Would You Attend This Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrStevenJones
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tigg,

What a lovely quote that is.

I’m booked in to a retreat with a Cistercian monk later in the year. I’m looking forward to that, though I hear that food rations can be a little meager and currently I have a little too much attachment to pizza and all things cheesy, so I might have to take some secret rations :o.

God bless +

Michael
So do I!! :D:D:D
 
Right now I am Parochial Vicar in my parish. Probably in a year I will be a pastor and able to make some significant liturgical choices . I would like to offer an OF liturgy that uses legitimate options that are not often used. I am interested if you would be would desire to attending this type of iturgy, and why/why not
  1. No hymns: instead we chant the entrace antiphon and communion antiphon. Silence during the offertory.
  2. Ad Orientem for Liturgy of the Eucharist. Liturgy of the Word facing the people, of course
  3. Use of communion rail (if available) to receive kneeling, on the tongue. Otherwise kneeler for those who wish to use it when receiving
  4. Chanted Latin Ordinaries (Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), other prayers in vernacular
  5. No communion hymn, just chant communion antiphon+ but post-communion reflection sung by choir or cantor
  6. Lots of silence (offertory, communion) rather than filling those times with hymns
  7. Oh and a really awesome homiily 10-15 minutes with lots of energy and hopefully inspiring 🙂
What do you think?
I think it would depend on your parish and how you institute said changes. Sometimes these things can bring terrible strife to a parish…which I doubt is your intention. Just a thought.

For myself…I like music during the offerory…covers up the rustling of getting in your purse. Other then that, I prefer a properly paced Mass…why hurry through it? So, a little silence to bear in mind our sins at the beginning is a good thing. I also prefer it after communion but music doesn’t deter me from my praying.
 
Sounds great - depending on the sermon 😉

I was blessed by attending a Quaker meeting of worship last Sunday and there was something very special about the great amount of silence. The ‘Friends’ gathered in total silence (if only we could do that as we came into church) and then most of the worship was in silence. Though there was no liturgy there was great reverence in the shared silence. It’s a shame we can’t combine liturgy with such shared deep and silence, but I don’t think many Catholic church-goers these days are ready to sit in silence for periods of time. I noticed with the Quaker meeting it took perhaps 10-15 minutes of shared silence before what they call a ‘gathered’ silence occurred which was a notable shift in the atmosphere - all slight fidgeting and movement stopped and a great sense of calm was present. It would be marvelous to have that within a mass, but I suspect I will continue to have to look for shared silence and liturgy in different places (and maybe that’s entirely appropriate).

God bless +

Michael
Go to a Tridentine Latin Low Mass and you will experience this at Holy Mass! 👍
 
Right now I am Parochial Vicar in my parish. Probably in a year I will be a pastor and able to make some significant liturgical choices . I would like to offer an OF liturgy that uses legitimate options that are not often used. I am interested if you would be would desire to attending this type of iturgy, and why/why not
  1. No hymns: instead we chant the entrace antiphon and communion antiphon. Silence during the offertory.
  2. Ad Orientem for Liturgy of the Eucharist. Liturgy of the Word facing the people, of course
  3. Use of communion rail (if available) to receive kneeling, on the tongue. Otherwise kneeler for those who wish to use it when receiving
  4. Chanted Latin Ordinaries (Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), other prayers in vernacular
  5. No communion hymn, just chant communion antiphon+ but post-communion reflection sung by choir or cantor
  6. Lots of silence (offertory, communion) rather than filling those times with hymns
  7. Oh and a really awesome homiily 10-15 minutes with lots of energy and hopefully inspiring 🙂
What do you think?
Sounds a lot like the daily masses at my old parish with perhaps the exception of the #2 and the communion rail. People would often choose to receive kneeling without the comfort of a kneeler though. I’d love to go to a daily mass like this BUT I would avoid it for Sunday. Why? Because I have small children. The silence would be difficult for them and for me, who would worry about disturbing others. I personally love to sing and feel like it is praying twice–I would miss all singing. The signing is also a great way to let the boys get some energy out during the mass. Now, I’m not saying all masses need to be kid/family friendly but you need to be aware that this sort of mass may be perceived as unfriendly to children. If you do introduce it, it may help to do so within a context: like saying it will be a more monastic or contemplative style rather than just a mass of your personal preferences. People can be touchy that way.
 
