The Mass on EWTN - what do you think?

[p1476prl]

This sounds strangely familiar. Nonetheless, the Sunday Mass telecast from Notre Dame is no longer shown on DirecTV. I did not find this impressive. The choir has talent, but, there were some irregularities (over use of EMHCs) that I did not like.

Inasmuch as I do not believe that we should have a lot of singing during Daily Mass (we should stick to singing the parts of the Mass–Gospel Acclamation, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Great Amen–since these are the essentials; leave the full-blown singing for Sundays), the EWTN telecast is reverent and proper.

But, the telecast that blows everyone out of the water comes from the real CTV, the Centro Televiso Vaticano, when it tag-teams with EWTN to bring us the Papal Mass. I would suggest that those planning liturgies and celebrating them should learn from the Church’s Supreme Liturgist, himself, the Holy Father. Ever since the former Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI, the quality of Masses from the Vatican, albeit, all of the Papal liturgies, have gone up a zillion notches. He is really going at it full steam ahead. Just as the Cathedral should be the example of liturgies for the diocese to follow, St. Peter’s Basilica is giving us the example par excellence for the Universal Church to follow.

THANK YOU for your answer, however, you did not address the rest of my questions. Please refer to my original e-mai. I hoped you would agree with me, as our pastot is such low church. Can you beleive that he dose not or has ever heard od the Solem High Mass?
If you could forward some documents that would also describe this rite, as well as answering the balance of my questions, I will be forever greatful. Gratius Agimus Tibi.

 

[benedictgal]

THANK YOU for your answer, however, you did not address the rest of my questions. Please refer to my original e-mai. I hoped you would agree with me, as our pastot is such low church. Can you beleive that he dose not or has ever heard od the Solem High Mass?
If you could forward some documents that would also describe this rite, as well as answering the balance of my questions, I will be forever greatful. Gratius Agimus Tibi.

Here is the quote from Musicam Sacram, the authoritative document of the Holy See on Sacred Music. It lists what should be sung and its ranking:

1. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

1. The following belong to the second degree:

(a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

(b) the Creed;

(c) the prayer of the faithful.

1. The following belong to the third degree:

(a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

(b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

(d) the song at the Offertory;

(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.

As you can see, the Entrance and Communion hymns are at the bottom of the rung, as is the Offertory.

I hope this helps.

 

[PacoG]

Please refer to my original e-mai. I hoped you would agree with me, as our pastot is such low church.

I have never heard of us Catholics dividing ourselves along “low” church and “high” church lines. That’s such a protestant thing.

There is only one Catholic Church. Whether the Mass is sung or just said, it’s the same Mass, the same sacrifice.

 

[Aramis]

I have never heard of us Catholics dividing ourselves along “low” church and “high” church lines. That’s such a protestant thing.

There is only one Catholic Church. Whether the Mass is sung or just said, it’s the same Mass, the same sacrifice.

There are many legitimate forms of the Mass; within the Trent liurgical paradigm alone there are at least 5 subforms with distinct rubrics: the private mass (missa privata), the low mass, the sung mass (missa cantata), the high mass, the pontifical high mass.

Each of the missals in use (Roman OF, Roman EF/Trent, Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Carmelite, Dominican) has at least two subforms (as the hierarchical/pontifical masses have additional rubrics), and most of these have 4+…

My mother often comments about Fr. Greg in San Antonio… 15 minute daily low mass.

The High/Low church distinction can be seen in many dioceses; one parish has lots of servers, very formalized approaches to liturgy, Cassocks and surplices, lots of church organ, and very formal pastor; another, often nearby, is very informal, Fr. John instead of Fr Doe, albs on servers, folk music, and hands up in the air during the Our Father, and never a word of latin.

 

[PJM]

=Monica4316;5145945] I sometimes watch the daily Mass on EWTN. I think that it’s a good example of what the ‘novus ordo’ Mass was meant to be… it follows the rubrics very well, imo, there’s no liturgical abuse, and it’s reverent and overall a very good Mass! what do you think? Does anyone else here watch it? I think if all parishes followed this model, no one would really complain about the ‘novus ordo’ like we see happening

God bless

My dearest Jesus,

Please permit and direct that EVERY MASS in America be said with the same Piety, the same humility, the same sacredness, the same degree of OBEDIENT UNDERSTANDING, and the same kind od verbal…WWJD? instruction one regularly hears On EWTN.

