The Metamorphosis of the Catholic Mass

[JKirkLVNV]

fix:

Each trendy vicar or trendy lay person must introduce something by their own private initiative to make the mass more relevant.

This, and this alone, IMHO, is the root cause of each and every abuse to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: they want to put the stamp of their own ego on it, claim it as their own, make it “distinctive.” If the priests would remember that they are Alter Christi while they are celebrating, if they would be self-effacing and transparent, these problems would go away, at least as far as the actual Mass goes. I assume that priests who celebrate like that would also keep the trendy laity in line.

 

[Mysty101]

Dr. Bombay:

Might appear to be a caring, sharing Catholic faith community.

As I have said many times sillliness and/or ridicule is not the the best choice. There are far better ways to show devotion.

 

[buffalo]

There are proscribed postures that are given in the GIRM. If it is not proscribed, one certainly should not think they can proscribe it.

 

[Mysty101]

buffalo:

There are proscribed postures that are given in the GIRM. If it is not proscribed, one certainly should not think they can proscribe it.

There are gestures which are not specifically mentioned that are allowed.

See this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=714604&postcount=51

 

[msproule]

Mysty101:

There are gestures which are not specifically mentioned that are allowed.

See this post.

[forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=714604&postcount=51 ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=714604&postcount=51 [/QUOTE)

Actually, RS makes no mention of bowing before receiving Holy Communion. I think the U.S. norm for receiving while standing after a bow of the head is found in a 2002 publication, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds.

But as discussed in other threads, striking of the breast during the Confiteor is an historical gesture that was never abrogated. I think in accordance with Canon 20 , it should still be in use. I might be wrong (not a Canon lawyer), but nobody has ever contested this argument.

The USCCB’s choice of the word “invited” to reiterate the instruction to bow profoundly during the Creed is perhaps misleading. We are not merely invited to do it. It is not optional (unless one is physically incapable of the act).

 

[kage_ar]

Elzee:

Not, it wasn’t sign language. I’m somewhat familiar with sign language - we have a signer at our parish also.

This was more to the effect of starting with the orans posture, placing one hand over our heart and then the other, looking at your neighbor, extending our arms out (be careful not to whack the person next to you!), grabbing the hand of the person to your left and then your right, extending our arms up, etc. It was awful. :banghead:

Brings to mind the “Hookey Pookey” - put your right hand in, take your right hand out, put your right hand in and shake it all about, do the hookey pookey and turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about. 'Fraid I’d have to step outside to contain my giggles.

 

[Mysty101]

msproule:

Actually, RS makes no mention of bowing before receiving Holy Communion. I think the U.S. norm for receiving while standing after a bow of the head is found in a 2002 publication, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds. .

From RS
**
90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

And the norms fron the GIRM

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

msproule:

But as discussed in other threads, striking of the breast during the Confiteor is an historical gesture that was never abrogated. I think in accordance with Canon 20

, it should still be in use. I might be wrong (not a Canon lawyer), but nobody has ever contested this argument.

Again a posture or gesture at this time is not mentioned in the GIRM. I believe there is no rigidity in posture of the faithful at Mass. There are many options. Unfortunately this does bother some, usually the more conservative or traditional. This lack of rigidity is what allows indult Masses, and if the rules become more strict, the Tridentine, and possibly the TLM might be banned.

Don’t jump all over me --I am speculating. Given Pope Benedict"s love and support of the movements in the Church, I doubt he will go for more rigidity.**

 

[otm]

Vox Borealis:

Uh, except where I see it here in Canada. It may have started in the US (this I do not know), but it is by no means unique to it.

And one wonders what posture is typical at a Mass in, say, Africa? Why is it that the swaying and hand-clapping during hymns there is considered a melding of local customs/culture and liturgy, rather than an “innovation” or "prideful arrogance’?

Because, perhaps, they are not of northern European decent?

 

[otm]

Elzee:

I was at a Mass recently where the priest had a whole set of hand gestures choreographed to the Our Father that he asked the congregation to do with him (the ‘Our Father’ was spoken, not sung). Is this allowed?

It would be permissible if it was sign language for the deaf.

 

[otm]

buffalo:

There are proscribed postures that are given in the GIRM. If it is not proscribed, one certainly should not think they can proscribe it.

Well, Archbishop Chaput seems to think differently.

 

[Elzee]

otm:

It would be permissible if it was sign language for the deaf.

See my post - #39. Sadly it was not sign language.