I was blessed by attending a Quaker meeting of worship last Sunday and there was something very special about the great amount of silence. The ‘Friends’ gathered in total silence (if only we could do that as we came into church) and then most of the worship was in silence. Though there was no liturgy there was great reverence in the shared silence. It’s a shame we can’t combine liturgy with such shared deep and silence, but I don’t think many Catholic church-goers these days are ready to sit in silence for periods of time. I noticed with the Quaker meeting it took perhaps 10-15 minutes of shared silence before what they call a ‘gathered’ silence occurred which was a notable shift in the atmosphere - all slight fidgeting and movement stopped and a great sense of calm was present. It would be marvelous to have that within a mass, but I suspect I will continue to have to look for shared silence and liturgy in different places (and maybe that’s entirely appropriate).
Go to a Tridentine Latin Low Mass and you will experience this at Holy Mass! 👍
I was talking to my sister about the Tridentine mass I attended, which was a low mass where the congregation was silent during the mass. Being 70, she clearly remembers the days before NO, and said there was no such thing as a silent mass and the congregation was always expected to respond and recite prayers such as the confiteor. She said there was a high mass, but it was rarely said. She also said that each church had a choir, usually a children’s choir. I honestly remember little about the trident mass, but I do remember my mother clearly responding. As a matter of fact she could recite most prayers in latin. So I find myself very confused. My family’s experience with the Tridentine mass was in Italy and Canada. Could this account for the differences?
 
You’d have a new member of your congregation: me. You’d also lose quite a few.
 
I was talking to my sister about the Tridentine mass I attended, which was a low mass where the congregation was silent during the mass. Being 70, she clearly remembers the days before NO, and said there was no such thing as a silent mass and the congregation was always expected to respond and recite prayers such as the confiteor. She said there was a high mass, but it was rarely said. She also said that each church had a choir, usually a children’s choir. I honestly remember little about the trident mass, but I do remember my mother clearly responding. As a matter of fact she could recite most prayers in latin. So I find myself very confused. My family’s experience with the Tridentine mass was in Italy and Canada. Could this account for the differences?
Now that you mention it, I too remember that if the priest said “Dominus vobiscum” loud enough, it was hard NOT to respond with an “Et cum spiritu tuo.” It was the first thing my Polish father taught me back in the early 50’s.
 
Would I attend it??? Heck yeah!!!

I’ve been looking high and low for this Mass most of my adult life.
 
Would I attend it??? Heck yeah!!!

I’ve been looking high and low for this Mass most of my adult life.
So many are intestested in this liturgy – thank you for your comments. Perhaps someday soon I may be able to make this – God willing-- a reality!
 
I would like to offer an OF liturgy that uses legitimate options that are not often used. I am interested if you would be would desire to attending this type of iturgy, and why/why not
You bet. Reasons:
  • It sounds like exactly what SC ordered.
  • It would be an implementation precisely in line with the legitimate Spirit of the Council.
  • It would allow us to focus on what the Mass is trying to tell us or teach us or do to us, instead of the latest gimmick, the latest personalized “improvement”
The stark, painful reality out here in the world: It is not possible to attend any OF Mass anywhere that doesn’t have modifications, additions, gimmicks, “improvements,” etc. It is like our patrimony has been taken away from us, stolen from us, is now treated like the personal possession of local Priest.

[Sorry if that’s offensive to anyone. But maybe it’s about time for some plain truth-telling.]
 
Liturgical abuses and imperfections are omnipresent in the OF Masses of my diocese. Worst still, the clergy boast of the success of liturgical localization and entirely leaves out all the traditions. Father, I REALLY ABSOLUTELY LIKE how you offer up the Mass - this is what the Council of VII intended.

I recently discovered that the Offertory (not the Secret) is ABSENT FROM ALL THE MISSALETTES provided by the parish!!! So it is highly likely that people don’t even know that there IS an antiphon from the Psalms during Offertory, be it to be sung or not. :eek:

THEN everyone feels contented by imperfection in our Mass Liturgy. ‘What? Mass becomes perfect because of our heart - our sincerity supplements what is missing!’

Father, go ahead and bash the push-backs!
 
