Why Do Catholics Say "It's Not About Us" When It Comes to the Mass?

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

TrueLight

Guest
Why do Catholics say it’s not about “us” when it comes to mass? Are we not there to receive as well?

– Why is it not about us when someone complains about a horrible homily? Should not the priest’s words be encouraging and/or exhort us of our sins. Is not the priests job to lead his flock as well?

– Why is it not about us when congregants are strangers to each other. Why is it wrong to offer a smile when eyes meet during mass?

– Why is it **not about us ** when the priest faces the congregation ( so says some proponents of the traditional mass).

Is salvation not personal as well?
 
Salvation is indeed personal - but remember the Mass is far from being the only requirement for our salvation!

The Mass is public and communal. In a sense it’s the opposite of personal (which implies an isolated ‘me n Jesus’ thing) in that it is about Catholics as a community coming together to publicly adore and offer worship to God (an ‘us n Jesus’ thing).

I don’t think people are wrong to complain about lacklustre homilies, for example, but it does behove us to remember that unlike many non-Catholic services the homily isn’t and shouldn’t be the focal point upon which the ‘success’ or otherwise of the Mass stands or falls.

Some Catholics are too prone to treat it as if it were, and forget that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ’s real presence among us, is the central point, and that as long as consecration occurs the Mass is a ‘successful’ celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Can you imagine attending a baptism or wedding and then complaining bitterly about the awful homily accompanying it as if the preaching were the be-all and end-all, instead of focusing on the main point and rejoicing in the bringing of a soul to Christ or the uniting of a couple in holy wedlock? That’s how I feel when people complain too much about homilies.

Your other points aren’t invalid either - but remember Mass is more than a celebration, it is a sacrifice. It is a being present, really present, at Calvary. Some are much more intensely aware of this aspect of the Mass than others, and so would deem too lighthearted and jovial a demeanour to be inappropriate - ‘do you think anyone standing at the foot of the Cross was grinning from ear to ear?’
 
LilyM said:
Can you imagine attending a baptism or wedding and then complaining bitterly about the awful homily accompanying it as if the preaching were the be-all and end-all, instead of focusing on the main point and rejoicing in the bringing of a soul to Christ or the uniting of a couple in holy wedlock? That’s how I feel when people complain too much about homilies.
Click to expand...
Good point!
 
Many I know who complain about homilies do so because they judge them against some of the show-men and women they find on TV. Long on show, short on substance. The homily is liturgical and not entertainment.
 
TrueLight said:
Why do Catholics say it’s not about “us” when it comes to mass? Are we not there to receive as well?
Click to expand...
Lily did such a fine job that I have little to add, but wanted to address a couple of points.
– Why is it not about us when someone complains about a horrible homily? Should not the priest’s words be encouraging and/or exhort us of our sins. Is not the priests job to lead his flock as well?
Click to expand...
I think that there are aspects of this that you are absolutely right about. We do ned better homilies, but not necessarily to “encourage” but certainly to teach, to exhort and even more, to challange us. Of course even in this you will have those who complain…🤷
– Why is it not about us when congregants are strangers to each other. Why is it wrong to offer a smile when eyes meet during mass?
Click to expand...
Certainly it is not wrong to offer a smile to another. But the only time we should be looking at each other during mass is at the “Kiss of Peace”. The rest of the time our focus should be on the Altar. But I do agree that before and after mass and outside of the sancuary we need to be welcoming and inviting to others.
– Why is it **not about us ** when the priest faces the congregation ( so says some proponents of the traditional mass).
Click to expand...
There will always be those who prefer one way or the other for personal reasons and that is fine so long as each respects the others preference. I suspct (and some very rough canvasing) has shown me that most would be satisfied either way.
Is salvation not personal as well?
Click to expand...
Coming to salvation is definitely personal, likewise maintaining one’s salvation is mostly personal. However living the faith is very communal.

Peace
James
 
“Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 33)

It is about God first, and about us second; and it is about us because it is about God.
 
The Mass, especially in the extraordinary form, is traditionally intended to be far more of a “vertical” experience (us, collectively, worshipping God) than a “horizontal” one (us interacting with each other or even the presiding priest). The ordinary form has elevated the horizontal aspect to a degree, though whether that degree is “not enough,” “just right,” or “too much” depends on whom you’re talking to.

While it’s true that the Mass as a whole should be God-focused and centered on the Eucharist (the ultimate act of worship, the pure sacrificial offering of the nations as prophesied by Malachi), it is certainly not entirely a vertical phenomenon. The proclamation of the Scriptures and the accompanying homily are certainly “for us,” and one should not be afraid to expect decent quality.