Thank you Lord for the pious, obedient and worthy of you example of turning the “NO” Mass into the YES Mass.

Heaven forbid that someone should emulate this most excellent example!

Love and prayers,

 

[Charioteer]

And while we are on the subject Mass and liturgy, is it not recommended that a crucifix be place facing the priest on the alter/ modos popoulo (facing the congregation),

No, the Church does not “recommend” that although Pope Benedict wrote about that before he became pope.

and should the tabneracle be covered in the same liturgal color of the day. If not covered, should there not be a white drape of some sort inside the tabnercle, to protect the Blessed Sacrament and just keep things looking holy. Also, should not the chalice and paten be covered by a veil, and the corporal be placed in a Burse?

The Church makes no such recommendation – nor does it prohibit the practice. The Church does say that it is “praiseworthy” to veil the chalice though.

 

[Charioteer]

I wish every parish in the USA was fortunate enough to have as reverent and beautiful of a Mass every Sunday morning as they do at the Basilica on the Campus of Notre Dame. They are both reverent and gorgeous.

I don’t judge Masses based on whether or not they are carried on DirectTV. LOL!!! Good grief can you imagine someone actually saying that in person? “I really don’t care for the Mass from Notre Dame because DirectTV stopped carrying it!” LOL again!!!

The music is great.

The homilies are excellent.

The Masses are sans abuses – although I think you can always find someone who believes they are a liturgical expert who could find something that does not jibe with THEIR PERSONAL interpretation of the GIRM, RS or what they personally feel is somehow “best.” It’s best just to pray for such misguided souls…

 

[Holly3278]

I sometimes watch the daily Mass on EWTN. I think that it’s a good example of what the ‘novus ordo’ Mass was meant to be… it follows the rubrics very well, imo, there’s no liturgical abuse, and it’s reverent and overall a very good Mass! what do you think? Does anyone else here watch it? I think if all parishes followed this model, no one would really complain about the ‘novus ordo’ like we see happening

God bless

I agree with you Monica. The EWTN Mass is a very reverent and good Mass. I have never noticed any liturgical abuses when watching it. And praise God for that too! :extrahappy:

 

[benedictgal]

I wish every parish in the USA was fortunate enough to have as reverent and beautiful of a Mass every Sunday morning as they do at the Basilica on the Campus of Notre Dame. They are both reverent and gorgeous.

I don’t judge Masses based on whether or not they are carried on DirectTV. LOL!!! Good grief can you imagine someone actually saying that in person? “I really don’t care for the Mass from Notre Dame because DirectTV stopped carrying it!” LOL again!!!

The music is great.

The homilies are excellent.

The Masses are sans abuses – although I think you can always find someone who believes they are a liturgical expert who could find something that does not jibe with THEIR PERSONAL interpretation of the GIRM, RS or what they personally feel is somehow “best.” It’s best just to pray for such misguided souls…

With all due respect, you seem to remind me of a former member of CAF who went by several names. In fact, he’s made some of the same polnts that you have made. There is no need to have taken such an insutling tone in your last lines.

The Masses telecast from Notre Dame are not exactly the best examples. There seems to be an over-abundance of EMHCs when there are certainly enough celebrants to assist with the distribution of Holy Communion. Some of the music is good, but, there are other tmes when the songs are tinged with OCP’s influence.

The issue of the crucifix being on the altar is something that is prevelent in Pope Benedict’s Masses. The Masses telecast courtesy of EWTN and CTV are the best examples of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The music is phenomenal. The homilies are the finest, given the fact that the preacher is not only the Vicar of Christ, himself, but, also, one of the greatest theological minds to ever occupy the See of St. Peter.

He makes a strong case for it in the Spirit of the Liturgy when he notes that:

The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the Suffering Lord who for us let His side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of Our Lord’s Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the One Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and for ever (Heb. 13. 8).

The orientation of the priest towards the crucifix means that he is not the focus of the Mass; Christ, and Him crucified, is.

