makes these visits to foreign lands in order to unify. From what I’m hearing, the Holy Father had requested a more traditional atmosphere. But they chose to go in another direction. Kind of sad, since he may not be able to visit us again any time soon. Like the OP, I feel they should have honored his preference.

In regards to Eucharistic Ministers… none were shooed away. They simply opted not to use any. At the start of the Mass, Arroyo and the priest commentator explained that the correct title for Eucharistic Ministers… is “Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister”. Meaning, that normally… the assistance of Lay Ministers is to be sought only in extraordinary circumstances, where there aren’t enough priests and deacons to give Holy Communion to the Faithful. In this case… the opposite was quite the case. There were more than enough priests and deacons available.
 
I didn’t care for some of the music, but I think someone requested this music to show diversity that we have here in our country. I think it sort of went along with all the diverse people walking up presenting prayer requests, etc.

This was not a typical mass by any means, being in an outdoor stadium, crowds of 45,000, the pope giving a very long homily, people coming up to the pope during mass, very different indeed. I did not expect the mass to be like anything that Rome does.

I try not to be critical, if anything was not right, the Holy Father will let us know, and we can learn from it. He is a very loving good shepherd, and what matters is what is in the heart, not which music is the best, etc.

I love the Holy Father being here in the US, and will be sad to see him go back to Rome.

Blessings
 
We have the USCCB to thank for the krappy music at yesterday’s Mass…and in fact ALL of the masses. tomorrow’s youth rally also promises krappy music. But to be fair, not all the music yesterday was awful, but I really did hate Kathleen Battle’s rendition of the Our Father on Wednesday for these two reasons: it was an awful arrangement and it was the Protestant version.
 
I do not wish to be judgmental as to the Mass. It can not be easy to decide what these very rare occasions should be like. I am sure that the temptation to squeeze in too much results in an appearance of overly showy spectacle.
 
cheeto1 said:
Although I did have a problem with one of the reporters.
Click to expand...
I don’t have EWTN and the reporter on another station said to
the other one, “Yes, I’m going to get communion, as you know,
I’m Catholic”. I felt like chatting throughout the mass with a
fellow reporter on TV is a poor way to participate in the mass
and sets a bad example to fellow Catholics. If I was doing my
job as a reporter on TV, I wouldn’t consider it participating in
the mass.
 
Joysong said:
I noticed that whenever there was clapping, Pope Benedict opened wide his arms along with the people, and gave a huge smile. Didn’t appear to me that he was upset, so should anyone else be?
"
Click to expand...
Didn’t he once say, “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 attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits,”
~Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Raymond Arroyo mentioned on EWTN today how the Mass in spite of its setting was very beautiful and dignified. I heard fabulous music (Tenor from the Met) and witnessed a moving Liturgy. The people in the stadium were obviously moved, regenerated and had an experience they will never forget.

Benedict handled all of it wonderfully and in fact I think his US visit was a huge success. He spoke about substantial issues and touched people (in admittedly a different way than Pope JP II).

I heard someone comment that JP II was like mom and would give you a hug and tell you it would be alright but Benedict is more like Dad. He will tell you it will be alright but you must do and understand the following.

The Papal visit was historic for many reasons and spoke well of this Pope and the Church.
 
Joey1976 said:
Didn’t he once say, “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 attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits,”
~Cardinal Ratzinger
Click to expand...
Maybe it is different when you are the one on the receiving end…
 
I hadn’t read this post before seeing today’s Yankee Stadium Mass. First, I never saw the televised version at National Stadium. But I hadn’t heard either about the Pope’s requests. At Yankee Stadium, I was dismayed seeing SO many people receiving Holy Communion in the hand - even from the Pope. And during the Mass, those discussing it were talking about how precautions, etc., for those going up to the higher levels. Did they consider the possibility of dropping the Host? I remember there being a request during one of Pope John Paul II’s visits that no one who received from him receive in the hand.

Today’s music was okay during the Mass - but prior to it - a bit too secular at times. But I know they were trying to entertain a long-sitting/waiting crowd.
 
Eilish Maura:
Well maybe not having a big grin and arms open wide…
Click to expand...
Nobody as conservative as this Pope would be able to pull off a genuine heartfelt action such as this unless he truly meant it. Perhaps he did author some comments about applause several years ago. How many of us have changed our opinions and regretted stands we took on issues in the past?

The old adage, “actions speak louder than words” would lead one to believe he was not upset by the applause.
 
I think that he understood that the feeling behind that applause was genuine and he was really touched by it. There really wasn’t another way for the people to express their joy at being with him, to be honest.

How many of those people who were fortunate enough to see him will have an awakening of their faith? Maybe they’re online today, looking for his writings, maybe they spent the morning at Mass or praying the Rosary. Sure, there were things at the Papal masses that weren’t perfect, but maybe he’s wiser than us. Maybe he knows that if even ONE person’s faith grows because of what they experienced, it’s worth all the things that went wrong. I know my enthusiam for my faith got a jump start with his visit-and I only saw him on TV!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top