 

[msproule]

Mysty101:

**Again a posture or gesture at this time is not mentioned in the GIRM. I believe there is no rigidity in posture of the faithful at Mass. There are many options. Unfortunately this does bother some, usually the more conservative or traditional. This lack of rigidity is what allows indult Masses, and if the rules become more strict, the Tridentine, and possibly the TLM might be banned. **

Thanks for including GIRM paragraph 160. For some reason I could not find it earlier, even through I knew it was in there somewhere! The USCCB document I referenced came out in advance of the English translation of the 2002 GIRM.

But as I stated, I do not think the particular gesture of breast beating during the Confiteor was omitted intentionally to allow for flexibility. The 1970 GIRM still instructed the faithful to do the act, although it did not specify how many times, likely because the flawed English translation of the Confiteor only had one “my fault”, instead of three. The 1975 revision excluded any mention of the gesture, but from other documents it seems that one was to assume it was still present implicitly. The 2002 GIRM was a revision of that 1975 edition, so the language is the same.

No disrespect is intended by this statement, but I think the authors just incorrectly assume that we all know the Penitential Rite should be accompanied by striking the breast. I do not believe that the though was to make this optional. What is the point of that? Are those who do not strike their breast less repentant? Am I making any sense?

 

[Vox_Borealis]

otm:

Because, perhaps, they are not of northern European decent?

Yes, but that is my point. There seems to be a double standard that some innovations are considered ok because they are seen as part o the local culture, but other innovations are bad and the product of pride and arrogance. Because Americans, for example, are of northern European descent they must rgidly adhere to the GIRM and then some–no emotion, no innovation, no sponteneity, etc. Any posture or gesture that grandma didn’t do is prideful and wrong. But look at the nice [fill in the blank third world people] with their rythmic movement and colorful dress and gestures, isn’t woderful how they bring their native culture to the mass. What separates handholding during the Our Father (not explicitly forbidden by the GIRM) from other culurally relevant innovations and variations seen in other countries (that are also not forbidden by the GIRM)?

Oh yes, for the record I am not a fan of hand-holding, especially if it is compelled by the priest or laity. If a group of laity spontaneouly hold hands, fine. But it is more problematic if the posture is compelled and therefore institutionalized, thus giving it the appearance of a liturgical norm.

 

[Mysty101]

msproule:

But as I stated, I do not think the particular gesture of breast beating during the Confiteor was omitted intentionally to allow for flexibility. The 1970 GIRM still instructed the faithful to do the act, although it did not specify how many times, likely because the flawed English translation of the Confiteor only had one “my fault”, instead of three. The 1975 revision excluded any mention of the gesture, but from other documents it seems that one was to assume it was still present implicitly. The 2002 GIRM was a revision of that 1975 edition, so the language is the same.

No disrespect is intended by this statement, but I think the authors just incorrectly assume that we all know the Penitential Rite should be accompanied by striking the breast. I do not believe that the though was to make this optional. What is the point of that? Are those who do not strike their breast less repentant? Am I making any sense

We are only speculating, but I personally do believe that they the intention was to relax some of the rules, so there would be less cause for the over-rigid to call abuse. I’m sure many Biishops have far more important tasks than responding to a report that people are not striking their breast, plus if it is written, it would be an abuse (even if unintentional if the person were ignorant), if it were omitted.

Or perhaps you are correct and any implied gesture would not be an abuse if omited?

No disrespect is intended by this statement

And believe me none is taken—I certainly enjoy an intelligent discussion. I want to get things clearer in my own mind, so I do need solid points for a oposing interpretation. I 'm sorry that I lost my temper over the silliness.

 

[TJD]

I agree, too many hard & fast rules could lead to discord.

I did recently read, however, that striking the breast was encouraged by the USCCB. I found it mentioned searching posture and gestures together with recommending a bow during the creed when we profess our belief in Mary giving birth to Christ, unless it is Christmas when we kneel.

TJD

 

[msproule]

Mysty101:

And believe me none is taken—I certainly enjoy an intelligent discussion. I want to get things clearer in my own mind, so I do need solid points for a oposing interpretation. I 'm sorry that I lost my temper over the silliness.

While I certainly meant no disrespect to you either, I was actually referring to the authors of the GIRM.

In other words, I think it is a mistake to assume that we all know to strike our breasts at the appropriate times. To remove any mention of it has led to greater confusion and discord. To remove any mention of it without an explanation has lead to speculation and disunity among the faithful.

Before anybody suggests it, I do not think I know better than the Church. I just fail to see the benefit of using such ambiguous language when referring to something that should be concrete.

 

[otm]

msproule:

Thanks for including GIRM paragraph 160. For some reason I could not find it earlier, even through I knew it was in there somewhere! The USCCB document I referenced came out in advance of the English translation of the 2002 GIRM.