 

[Like]

With all due respect, you seem to remind me of a former member of CAF who went by several names. In fact, he’s made some of the same polnts that you have made. There is no need to have taken such an insutling tone in your last lines.

The Masses telecast from Notre Dame are not exactly the best examples. There seems to be an over-abundance of EMHCs when there are certainly enough celebrants to assist with the distribution of Holy Communion. Some of the music is good, but, there are other tmes when the songs are tinged with OCP’s influence.

The issue of the crucifix being on the altar is something that is prevelent in Pope Benedict’s Masses. The Masses telecast courtesy of EWTN and CTV are the best examples of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The music is phenomenal. The homilies are the finest, given the fact that the preacher is not only the Vicar of Christ, himself, but, also, one of the greatest theological minds to ever occupy the See of St. Peter.

He makes a strong case for it in the Spirit of the Liturgy when he notes that:

The orientation of the priest towards the crucifix means that he is not the focus of the Mass; Christ, and Him crucified, is.

I thought there was in the GIRM that a Crucifix is suppose to be on the altar or next to it?

 

[Charioteer]

The Masses from Notre Dame are awesome. Sublime actually. While the ND Masses may not be the “best examples” (whatever that actually means – not that anyone here is a credible arbiter of such) I’ll bet they are a heckuva lot better than the ones attended by those who jealously attack them. In fact given they are abuse-free and downright gorgeous, I see no “better examples” – and that includes the papal Masses. Perhaps just as good but certainly no better – no matter what some peoples’ personal opinions would suggest to them.

I appreciate that the ND doesn’t have the Benedictine-style crucifix/candles which looks rather incongruent if not downright odd at times – and is in no way required by the Church. It looks so-so for the papal Masses but fairly out of balance at daily EWTN Masses. I do like the fact that the Pope makes use of sanctus bell(s.) That’s the sole area I prefer one of his Masses over that of ND’s. ND’s choir is clearly superior. It’s not even close…

 

[Aramis]

I thought there was in the GIRM that a Crucifix is suppose to be on the altar or next to it?

In view of the altar; it can be on the back wall, on a stand next to the altar, on the altar, behind the altar, or even in front of the altar.

1. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.
   (2003 US GIRM.)

the key is that that cross is to be visible to the congregation. HH BXVI has stated that there is merit to a smaller crucifix upon the altar for the celebrant when the main crucifix is not visible; it is neither required nor even advised in the GIRM approved for the US.

 

[Charioteer]

In view of the altar; it can be on the back wall, on a stand next to the altar, on the altar, behind the altar, or even in front of the altar.

1. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.
   (2003 US GIRM.)

the key is that that cross is to be visible to the congregation. HH BXVI has stated that there is merit to a smaller crucifix upon the altar for the celebrant when the main crucifix is not visible; it is neither required nor even advised in the GIRM approved for the US.

Good point. I sure wish it was because there does seem to be a conflict right now. I think the Benedictine-style crucifix/candle lay-out can look OK at times but it can also look rather odd – as I think it does on daily EWTN Masses.

I appreciate the thinking behind it but there seems to be a wide variance in the implementation quality.

 

[Eli4n4]

I love EWTN Mass…I went there and it’s even better in person of course. More incense would be nice (and I’m Roman Catholic…maybe I just like the smell?..feels more holy? I dunno). Still my favorite representation of the mass.

 

[benedictgal]

The Papal Masses are still the ideal standard for the Holy Sacrifice. Granted, there are things that are reserved to the Holy Father (and to a bishop) such as blessing the faithful with the Book of the Gospels, the Papal Mass telecasts from the Vatican represents what the liturgy should look like. The music has improved greatly. The homilies are the best because they are doctrinally sound and are theological masterpieces. After all, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that the Cathedral Church should set the example. Granted, St. Peter’s is not the Cathedral Church, it is, for all practical purposes, the Universal parish church for all Catholics. Since the Holy Father is the principal celebrant, he is leading by example.

The Holy Father takes great strides to ensure that Christ is at the front and center of the Mass and not him. This is why he has employed the particular altar arrangment. It also gives a clear indication that something great is happening here and it really brings home the fact that the veil between heaven and earth is lifted and time and space are suspended.

