Why all the fuss about clapping, cheering, etc at Mass?

[JReducation]

We must be careful not to add things to the rubrics of the mass that are not there. Just because we read a document or a declaration from the Church doesn’t make us experts on liturgy. If you want to see how these documents and declarations are interpreted I suggest that you get hold of a Sacramentary and a Lectionary, not the little missal that we have for our personal use, but the big one that the clerics use at liturgy. The documents and their applications are in there.

Every step is described and every exception as well.

We have too many amateur liturgists running around these days.

By the way, if you belong to a parish that is run by a religious order of Pontifical Right, you may want to know that they have a different Sacramentary and Lectionary from the rest of the Church.

Our Franciscan parish does not use the Sacramentary and Lectionary of the Universal Church. They have a special Sacramentary and Lectioanry approved for the use of their order. This is what they use in their parishes. There are no major differences, but there are some subtle ones.

For example, the Litany of the Saints has many Franciscan Saints that are not included in the litany that most churches use.

The feast of St. Francis is a feast or memorial in many countries. In a Franciscan parish it is a solemnity and celebrated as if it were the Solemnity of the Assumption or a Sunday mass, with Gloria and all.

I offer this as examples of minor differences in liturgy that don’t really take anything away from God, but that we are unaware of.

We should really become more educated on the rubrics, not just the documents. From the theory to the application there is usually a journey. These rubrics are approved by legitimate Church authorities.

JR

 

[palmas85]

I’m a recent convert. I used to be a “quasi-charismatic Baptist,” and yes, we did have dancing, clapping and cheering in some of our services. So I’m kinda used to it.

I was following another post where someone was ranting about holding hands during the “Our Father”. They didn’t think that the hand-holding was appropriate as per “the rules” of worship.

Okay, I’ve never appreciated the “dancing”, but I have no problem with the cheering, clapping and hand-holding. I think they are unifying. I’m a bit confused as to what the fuss is all about. Seems like everyone is really up in arms about this stuff!

Is it WRONG to clap and cheer and (cough… cough…) dance during a service? Or to hold hands when we pray the “Our Father?” Maybe I’m so accustomed to “non-liturgical, unorthodox” worship that I don’t know any better. Are these things that these worshipers should be confessing? Were such expressions frowned upon in the early church?

This is a legitimate question from a new Catholic, so please don’t take offense. I guess I’m not quite understanding why there’s so much consternation about a different “flavor” service.

Thanks!

You are at Mass in the presence of God and in a mysterious way transported to the foot of Calvary for the re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice.

You are not at a football game, a High School graduation ceremony, a Broadway play, a music concert or any other such activity where the clapping of hands and cheering would be appropriate.

 

[JReducation]

This may sound like a dumb set of questions, but I’ll ask anyway.

Why are posters on this thread ignoring some facts that have been presented here?

1. The rubrics of the mass do not forbid clapping at mass.
2. The documents of the Church serve as guides to the rubrics, but the final word is found in the rubrics.
3. Drama and other forms of artistic expression were introduced into the liturgy as early as 1223 by St. Francis of Assisi and were allowed then and are still allowed.
4. Spontaneous expressions of joy and enthusiasm in the liturgy are not wrong, there is nothing that forbids them. Turning the liturgy into a football game is wrong and there is no place for it.
5. Even at the Vatican people stand on chairs, clap, cheer and shout as the Pope is walking down the main aisle at the end of mass. The popes have never forbidden it, nor have the liturgists at the Vatican.
6. At certain parishes whee charismatic renewal is more prevalent, this type of expression ehances their worship, as Fr. Jack said in one of his posts.
7. The laity cannot dictate rubrics to the Church. We can only express our preferences in broad strokes.

These details are not being discussed. I believe that if we discussed them, we would be through this thread and on to another topic.

JR

 

[palmas85]

This may sound like a dumb set of questions, but I’ll ask anyway.

Why are posters on this thread ignoring some facts that have been presented here?