But as I stated, I do not think the particular gesture of breast beating during the Confiteor was omitted intentionally to allow for flexibility. The 1970 GIRM still instructed the faithful to do the act, although it did not specify how many times, likely because the flawed English translation of the Confiteor only had one “my fault”, instead of three. The 1975 revision excluded any mention of the gesture, but from other documents it seems that one was to assume it was still present implicitly. The 2002 GIRM was a revision of that 1975 edition, so the language is the same.

No disrespect is intended by this statement, but I think the authors just incorrectly assume that we all know the Penitential Rite should be accompanied by striking the breast. I do not believe that the though was to make this optional. What is the point of that? Are those who do not strike their breast less repentant? Am I making any sense?

I am old enough to have been attending Mass long before the 1970 GIRM. It seems that it was more of a cultural thing then; that is, I don’t recal anyone ever giving instructions that one had to do that. It is possible that the act was noted in the Missals we had, although I don’t recall it being there; one did it because everyone did it.
It seems to me that it is more of either a cultural act, or a time-related act; I suspect that most people would not immediately associate in with a penitential attitude in general, and I suspect that its origins come from a time that it may have been used more widely than in just the Mass. But that’s just my guess; it may have fallen out of the code because it was seen as more of an anachroistic act - a little bit like tipping your hat to a lady, when manners were much more formal.

 

[otm]

Vox Borealis:

Yes, but that is my point. There seems to be a double standard that some innovations are considered ok because they are seen as part o the local culture, but other innovations are bad and the product of pride and arrogance. Because Americans, for example, are of northern European descent they must rgidly adhere to the GIRM and then some–no emotion, no innovation, no sponteneity, etc. Any posture or gesture that grandma didn’t do is prideful and wrong. But look at the nice [fill in the blank third world people] with their rythmic movement and colorful dress and gestures, isn’t woderful how they bring their native culture to the mass. What separates handholding during the Our Father (not explicitly forbidden by the GIRM) from other culurally relevant innovations and variations seen in other countries (that are also not forbidden by the GIRM)?

Oh yes, for the record I am not a fan of hand-holding, especially if it is compelled by the priest or laity. If a group of laity spontaneouly hold hands, fine. But it is more problematic if the posture is compelled and therefore institutionalized, thus giving it the appearance of a liturgical norm.

Listening to some, there is no double standard; it is “my way or the highway” one rule fits all. Further, in listening to many, one would think that the Roman Catholic church was identical with the Catholic Church, rather than one (albeit the largest) rite among many. I have seen a number of those who were of the "Northern European " mindset come down really hard on other cultures when they came in contact with them; we had a Mass for about 9000+ in our archdiocese a few years ago in our Coliseum, and the comments showed a total ignorance of how the universal Chruch looks on expressions of faith in other cultures; shock was proably a good description, followed by scandal.

It amazes me that one could be scandalized by what is perfectly acceptable in another culture in the Church; but then, ignorance shows no favorites.

 

[otm]

msproule:

While I certainly meant no disrespect to you either, I was actually referring to the authors of the GIRM.

In other words, I think it is a mistake to assume that we all know to strike our breasts at the appropriate times. To remove any mention of it has led to greater confusion and discord. To remove any mention of it without an explanation has lead to speculation and disunity among the faithful.

Before anybody suggests it, I do not think I know better than the Church. I just fail to see the benefit of using such ambiguous language when referring to something that should be concrete.

Let’s all step back and take another look. Striking the breast may have meaning to some, but it has been so long since most people did that in unison, that the gesture has probably become more of a curiosity to many than a meaningful gesture.

We need to be careful that we don’t accord gestures with a greater weight than they actually carry. Throughout time, gestures and postures that can be very meaningful can either change their meaning, or lose their meaning, or lose the intensity of their meaning. I really don’t think there is that much disunity or confusion or discord; well, maybe a bit of confusion, as I would submit that we have at least one generation who dosn’t really understand the meaning or symbolism of beating one’s breast. I would agree that most don’t know that such an act is appropriate at the given times, much less required (which it appears to not be). I also suspect that it is possible to get into a form of rigidity about the whole matter - i.e. is it done with a closed fist or an open hand? Is it done once, or more than once (since the prayer has changed, which I am not convinced is a mis-translation - the prayer is rendered differently intentionally).

 

[Steve_Green]

What a MESS !!!

Let’s have a V III !!!

hands hold, or not, up in the air, or pocket, !!! Pass the kool aid the mother ship is passing over.