I hope that most of the time, when the “not about us” argument is used, it is in cases where someone is contemplating abandoning the Mass altogether, perhaps for some type of non-Catholic service at which the person feels more “fed.” The idea is to remind the person that even a flawed Mass is unique and awesome, and should not be cast aside for anything that is not the Mass.

By the way, though I have never attended an ad orientem Mass, my understanding is that the priest in that style is not so much facing away from the people to exclude them, but facing in the same direction as the people (notionally looking toward God) so that the priest himself is not the focus of attention. Naturally, that is done only during the “vertical” portions of the Mass; the Scriptures are proclaimed and the homily given facing the people.

Usagi
 
JRKH said:
Certainly it is not wrong to offer a smile to another. But the only time we should be looking at each other during mass is at the “Kiss of Peace”. The rest of the time our focus should be on the Altar. But I do agree that before and after mass and outside of the sancuary we need to be welcoming and inviting to others.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
So James, I met this girl about a month ago at the TLM. She befriended me after mass and gave me a missalette. I was so grateful.

So anytime I go to that parish, we sit next to each other and have lunch after mass.

Last Sunday, the pastor said that years ago, a Catholic was not even allowed llowed to set foot in a Protestant church. She looked at me and smiled meaningfully for 2 seconds and I smiled back. We made no comments and we actually discussed it after mass.

Was that wrong?

Is it wrong to have a sense of community? All part of the body of Christ?
 
TrueLight said:
So James, I met this girl about a month ago at the TLM. She befriended me after mass and gave me a missalette. I was so grateful.

So anytime I go to that parish, we sit next to each other and have lunch after mass.

Last Sunday, the pastor said that years ago, a Catholic was not even allowed llowed to set foot in a Protestant church. She looked at me and smiled meaningfully for 2 seconds and I smiled back. We made no comments and we actually discussed it after mass.

Was that wrong?

Is it wrong to have a sense of community? All part of the body of Christ?
Click to expand...
No this was not wrong…Thanks for pointing it out…
When I made my comment I was not thinking about the homily…
I should amend my statment to read, "But the only time we should be looking at each other during mass is at the “Kiss of Peace”, and maybe during the homily.

How’s that…Sound better??👍

Peace
James
 
I am not exactly sure what is the point, but it is the Catholic teaching that not the priest, not the community but Jesus Christ provides the salvation (supposed that you do not reject ir).

The main problem in our world is the concept of the people Church: that primarily we the people are the Church, we make the decisions, and Gos is for us, not we for Him.

We do not go to the Mass for the ourselves, not for our neighbors, not even for the priest: we go to the Mass for Jesus Christ. he is the primary, we individually and as community are secondary.
 
Well, everything God provides us is in a sense for us…our eternal happiness.

God gave us Jesus so that we would understand what Love is.

Love is self-donation.

So when we self-donate we please God. When we do things without the slightest pleasurable feeling, out of love, this is a greater gift than when we get pleasurable feelings in return.

Our intention should be to self-donate, to do God’s will, without the deliberate intention of “getting some natural” pleasure out of what we do…like attending Mass.

So we should be prepared to get absolutely nothing out of Mass, save the knowledge that we’re doing God’s will.

Sometimes God gives us feelings in return, but those should not be sought directly.

So…we go to Mass to primarily adore God. To self-donate.
 
It’s about correcting a horrendous error in outlook.

Mass is primarily a liturgical sacrifice. We all come together to offer to God the highest form of worship possible: the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the Cross who atoned for our sins. We are literally THERE.

Luther changed all that. He believed that the main point of the mass was the “consolation and instruction of the people.” Though Luther didn’t really intend this, the inevitable result is that the congregation replaces God as the focus of the gathering.

Mass isn’t entertainment OR instruction primarily. It’s not something we go to “get something out of.” It’s something we should be putting ourselves IN to. We go, to worship God, not God comes to make US feel warm and fuzzy (though that CAN sometimes happen, it isn’t the primary purpose and shouldn’t be expected/demanded of Him).

Good homilies are a bonus. So are warm and welcoming parishioners. But numero uno is the sacrifice. We come to join ourselves to Christ’s sacrifice.

That’s (I think) why people get worked up about the change when they turned the priest to face the people. Human nature affects priests too (read a newspaper!). It’s not easy to stare out at hundreds of people and NOT start performing for them. But when the priest is at the front of the people facing God together WITH them, it’s a lot less like a performance and doesn’t fight human nature which tries to make it one.

I think it’s weird that right when it became possible to amplify a priest’s voice so that the people could hear the consecration, they turned him around. But what do I know… 😉
 
manualman said:
It’s about correcting a horrendous error in outlook.

Mass is primarily a liturgical sacrifice. We all come together to offer to God the highest form of worship possible: the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the Cross who atoned for our sins. We are literally THERE.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. It really is a paradigm shift for me - understanding the nature of the mass.