1. The rubrics of the mass do not forbid clapping at mass.
2. The documents of the Church serve as guides to the rubrics, but the final word is found in the rubrics.
3. Drama and other forms of artistic expression were introduced into the liturgy as early as 1223 by St. Francis of Assisi and were allowed then and are still allowed.
4. Spontaneous expressions of joy and enthusiasm in the liturgy are not wrong, there is nothing that forbids them. Turning the liturgy into a football game is wrong and there is no place for it.
5. Even at the Vatican people stand on chairs, clap, cheer and shout as the Pope is walking down the main aisle at the end of mass. The popes have never forbidden it, nor have the liturgists at the Vatican.
6. At certain parishes whee charismatic renewal is more prevalent, this type of expression ehances their worship, as Fr. Jack said in one of his posts.
7. The laity cannot dictate rubrics to the Church. We can only express our preferences in broad strokes.

These details are not being discussed. I believe that if we discussed them, we would be through this thread and on to another topic.

JR

As usual if the rubrics don’t expressly forbid something it is all right
.
Give me a break OK

 

[JReducation]

As usual if the rubrics don’t expressly forbid something it is all right
.
Give me a break OK

Let’s follow the rubrics and move on.

JR

 

[Cat]

JReducation, thank you so much for your reasonable, charity-filled posts. They have really set my mind at ease.

My older daughter was received into the Catholic Church in a Redemptorist parish last night. The Masses in this church would send many of the dear people on this traditional forum into an early grave. I couldn’t help but remember how many people on this forum have denounced such Masses.

Yet my daughter is now a Catholic because of these loving Catholics.

Yes, they sang “Lord of the Dance” this morning. But hey everyone, my daughter is the production stage manager for a professional ballet company, and by the time the song was ended, she was in tears because this song is REAL for her. So if you don’t like it, well, remember that there are dancers in the congregation who DO like it.

And there were a LOT of people who were confirmed in the parish’s Vigil Mass, so the parish must be doing the Lord’s will. Jesus said that if we abide in Him, we will bear much fruit. I would say that a good “crop” of candidates and catechumens is a sign that the parish is “abiding in Him.”

JReducation, since you seem quite knowledgeable, may I ask you to tell us something about the traditions of the Redemptorists? I would appreciate it.

Are they similiar in their approach to Mass to the Franciscans? I play piano for a Franciscan parish, and it is also very “free” compared to the other parishes that I play for. Often the sweet, elderly pastor asks people to express their thanks for a musician by applauding.

To me, applause is a way for a crowd of people to say “Thank you” to someone who has blessed them. There is no sin in this, but much phileo love.

And although for some cantors, instrumentalists, and liturgists, the “Thank you” becomes an occasion of sin (pride of self), I think that for many of us, the “thank you” is offered right back to the God who created us and gave us our various musical or dramatic talents.

And I think that many of those who criticize such things as “entertainment mentality” should give more credit to their fellow Catholics, who truly do recognize that the Mass is NOT an entertainment. Why do you assume that our attitudes are so warped and self-centered? Don’t you see that people can enjoy music or drama, and offer an offering of thanks to God and His servants in the form of applause, and STILL be reverent of the Most High God and humble and grateful in the Presence of the Christ?

When the ten lepers were healed, only one came back to thank Jesus. Jesus praised him for saying Thank You.

I realize that it would perhaps be more appropriate for thanks to be offered after the Mass, or even better, by writing a note. I’m glad that all of you take the time to do this. I try to do the same, but I confess that often after Mass, I am distracted by the necessity of leaving before I have a chance to seek out the cantor, and during the week, I usually forget all about writing a note. I should try to be more diligent.

 

[AUserName]

In charity, Latin, chant, and tradition are to be retained. Chant does not lend itself to “spontaneous clapping”, so the question is not a silly one. There is not supposed to be a “charismatic parish”, as opposed to a “serious parish”. The Church is a living unit, and yes, certain norms do change. But the Church does sometimes comment on the attitudes & practices of one era, and compare it to another. I find the question important, because vast numbers of practicing Catholic families have abandoned the Novus Ordo, in favor of the Traditional Mass, and what they perceive to be the “traditional” culture. The “validity” is not the question: the reverence is. If there is no rubric, there should be. These external actions cause converts, or defections. They are not minor considerations. A dancing clown on the altar may be very charismatic, and lend itself to spontaneous laughter of the children, but lead thousands to leave the Church. This is precisely what we have seen in the decades of 1960s, 70s, & 80s.

