WYD Final Mass

[JimR-OCDS]

I watched the final WYD Mass, but I only got from the prayers of the faithful on.

It was beautiful and they combined Latin with English.

I thought the people receiving from the Pope, having to kneel and receive on the tongue was odd, and divisive.

If receiving in the hand, while standing is wrong, then prohibit it, but don’t mandate it, just because the Pope prefers it.

Its either right or wrong.

Also, I heard the EWTN commentators justifying the liturgical dance, that the Tahitians performed. I didn’t see it, but they said it was beautiful and appropriate. They also said that liturgical dance in the US would just look goofy.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If receiving in the hand, while standing is wrong, then prohibit it, but don’t mandate it, just because the Pope prefers it.

Its either right or wrong.

Not exactly.

The liturgical norm is receiving on the tongue in the Universal Church.

In the United States (where I live), the bishops petitioned Rome for an indult to permit those in the U.S. to receive in the hand **as well as ** on the tongue. They gave reasons which were apparently sufficient for the practice to be permitted. . .but as a discipline, it can of course be changed at any time. That doesn’t mean that receiving in the hand is wrong as it stands now, or that receiving on the tongue became ‘wrong’ when the practice of receiving in the hand started. It meant that both practices were to be permitted for however long Rome saw fit, and that at any time, Rome could–or can–stop the practice of receiving in the hand though not the practice of receiving on the tongue.

Why the former and not the latter? Because the former is the ‘indult’. It is a currently accepted practice but it is not the Universal Norm–receiving on the tongue is. Receiving on the tongue can never be mandated OUT–it is always to be an option. Receiving in the hand however may be mandated ‘out’ and may cease to be an option at the discretion of Rome. Not because it becomes ‘wrong’ per se. . .but for whatever good reason Rome can give.

And if Rome gives that reason and removes that option of receiving in the hand, I will of course obey. It’s not as if receiving ‘in the hand’ is more important to me that obedience to the Holy Father. Naturally some people find it a practice of great comfort to them–but again, they will not be deprived of the Eucharist by any means, and in time, if they are properly disposed, they would come to have the same ‘comfort’ in this practice–and if not, at the risk of sounding harsh–it is not the ‘comfort’ of the Eucharist that is the important thing–it is the reception of Jesus. If we make it more important to receive Him ‘one way’ and not another. . .then I think it is time and high time that the indult be lifted as people would have obviously lost sight of what the Eucharist means and grown confused and ‘partial’ where they should not.

 

[VociMike]

I thought the pope was brilliant in demonstrating a practical way for people at a Mass to receive kneeling or standing, as they preferred. Separate all the ones who want to kneel and have them go to a kneeler. It is cumbersome and impractical to have some people kneel and some people stand in the same line, so have them form different lines. It makes perfect sense. It is pastoral.

And as for the “liturgical dance”, I thought it might just be the oddest thing I have ever seen at a Mass. Ever. In my entire life.

 

[Joysong]

JimR,

I watched it early this morning as well, and I noticed that there were many clergy who communicated by intinction, and there were other lines where people simply received standing, and in the hand. I thought it was odd, though, that some who were distributing the Eucharist had closed lips, which meant they were not saying “The Body of Christ.”

I suppose I can share your sentiments, though I do so with trepidation knowing the comebacks that you and I might receive. It did appear divisive to me also, at first. In fairness, though, the procedure for communion may have been explained beforehand, that any who desired to receive kneeling and on the tongue could do so by going to the Pope’s line. If this was the case, I can agree with that, for no doubt there were several traditionalists at that mass and they were then able to receive according to their preference.

 

[frommi]

Random question…has the new translation for the Gloria been approved for use in Australia (meaning has Rome confirmed it?) I noticed they used the forthcoming translation, but I was under the impression Rome had not confirmed this translation yet.

 

[Phemie]

Random question…has the new translation for the Gloria been approved for use in Australia (meaning has Rome confirmed it?) I noticed they used the forthcoming translation, but I was under the impression Rome had not confirmed this translation yet.

AFAIK, The Ordinary of the Mass is already approved. We are waiting on different parts to be approved now.

 

[palmas85]

I watched the final WYD Mass, but I only got from the prayers of the faithful on.

It was beautiful and they combined Latin with English.

I thought the people receiving from the Pope, having to kneel and receive on the tongue was odd, and divisive.

If receiving in the hand, while standing is wrong, then prohibit it, but don’t mandate it, just because the Pope prefers it.

Its either right or wrong.

Also, I heard the EWTN commentators justifying the liturgical dance, that the Tahitians performed. I didn’t see it, but they said it was beautiful and appropriate. They also said that liturgical dance in the US would just look goofy.

Jim

Why would you think that? It was declared beforehand. The Holy Father made a decision. If it was not the decision that you personally like, well, thats on you don’t you think? I don’t see it as being devisive at all. If you want to receive from the Holy Father, you comply. If you would rather stand, there were plenty of others from whom to receive were there not?

Simple and a brilliant solution to the situation.

 

[frommi]

AFAIK, The Ordinary of the Mass is already approved. We are waiting on different parts to be approved now.

