What you saw was a re-enactment of the Coming of the Light, when the gospel was first introduced to Darnley Island (aka Erub) in the Torres Strait. Coming of the Light look place on July 1, 1871. The gospel was brought to the island by the o London Missionary Society. Now, on July 1st of every year the re-enactment is part of the liturgy on all of the islands of the Torres Strait.
Now, you may be wondering why an Anglican tradition was included in a Catholic mass. The parish on Darnley Island, as are all or most of the parishes in the Torres Strait, is part of the the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). As the TAC is headquartered in Australia and is close to coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, this tradition may have been intentionally included as a way of recognizing the status of the TAC.
Thank you for the explanation. However, while this is a noble and lovely act, it should not have been inserted into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There is a time and a place for such things. Perhaps it could have been done during the Prayer Vigil with the Holy Father or at another suitable venue, but, not the Mass.
As you might expect, some of us were taken aback by what we saw, considering that the Church takes liturgical norms very seriously. As Cardinal Arinze, the Holy See’s point man on liturgy notes:
It is to be remembered that the Eucharistic sacrifice, and indeed the sacred liturgy as a whole, are not something that we make or invent, or put together on our own. They are gifts that we receive, keep, treasure, celebrate and for which we are grateful.
It must be lamented — says Pope John Paul II — that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reforms, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many.8
What transpired in Australia may have been sincere, but, it was also a misguided approach. As the Cardinal further observes:
Liturgical abuses can confuse the congregation and occasion uncertainty, perplexity, scandal, opposition and factionalism. In more severe cases, they can obscure the Catholic faith and prevent the people from sharing fully in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ. To ignore liturgical norms can also reinforce a false understanding of freedom. In ecumenical efforts it introduces problems and sometimes a wrong presentation of the Catholic faith.17
To ignore liturgical norms can in a subtle way introduce secularization and gradual banalization into the liturgy. In this short-sighted vision, a church building may no longer be seen as a sacred place. Do the people then come to church for Mass as to a “meeting” like in a stadium or congress hall? Do they talk in church as if it were not appreciated as a sacred place separated from secular daily events? Does this tendency regard the norms on the use of liturgical vestments as triumphalism? Does it lead to a type of secular leveling down which prefers to say cup instead of chalice, plate instead of paten, dress instead of vestment, and president instead of priest celebrant?
To ignore liturgical norms can gradually introduce such erosions.
This is not to say that the entire Mass was badly celebrated. There were definitely pluses, such as Cardinal Pell’s incredible homily and the Benedictine arrangment of the altar. The music was lukewarm, at best, and the big sour note was Dana’s concert-like performance of the first song used for Communion.
Nonetheless the bottom line remains that while the intentions were good, the manner in which they were carried out wasn’t the best. If they really insisted on having such a ceremony, then it could have been done just before the post-Communion prayer.
Now, the Aborigines are greeting teh Holy Father with a dance. That’s fine becuase it’s not done under the auspices of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It’s not even a liturgical function. But, having something like that in the Mass is an entirely different matter altogether.