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve met and spoken with Cardinal Arinze and found him a truly holy and delightful man. He’s certainly entitled to the views which he expressed, but they certainly do not constitute an official point of view. He is a humble man who knows well the limits of his office. He, personally, equates adoration and reverence with some kind of quiet and reserved demeanor. There’s no shortage of that in most places where Mass is celebrated. What is often missing at Mass, in my view, is a sense of fervor and enthusiasm. Though these things may be manifested in differing ways, they are consistent with rythmic clapping during certain spirituals.

Cheering and hooting have no place in the celebration of Mass, but then who sees those things but rarely?

Fr. Jack

Fr. Jack:

When he speaks in the manner in which he was quoted in Adoremus (and, in other Catholic media), his opinions tend to mirror what the Church has repeatedly stated. Bear in mind, too, that whatever the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his books and other writings on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has now become some sort of “liturgical policy”. Many of the things he wrote in “Spirit of the Liturgy” have appeared in documents such as Sacramentum Caritatis and in his homilies. Furthermore, the angst with which he wrote regarding the issue of the Traditional Latin Mass has now borne fruit in his Moto Propio.

To the OP:

Ancient Israel was given its own General Instruction on the correct form of worshipping Yahweh. This is found in the first eight chapters of Leviticus. God was very direct and very detailed regarding the form (rubrics), the manner and the matter of His liturgy. Ancient Israel’s liturgy centered on sacrifices. The Lord spelled out in exacting detail how everything was to be carried out. Any deviation from His instruction would lead to catastrophic results (just look at what happened to Aaron’s sons).

The Church is the New Israel. We are a continuation of Ancient Israel. The idea of sacrifice exists only in the Church and in her Sister Churches (Orthodox). If you closely examine the Mass and look at its components, you will find similarities between it and the worship of Ancient Israel. Jesus did not abolish the notion of sacrifice; he fulfilled it and gave it a new and deeper meaning. He became the Priest and the Sacrificial victim, which is what we have celebrated during the Pashcal Triduum.

The Protestants removed any notion of sacrifice. Many of them do not have a structure to their worship; therefore, it’s a free-form exercise in creativity. That is not to denigrate certain Protestant ecclesial communities; however, that is what their services are like.

When we introduce “novelty” into the Mass (clapping, dancing and other strange notions), we lessen the meaning of this Holy Sacrifice. The Mass is something that we receive; it is not our own personal property to do with as we wish. That is something that Francis Cardinal Arinze has repeatedly stated in many of his writings and his addresses. That is also something that the Holy Father has noted on numerous occasions.

 

[JReducation]

In charity, Latin, chant, and tradition are to be retained.

This is true

Chant does not lend itself to “spontaneous clapping”,

I’m not sure how one can squelch spontaneous signs of appreication.

There is not supposed to be a “charismatic parish”, as opposed to a “serious parish”.

Who said that a charismatic parish is not serious?

If there is no rubric, there should be.

But there are rubrics for the NO.

A dancing clown on the altar may be very charismatic, and lend itself to spontaneous laughter of the children, but lead thousands to leave the Church. This is precisely what we have seen in the decades of 1960s, 70s, & 80s.

Anyone who leaves the Church because they don’t like what they see at a children’s liturgy is someone who has been looking for an excuse to leave and found it.

Are you also aware that some parishes are administered by religious orders that are not allowed to use Gregorian chant?

For example, St. Francis wrote that the friars must recite the office, not chant it. However, he did introduce pageants and minstrel music into the liturgy of his time for the purpose of helping the peasants understand. He also introduced sermons in the vernacular for the same reason. Prior to him, sermons were in Latin.

You have to be sure that your parish is run by diocesan/secular priests. Priests who belong to religious orders sometimes have rules within their orders that dictate how they minister. The bishops understand this when they invite these religious to take over a parish.

Remember, we have a shortage of secular priests. Many religious communities have been asked to DO US A FAVOR and administer parishes. They don’t do it for themselves. Most were not founded to administer parishes. We must be grateful that they do us this favor.

Unless they are doing something that violates morals or the rubrics, we should appreciate their presence or find another parish.