As I see it, the Notre Dame telecast pales by comparison. There are too many EMHCs. The altar arrangement is something out of the 1970s (like trying to move the altar “close to the people” which does not appear anywhere in the documents) and there are elements of showmanship. I certainly do not get that impression when watching the Mass on EWTN nor the Papal Mass broadcasts.

 

[Aramis]

The Papal Masses are still the ideal standard for the Holy Sacrifice. Granted, there are things that are reserved to the Holy Father (and to a bishop) such as blessing the faithful with the Book of the Gospels, the Papal Mass telecasts from the Vatican represents what the liturgy should look like.

As an aside, the blessing of the faithful with the book of the Gospels is reserved to hierarchs in the Roman church, but is a priestly standard in the Byzantine Rite Churches. Including the Catholic ones.

The Vatican’s televised public liturgy, however, is often not a good model, simply due to the difference of form for hierarchical liturgies combined with the unusual venues often used. Further, the addition of a small crucifix is not yet in rubrics, so technically, it could be considered an abuse outside papal masses (even tho’ it has been mentioned as a commendable practice).

One has to be careful that one doesn’t violate the rubrics when emulating of the Pope, who is essentially able to rewrite them for himself validly (tho’ in doing so, would create a potential for mass confusion). He has not yet publicly promulgated a permission for the second crucifix. It’s the kind of thing that should be put forward through official channels before becoming universal praxis.

 

[benedictgal]

As an aside, the blessing of the faithful with the book of the Gospels is reserved to hierarchs in the Roman church, but is a priestly standard in the Byzantine Rite Churches. Including the Catholic ones.

The Vatican’s televised public liturgy, however, is often not a good model, simply due to the difference of form for hierarchical liturgies combined with the unusual venues often used. Further, the addition of a small crucifix is not yet in rubrics, so technically, it could be considered an abuse outside papal masses (even tho’ it has been mentioned as a commendable practice).

One has to be careful that one doesn’t violate the rubrics when emulating of the Pope, who is essentially able to rewrite them for himself validly (tho’ in doing so, would create a potential for mass confusion). He has not yet publicly promulgated a permission for the second crucifix. It’s the kind of thing that should be put forward through official channels before becoming universal praxis.

True, but, as a whole, the Papal Mass is still the standard bearer.

Now regarding the second crucifix, where is the actual crucifix at St. Peter’s? I have seen one beautiful crucifix (used at Pope John Paul’s funeral and Benedict’s installation Mass) on a couple of occasions, but, not lately. Thus, could the crucifix on the altar not necessarily be a second crucifix?

Crucifix questions aside, though, the reverence, dignity and solemnity of the Papal Mass can certainly be emulated on the homefront. The Holy Sacrifice does not have to be a theatrical production. Whether the faithful number at 500,000, 500 or 50, they should be able to experience beauty, dignity, solemnity and genuine sense of the divine at the Holy Sacrifice. Now, there have been Papal Masses that do not have thousands of people. The Mass for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord is quite small by Papal standards (only about 100 people or so); yet, it is still celebrated with all of the majesty and grandeur as the bigger ones. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is a second crucifix, since the Holy Father, for the past two years, has been celebrating this particular Mass ad orientum. In fact, there are pictures of him celebrating in this manner in his private chapel.

 

[Charioteer]

As an aside, the blessing of the faithful with the book of the Gospels is reserved to hierarchs in the Roman church, but is a priestly standard in the Byzantine Rite Churches. Including the Catholic ones.

The Vatican’s televised public liturgy, however, is often not a good model, simply due to the difference of form for hierarchical liturgies combined with the unusual venues often used. Further, the addition of a small crucifix is not yet in rubrics, so technically, it could be considered an abuse outside papal masses (even tho’ it has been mentioned as a commendable practice).

One has to be careful that one doesn’t violate the rubrics when emulating of the Pope, who is essentially able to rewrite them for himself validly (tho’ in doing so, would create a potential for mass confusion). He has not yet publicly promulgated a permission for the second crucifix. It’s the kind of thing that should be put forward through official channels before becoming universal praxis.