So then at what point do the people get taught? Is that why there is such poor catechism?

I am used to thinking of a worship service as two-fold: Worship & Instruction.

Jesus spent a lot of his time instructing. Jesus told Peter “Feed my sheep”. Is the pastor not supposed to feed us?
 
TrueLight said:
Thanks for this. It really is a paradigm shift for me - understanding the nature of the mass.

So then at what point do the people get taught? Is that why there is such poor catechism?

I am used to thinking of a worship service as two-fold: Worship & Instruction.

Jesus spent a lot of his time instructing. Jesus told Peter “Feed my sheep”. Is the pastor not supposed to feed us?
Click to expand...
Actually the mass, as it developed, is in two parts. The first is the Liturgy of the Word. this extends up through the Homily - (or the creed, I’m not sure of the cut-off) and this entire section is “teaching”…There is the opening song, and prayers followed by the readings from Scripture which include (On sundays) OT, Psalm, NT, and Gospel. This is followed by the homily.
In the very early Church, Catechumens would stay for the liturgy of the word and then be dismissed before the second part of the mass. Even today, during the masses of scrutiny leading up to RCIA members being received into the Church, the Catechumens will be dismessed from mass before the liturgy of the Eucharist beings.

So as you can see the entire first half of the mass is “feeding and teaching” with much of it coming, not from the “pastor” as in many protestant denominations, but rather directly from the Holy Scriptures. Also it is given, not with a verse drawn from here and a verse from there, as I have personally witnessed in some protestant services, but rather it is given by the reading of entire passages so that we get much better context.
What is left for the Pastor to say after so much of God’s word is already given? 🤷

The second portion of the mass is, of course, the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This portion is not about teaching but about pure worship and adoration and feeding upon Christ’s Flesh and blood as instructed by the Holy Scripture.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James
 
janman55 said:
Many I know who complain about homilies do so because they judge them against some of the show-men and women they find on TV. Long on show, short on substance. The homily is liturgical and not entertainment.
Click to expand...
You are so right the liturgy is to be maintained in a certain order and we are there to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist not be entertained by the homily.
 
TrueLight said:
Thanks for this. It really is a paradigm shift for me - understanding the nature of the mass.

So then at what point do the people get taught? Is that why there is such poor catechism?

I am used to thinking of a worship service as two-fold: Worship & Instruction.

Jesus spent a lot of his time instructing. Jesus told Peter “Feed my sheep”. Is the pastor not supposed to feed us?
Click to expand...
This 4 minute video might be helpful. It focuses on the priesthood, and also the Mass.

opusdei.us/art.php?p=38802
 
TrueLight said:
Thanks!

This is a nice explanation.

So, is it the priest’s role to also teach the people about the tenets of the faith? Or is it as the speaker says; “the reason the priest exists is the Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
Not sure this is really an “or” situation but anyone properly educated can teach the tenets of the faith. Only an ordained priest can confect the Eucharist.

Peace
James
 
TrueLight said:
Thanks!

This is a nice explanation.

So, is it the priest’s role to also teach the people about the tenets of the faith? Or is it as the speaker says; “the reason the priest exists is the Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
It’s the Bishop’s role to teach, using the available means he has (priests, catechists, volunteers, books, letters, instructional materials).

It’s our job to learn all about the one we claim to love more than anything. : >

It is a mistake to assume that the 7-10 minute period called the homily is a primary means of formation or education.

I challenge any disgruntled ("underfed, un-formed, un-catechised) Catholic that I meet to examine their Sunday bulletin…of notices, meetings, classes, references, pointers. I ask them how many they’ve taken advantage of. Next I point them to their parish’s library, etc. etc.

In this day of priest shortage…the burden is on us to carry the cross of proper and deepening formation. The Bishop and his priests can / should / do / guide us.

And again, Mass is not about formation.
 
Edward_H said:
It’s the Bishop’s role to teach, using the available means he has (priests, catechists, volunteers, books, letters, instructional materials).

It’s our job to learn all about the one we claim to love more than anything. : >

It is a mistake to assume that the 7-10 minute period called the homily is a primary means of formation or education.

**I challenge any disgruntled ("underfed, un-formed, un-catechised) Catholic that I meet to examine their Sunday bulletin…of notices, meetings, classes, references, pointers. I ask them how many they’ve taken advantage of. Next I point them to their parish’s library, etc. etc. **

In this day of priest shortage…the burden is on us to carry the cross of proper and deepening formation. The Bishop and his priests can / should / do / guide us.

And again, Mass is not about formation.
Click to expand...
RE the bolded section…👍👍

There is so much available that far too many do not take advantage of.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top