The poster who spoke of her daughter’s conversion gave us a good example. Her daughter’s parish is run by Redemptorists. This is a religious community. There are going to be some differences between the way they celebrate the liturgy and the way that secular priests to. The poster also mentioned the simplicity and the Franciscan liturgy where she plays. Again, this is a religious order with solemn vows. They have their own sacramentary and lectionary. There are going to be subtle differences.

Many of these differences are inspired by the founder of the community. The Redemptorists are going to focus a great deal on the joy of the Eucharist. It is part of their legacy. Franciscans are going to focus on the laity, because they are a community of brothers and they avoid all distinctions between the clergy and non clergy. They are also going to focus on simplicity, because they don’t use chant or expensive things for their liturgy. These are the sons of a saint who gave the the friary’s missal to a begger who needed to make money for food. Then he told his brothers that they had to go to the next town to hear mass, because they no longer has a missal.

We have to be careful before we become upset and understand what community runs our parish and what their charism is. If it’s secular priests, they don’t belong to a community and follow no specific charism. They belong to their diocese and develop their own individual spirituality. But religious don’t have that freedom. They have a spirit that their founders designed for them. Catholics who attend masses in these parishes are going to have to live with the charism of this founder or go to a parish with a secular priest, where his spirituality is personal and does not come into play in his celebration of the liturgy.

If you want good Gregorian chant, try to find a Benedictine community. They are the masters of good chant. St. Benedict wrote this into their rule.

JR

 

[johnnydigit]

“neither do they forbid standing on your head” yawn.

clapping after communion when making announcements, say when applauding for someone given recognition. seems ok.

clapping after the closing song - wrong. people don’t know the GIRM says not to.

*45. Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times.
54
Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within
the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the
conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after
Communion, they praise and pray to God in their hearts.
Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence to be observed in the church, in
the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to
carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner.
*

 

[fjacks]

There are at least two prevailing ways in which to understand the Eucharistic Celebration. In one, the term I just used is the preferred manner of naming or describing what we do when gathered for Catholic worship. In the other, the preferred term is Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Church documents, in fact, make use of both terms frequently.

Those who use the latter term like to think of Mass as if its efficacy is largely dependent on its correct and precise application of rubrics and gestures. This preference dates back into the baroque and medieval era in which the illiteracy of the laity (and the near illiteracy of many clergy as well) prevented them from linking the Mass as they knew it with the manner in which it was celebrated during the apostolic and post-apostolic era when there were no official books to follow. The Missal of Pius V, following the council of Trent, was inspired by an effort to get every priest and bishop to follow the same prayers, rubrics, and gestures throughout the world. It was very successful but it took hundreds of years to accomplish and there were, in fact, a number of small variations which survived. But what also survived was a consistent failure to understand–especially on the part of the laity–what the full significance of the Mass was. Well into the 20th century, and into the present as well, large numbers of Catholics continued to think of the Mass primarily in terms of the priest changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

While all faithful Catholics understand the central importance of the consecration, many of us are now also able to place that sacred action into a larger context. We understand, for instance, that in this Eucharistic Celebration we–laity and priest alike–are offering all glory and honor to the Father with, through, and in Christ. Under the leadership of the priest, we are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that our Substance may be transformed into “one Body, one Spirit in Christ”.

This insight helps us to claim our identity as a priestly people who are called to make Christ’s work our own. It serves to correct the notion that priests are set above the baptized so that they may by right exercise spiritual supremacy over them. This notion is not justified by either scripture of tradition, but was an unfortunate result of the conflict between civil and ecclesiastical power during the middle ages. To assert their independent power, the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire granted exemptions and special privileges to the clergy. This special status was reflected not only in the way the Mass was celebrated, but in the ways in which priests attempted to lord it over their “subjects” in every aspect of their lives.

Those unhappy with the reformed liturgy like to talk about how the Mass has been diminished, even ruined, by an overemphasis of what they call the horizontal dimension of worship. They assert that the Mass should be “all about God” and that this truth would be better served by having the priest “face God” instead of facing the people of God. They also lament the emphasis on the personality of the priest. Does this suggest that Jesus and his apostles did not have a distinct personality which was exhibited in everything they did–even while at worship?