BTW a sharing of an article from the Internet:

“I’m heartbroken to announce that last week, we discovered a crushed consecrated Host beneath one of the kneelers,” the pastor of a small yet devout Californian parish says. He pauses for a moment before he goes on, his voice choked by just indignation and sadness: “This is God, people. God.” Then he drops the bomb. “I’m writing to Pope Francis to do away with the practice of Communion in the hand altogether. I believe most of the abuses and blasphemies that the Eucharist has undergone is because of this practice.”

Since the practice of Communion in the hand has become the common observance in most countries, there has been, whether you like admit it or not, a spike in Eucharistic abuse. Communion in the hand has given those who wish to do harm and those who are careless the opportunity to do what they want with the Body of Christ. Unfortunately, the situation described above is not uncommon. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

Furthermore, Communion in the hand has the potential to promote or at least foster a disrespect for the Body of Christ. As Catholics, we believe this small Host does not represent Christ, but is Christ Himself. How can we, then, possibly touch the living presence of God with our bare, dirty, unconsecrated, and unworthy hands? How? How have we even considered this as an option in the first place?

The answer can be given using one word: disobedience. The practice came about in the early 1960s (after Vatican II, though the Council never actually called for it), when certain parishes around the world began to disobey the Church’s rule of receiving the Host on the tongue, making their own rules as to whether or not you could receive on the hand. The Vatican immediately responded in disapproving words, saying that this disobedient practice would lead to “the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini).

When Pope Paul VI in 1968 sent out a questionnaire to every bishop in the world asking if the Church should alter how Communion was being distributed, the answer came back loud and clear: in the hand was overwhelmingly disapproved of and should not be allowed. The Vatican agreed, stating that if the practice of Communion on the hand be allowed, “it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).

Unfortunately, the practice continued to be promulgated by parishes and dioceses alike, most especially in France . So, in 1969, Paul IV granted the French bishops an indult—a special permission (not a norm)—to decide the question on their own. What happened next was an abuse of that indult: parishes around the world took advantage and permitted the practice of Communion in the hand. Despite the Vatican ’s best efforts, the disobedience continued and today, most Catholics are under the erroneous idea that Communion on the hand is the norm, because it is seemingly most common. However, the norm does not mean the most common, but instead is the practice which is supported by the Universal Church and to which the laity should be adhering.

You want to know what that norm is? Kneeling or standing to receive the Eucharist on the tongue and, if standing, to receive with arms crossed or in another way as reverential. Look it up if you don’t believe me. (This is the norm of the Universal Church; in the US, however, as in other countries, the Conference of Bishops have established the norm of standing to receive, and that it is up the the communicant to decide whether he wants to receive in the hand or on the tongue).Monsignor Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies, was interviewed by the Vatican newspaper in 2008 after then-Pope Benedict XVI established that everyone should be kneeling when receiving Communion at a papal Mass. He said, “It is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand, from a juridical standpoint, remains up to now an indult” (emphasis added). He goes on to say that the pope’s return to the traditional practice “aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole Church.”

These days, the practice of Communion on the hand is increasingly frowned upon by bishops, priests, and the laity. Several dioceses in South America have banned the practice altogether, while Sri Lanka never allowed it in the first place—both of which the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith fully supports.Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis (at whose papal masses many people have been gently reminded to receive on the tongue if at first they extended their hands), and numerous Cardinals have all spoken publicly and loudly against the practice. Cardinals Thorne ( Peru ) and Caffarra ( Bologna ) have banned Communion in the hand, citing reasons of abuse and disrespect. Pope Benedict was asked why he chose to distribute Communion only to those kneeling and on the tongue and he responded, because it highlights “the truth of the real presence [of Christ] in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily.”

As the pastor at this Californian church finished his short exhortation by saying, “I urge all of you to receive on the tongue, and if you don’t like to, offer it up!“

That’s why I desperately want communion rails to be restored!!! For those who cannot kneel, standing is the option; but for those who can kneel, I don’t see any reason for kneeling to be THAT improper. For those refusing to kneel for Communion WHEN THEY CAN, I really want to know if their knees are made of special materials which can hardly be bent, or the Roman Rite does not have the tradition of kneeling, or kneeling EVEN FOR LESS THAN 1 MINUTE EVERY WEEK can largely impair their health to the point of death. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top