I fully agree. No way can one Mass be truly “universal” (no pun) and that includes the pontifical Masses which clearly have both a Benedictian quality (which would be abusive elsewhere) and a distinctively Western European (read Italian) flavor to them. Nothing intrinsically wrong with the latter but they are hardly the “ideal standard for the Holy Sacrifice” across the world.

For my money it’s difficult to beat a Mass from the National Shine or Notre Dame although the recent Mass for ABp. Tim Dolan at Saint Pat’s in NYC was just about the best I have ever seen. Certainly their choir was the best I have heard.

 

[Frosty]

True, but, as a whole, the Papal Mass is still the standard bearer.

Now regarding the second crucifix, where is the actual crucifix at St. Peter’s? I have seen one beautiful crucifix (used at Pope John Paul’s funeral and Benedict’s installation Mass) on a couple of occasions, but, not lately. Thus, could the crucifix on the altar not necessarily be a second crucifix?

Crucifix questions aside, though, the reverence, dignity and solemnity of the Papal Mass can certainly be emulated on the homefront. The Holy Sacrifice does not have to be a theatrical production. Whether the faithful number at 500,000, 500 or 50, they should be able to experience beauty, dignity, solemnity and genuine sense of the divine at the Holy Sacrifice. Now, there have been Papal Masses that do not have thousands of people. The Mass for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord is quite small by Papal standards (only about 100 people or so); yet, it is still celebrated with all of the majesty and grandeur as the bigger ones. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is a second crucifix, since the Holy Father, for the past two years, has been celebrating this particular Mass ad orientum. In fact, there are pictures of him celebrating in this manner in his private chapel.

I’ve been in St. Peter’s dozens of times and I don’t remember seeing any crucifix other than the one on the High Altar during Mass and of course on the altars in the small chapels. There is a wooden cross ( which I only noticed after many visits and a relative pointed it out to me) that is framed by Bernini’s cathedra as one looks to the west end of the Basilica. It is about eight feet tall and is severely plain and unpainted. It is planted in an equally severe white marble plinth. In any other setting, an object of such size might impose on its surroundings but it is so overpowered by the glories of St. Peter’s interior that ot seems almost nonexistent.
The altar arrangement that has been used recently for Benedict XVI’s Masses in St. Peter’s is not new. The same arrangement was used by Popes for a long time. I saw it used during the pontificates of both Paul VI and John Paul II. However, in more recent years, the last 15 probably, the crucifix was on the altar but off to the side and the candles were staggered on each side. The Pope doesn’t appear to have a particular preference for the “new” arrangement since it isn’t used when he says Mass at the parishes he visits in Rome nor most any other venue than St. Peter’s.
IMHO, although I agree that the papal Masses at St. Peter’s are spectacular, I don’t think that they should be the standard bearer for all other priests and parishes to emulate. Most of the papal Masses at St. Peter’s are for special occasions—Holy Days, canonizations, ordinations, commemorations of some special event, etc. Not the everyday occurance of Mass in the rest of the world. I believe that if one wants to use the Holy Father’s example of celebrating Mass as the standard, one ought to pay attention to those Sunday Masses he celebrates at various Roman parishes throughout the year. All the reverence, the beautifully crafted homilies, the attention to detail is still there and they are much more in keeping with the realities of the universal Church.
Pope Benedict XVI does say Mass facing ad orientam in his private chapel. However, I wouldn’t say that he does so because he prefers it. Rather the chapel is very small ( thirty people in it would be more than packed in like sardines) and the altar is fixed right up against the wall. There is a crucifix on the altar and in the days of JP II, there was an icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa, the Black Madonna, hanging over the altar. Whether or not it is still there, I don’t know.

 

[Charioteer]

"…The Pope doesn’t appear to have a particular preference for the “new” arrangement since it isn’t used when he says Mass at the parishes he visits in Rome nor most any other venue than St. Peter’s…

That’s very interesting to know. Those (like EWTN’s) knee-jerk adoptions of that altar candle/crucifix configuration based on comments in The Spirit of the Liturgy seem to have the same basis as the destruction of high altars a couple of generations earlier – acting without really knowing (or possibly caring) about the subtle details and the potential liturgical impact(s). Thankfully its use is easily reversed where appropriate at little or now cost – unlike their ancestral shenanigans…