There can be no legitimate doubt that whenever the Divine Liturgy is offered–regardless of the Rite employed-- it’s validity is unquestionable. But what of its effects on the people who gather to worship God in spirit and truth. The efficacious celebration of the Sacred Mysteries cannot be measured solely on its reverent and rubrically precise prayers and gestures. The Church is faithful to what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when it is vitally concerned about the transformation not just of bread and wine, but of those who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[benedictgal]

There are at least two prevailing ways in which to understand the Eucharistic Celebration. In one, the term I just used is the preferred manner of naming or describing what we do when gathered for Catholic worship. In the other, the preferred term is Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Church documents, in fact, make use of both terms frequently.

Those who use the latter term like to think of Mass as if its efficacy is largely dependent on its correct and precise application of rubrics and gestures. This preference dates back into the baroque and medieval era in which the illiteracy of the laity (and the near illiteracy of many clergy as well) prevented them from linking the Mass as they knew it with the manner in which it was celebrated during the apostolic and post-apostolic era when there were no official books to follow. The Missal of Pius V, following the council of Trent, was inspired by an effort to get every priest and bishop to follow the same prayers, rubrics, and gestures throughout the world. It was very successful but it took hundreds of years to accomplish and there were, in fact, a number of small variations which survived. But what also survived was a consistent failure to understand–especially on the part of the laity–what the full significance of the Mass was. Well into the 20th century, and into the present as well, large numbers of Catholics continued to think of the Mass primarily in terms of the priest changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

While all faithful Catholics understand the central importance of the consecration, many of us are now also able to place that sacred action into a larger context. We understand, for instance, that in this Eucharistic Celebration we–laity and priest alike–are offering all glory and honor to the Father with, through, and in Christ. Under the leadership of the priest, we are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that our Substance may be transformed into “one Body, one Spirit in Christ”.

This insight helps us to claim our identity as a priestly people who are called to make Christ’s work our own. It serves to correct the notion that priests are set above the baptized so that they may by right exercise spiritual supremacy over them. This notion is not justified by either scripture of tradition, but was an unfortunate result of the conflict between civil and ecclesiastical power during the middle ages. To assert their independent power, the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire granted exemptions and special privileges to the clergy. This special status was reflected not only in the way the Mass was celebrated, but in the ways in which priests attempted to lord it over their “subjects” in every aspect of their lives.

Those unhappy with the reformed liturgy like to talk about how the Mass has been diminished, even ruined, by an overemphasis of what they call the horizontal dimension of worship. They assert that the Mass should be “all about God” and that this truth would be better served by having the priest “face God” instead of facing the people of God. They also lament the emphasis on the personality of the priest. Does this suggest that Jesus and his apostles did not have a distinct personality which was exhibited in everything they did–even while at worship?

There can be no legitimate doubt that whenever the Divine Liturgy is offered–regardless of the Rite employed-- it’s validity is unquestionable. But what of its effects on the people who gather to worship God in spirit and truth. The efficacious celebration of the Sacred Mysteries cannot be measured solely on its reverent and rubrically precise prayers and gestures. The Church is faithful to what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when it is vitally concerned about the transformation not just of bread and wine, but of those who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Fr. Jack:

With all due respect, those of us who would fall under what I highlighted include someone who has been leading the rallying cry to restore the vertical dimension: our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI In fact, many of his writings bemoan the sad fact that often, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we tend to “celebrate” ourselves rather than the saving act of Jesus Christ.

In fact, the posture of facing liturgical East, which the Holy Father advocates (in fact, he wrote the preface to Fr. Lang’s book, “Turnign Towards the Lord” dates back to the time of Moses. In his preface (and in his own books where he advocates this posture), Pope Benedict notes that it is a mistake to think that the priest is “turning his back” to the people. Rather, he is joining the posture of the people as they turn towards the face of the Lord. Recall that when the Lord told Moses that He was coming, God told Moses that when he saw Him, he could only see His back. We are always seeking the face of God. This posture brings that point home.

 

[anamchara]

Cardinal Arinze does not always speak for “the church”. Not even the Pope always speaks for the church. He just wrote a book entitled Jesus of Nazareth in which he relates his personal beliefs about the Christ. He explicitly states that all are welcome to criticize the contents of the book.

The church is the Body of Christ with all its members. While the hierarchy has an indispensable role to play in the life of the church, it is not all by itself “the church”. While the church is not a democracy, its members are certainly free to express their faith and their views within very broad limits. We wouldn’t want to have “thought police” in the church, would we?

Finally a voice of reason, thank you Fr. Jack. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts through out this thread.

Fr. Jack:

With all due respect, those of us who would fall under what I highlighted include someone who has been leading the rallying cry to restore the vertical dimension: our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI** In fact, many of his writings bemoan the sad fact that often, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we tend to “celebrate” ourselves rather than the saving act of Jesus Christ**.

But the problem benedictgal is that there are too many Catholics who think they know exactly what the Pope is referring to when he makes certain statements and too often do become the “thought police”.

 

[benedictgal]

Finally a voice of reason, thank you Fr. Jack. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts through out this thread.

But the problem benedictgal is that there are too many Catholics who think they know exactly what the Pope is referring to when he makes certain statements and too often do become the “thought police”.

You have misconstrued what I said. Amanchara, have you even read the writings of Pope Benedict regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? There is nothing secret about his leanings. In fact, things that he wrote about as cardinal many years ago are now coming into play during his pontificate. No one is acting as thought polie here.

The fact is that those are the Holy Father’s writings and some of what he has written is now coming to fruition under his glorious reign. He is doing what he set forth out to do since day one: restore integrity, majesty and solemnity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[anamchara]

First of all, welcome to the catholic church! Glad you are here.

** Expressions of enthusiasm during Mass are found distressing by some catholics. They believe that their own experience and understanding of the Mass is the correct one and that it should be shared by all catholics throughout the world.** I attended a congress of charismatic catholics in Rome some 30 years ago. The Masses were lively and included clapping and joining of hands. There were cardinals, bishops, and priests present and they all seemed quite happy with the celebration.

Exactly. I would have loved to see that celebration in Rome and the looks on the faces from some in here jk!

The thing is, I do understand where many are coming from with regards to worrying about the Mass and the focus. It means they are passionate about our Lord. But clapping to music does not make some one less passionate or take focus away from our Lord and this is the part they don’t get.

 

[benedictgal]

Exactly. I would have loved to see that celebration in Rome and the looks on the faces from some in here jk!

The thing is, I do understand where many are coming from with regards to worrying about the Mass and the focus. It means they are passionate about our Lord. But clapping to music does not make some one less passionate or take focus away from our Lord and this is the part they don’t get.

But, it does reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a mere performance. That is what you do not get, I’m afraid. When the folks at St. Peter’s Basilica clap at the end of Mass (as the Pope is recessing out), it is more of a sign of respect for the Holy Father than anything else.

If you caught the Good Friday telecast, there was silence as the Holy Father entered and as he left.

 

[anamchara]

You have misconstrued what I said. Amanchara, have you even read the writings of Pope Benedict regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? There is nothing secret about his leanings. In fact, things that he wrote about as cardinal many years ago are now coming into play during his pontificate. No one is acting as thought polie here.

The fact is that those are the Holy Father’s writings and some of what he has written is now coming to fruition under his glorious reign. He is doing what he set forth out to do since day one: restore integrity, majesty and solemnity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Ok, so he has written much on this subject and you are right on the same page with him. So when will we not be allowed to do the things that you don’t like us doing in the Mass Benedictgal? Just curious.

And no one has acted as thought police on here? LOL! Well, that is news to me

 

[Cristiano]

Exactly. I would have loved to see that celebration in Rome and the looks on the faces from some in here jk!

The thing is, I do understand where many are coming from with regards to worrying about the Mass and the focus. It means they are passionate about our Lord. But clapping to music does not make some one less passionate or take focus away from our Lord and this is the part they don’t get.

But, it does reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a mere performance. That is what you do not get, I’m afraid. When the folks at St. Peter’s Basilica clap at the end of Mass (as the Pope is recessing out), it is more of a sign of respect for the Holy Father than anything else.

If you caught the Good Friday telecast, there was silence as the Holy Father entered and as he left.

“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, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.” - Pope Benedict XVI - Spirit of the Liturgy

Correct me if I am wrong but I have the impression that benedictgal sees a complete overlap between the act of clapping during Mass and its possible source/intent as described by Benedict XVI.
We must consider that anamchara discussed clapping as a musical tool (commonly used in history) and not as an expression to recognize human achievement.
If we follow the process that I think benedictgal is using we can reach the situation where any musical instrument (human voice too) could be rejected.
I think that the Pope makes a very specific distinction between act and intention. As benedictgal said in other posts, we clap in church to show our approval during the ordination of new priests.
The point here is if clapping can be considered a customary religious musical instrument in todays western world. I would say not so if it were associated with the European culture; however (out of my own ignorant stereotypes) I would say yes if it were associate with some other cultures.
I personally hate clapping during Mass. However, if it is because of musical choices () I choose to tolerate it, even if it really bothers me, because I do not consider it intrinsically wrong.

 

[fjacks]

I have, in fact, read just about everything that Pope Ratzinger (as they refer to him in Italy) has written about liturgy. And I have profound respect for him as a scholar with few peers. Some of the things he writes are inspiring and thought provoking. But he writes, nonetheless, as a scholar with a particular scholarly, ethnic, and cultural background. You are aware, are you not, that Germans are inclined to think in black and white terms. They tend to be extremely certain of their assertions. Nothing “wrong” with that, but it becomes more difficult to enter into conversation with people who are certain than those who may be open to learning themselves.

But there is a bright light. In presenting his book on Jesus Christ, the Pope very humbly stated that its text was not to be considered infallible and welcomed readers to disagree if they choose. Surely, then, the Pope’s writings as Benedict XVI or as Cardinal Ratzinger can be equally disagreed with–except, of course, if he should speak Ex Cathedra.

A strong historical case can be made for priest and people to face the east during worship as long as one’s historical journey begins with the fourth century and the introduction of public buildings as houses of worship. When liturgy stopped being the celebration of people who actually knew each other and the priest who had been chosen from their midst new ideas to govern worship emerged. When the notion of sacrifice was developed to the point of overpowering communion, new forms of celebration emerged.

The renewed liturgy explicitly returned to resources that predated the wedding between church and empire, including those of the apostolic and immediate post-apostolic periods. Does anyone dare suggest that the apostles in the upper room thought of themselves as identifying with the “paschal mystery” as they ate the bread and wine which Jesus shared with them. How about the consciousness of the disciples at Emmaus? It took time to develop a eucharistic consciousness, practice, and ritual. And, over the course of history, there has been no shortage of developments and maldevelopments in this regard.

How about the practice by which individuals rarely partook of Holy Communion more than once a year? I’d call that something less than a highpoint of eucharistic practice. What about the practice of denying both priests and laity the opportunity to understand what they were praying (don’t think for a minute that priests understood latin fluently. Some did, most didn’t)? We were told that it was in latin because it had always been in latin. That was patently untrue, yet there are some Catholics who still think that to this day. What about the practice by which the scripture readings were given short shriff? And the worse practice by which sermons were almost always horrible?

All of these matters have been addressed in the renewal of the liturgy. There have been missteps and mistakes. Some priests have taken liberties that have distorted the liturgical action. Some priests have overpowered the liturgical action with their personalities, but this is not common practice. Most priests have been doing their very best to be faithful to the reform. Most laity are enormously grateful for the reform.

Some like to suggest that we would far more practicing Catholics were the liturgy to be arranged more like it had been before the reform. This is absolutely gratuitous, with no data to support the claim. To even imagine that people will flock to Mass when it once again is arranged in such a way as to render its actions all but unintelligible, completely befuddles me.

 

[anamchara]

But, it does reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a mere performance. That is what you do not get, I’m afraid. When the folks at St. Peter’s Basilica clap at the end of Mass (as the Pope is recessing out), it is more of a sign of respect for the Holy Father than anything else.

If you caught the Good Friday telecast, there was silence as the Holy Father entered and as he left.

Who are you to decide that when we clap at our parish we are only doing it for a" performance" and not out of respect? So because it was in Rome you assume it was out of respect but anyone else doing that, it couldn’t possibly be?

Seems like a bit of thought police to me