I knew the bishops approved it (they did so in all English speaking countries)…however I was under the impression it was still awaiting a recognito from Rome

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why would you think that? It was declared beforehand. The Holy Father made a decision. If it was not the decision that you personally like, well, thats on you don’t you think? I don’t see it as being devisive at all. If you want to receive from the Holy Father, you comply. If you would rather stand, there were plenty of others from whom to receive were there not?

Simple and a brilliant solution to the situation.

I thought it was odd, because it wasn’t how the majority received and it seem to be making a statement, that their way, was some how deficient.

I think we should receive all the same way, kneeling on tongue, or standing in hand. However, the former way with a group like this would’ve been impractical.

I also did not like the clergy receiving through intinction. Many literally held their mouths over the cup, so that the precious blood would not drip on the ground. Others looked like they saw the problems with that way of receiving and just dunked and took the host in their mouths.

My personal opinion is that intinction, should never be allowed. Its totally unscriptural.

The other thing I did not like was the row of large candles across the altar. Why? It obstructed the view at times, although the TV cameras could move, I’m sure people in the crowd could not.

Anyway, if they ever put me in charge of such things, I’ll make the changes.

Joysong: my wife and myself also noticed the EMHC with lips closed, but the person receiving as well.

Did anyone see the liturgical dance?

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Joysong: my wife and myself also noticed the EMHC with lips closed, but the person receiving as well.

Did anyone see the liturgical dance?

I missed the Liturgical Dance (oh darn ) but I would like to point out to you that ‘closed lips’ may not have meant ‘words not spoken.’ Some people do not open their mouths very far when speaking (some due to a medical condition, in fact there are more than a few medical conditions where this is a symptom; some simply from habit). You may not have seen the lips ‘move’ but it is very possible (I practiced in front of a mirror) to say both “Body of Christ” and “Amen” distinctly and clearly, yet move the lips so little that it looks as if they did not move at all.

I think that we should assume that the words were said unless we have positive proof to the contrary–further, that if the words were NOT said, we should likewise assume absent positive proof to the contrary that it was not through any deliberate intention but due to a momentary lapse in concentration, or (with the excitement and the wait), mistakenly thinking one HAD ALREADY SAID the words when one had not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tantum ergo,
uhm, it was quite obvious that the EMHC’s were not saying “The Body of Christ,” and those receiving were not responding with “Amen.”

Jim

 

[palmas85]

I missed the Liturgical Dance (oh darn ) but I would like to point out to you that ‘closed lips’ may not have meant ‘words not spoken.’ Some people do not open their mouths very far when speaking (some due to a medical condition, in fact there are more than a few medical conditions where this is a symptom; some simply from habit). You may not have seen the lips ‘move’ but it is very possible (I practiced in front of a mirror) to say both “Body of Christ” and “Amen” distinctly and clearly, yet move the lips so little that it looks as if they did not move at all.

I think that we should assume that the words were said unless we have positive proof to the contrary–further, that if the words were NOT said, we should likewise assume absent positive proof to the contrary that it was not through any deliberate intention but due to a momentary lapse in concentration, or (with the excitement and the wait), mistakenly thinking one HAD ALREADY SAID the words when one had not.

Please. How far can you stretch this thing. Maybe we could say that even thought hey didn’t say them they wanted to say them and that should count as the same thing, hows that?
sheesh.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It was? Well, perhaps you saw more clearly than my bifocaled 50 year old eyes --it would not be unusual! If that is the case, I do hope that the priest/bishop for whatever parish the EMHCs were makes it very clear that this is not to happen again, else the EMHCs will not be permitted to give communion again. As for the people receiving without speaking, all that can possibly be done is for each parish to run a ‘bulletin insert’ explaining the proper protocol for receiving communion, bring up the topic (along with others like not receiving in a state of mortal sin, what mortal sin is, etc) periodically, and pray.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Palmas, you wound me. They will be taking away my membership card in the HLS club if you try to make it seem that I am ‘reaching for excuses.’

All I was trying to do (okay, maybe coming from me it was slightly unusual in that I am more inclined to be critical than not) was be nice in assuming that in this instance, in an unusual kind of situation (I know I was a bundle of nerves when I went to communion in Boston in 1979 when Pope John Paul 2 was celebrating Mass), that at least SOME of the people were not being deliberately abusive. . .I wasn’t trying to say that ‘golly, NOBODY received without saying anything, and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds!’ Truly.

God bless.

This is NOT my day. I have one poster on another thread who is ready to murder me for claiming that women’s ordination is not an issue (it has already been decided, thank you very much). . .and now here when for once I try to see the ‘touchy feely’ point of view I’m getting yelled at.

Some days you just can’t win.

 

[Cobbfmly]

It was? Well, perhaps you saw more clearly than my bifocaled 50 year old eyes --it would not be unusual! If that is the case, I do hope that the priest/bishop for whatever parish the EMHCs were makes it very clear that this is not to happen again, else the EMHCs will not be permitted to give communion again. As for the people receiving without speaking, all that can possibly be done is for each parish to run a ‘bulletin insert’ explaining the proper protocol for receiving communion, bring up the topic (along with others like not receiving in a state of mortal sin, what mortal sin is, etc) periodically, and pray.

EMHC’s? I did not watch the entire communion, but what I did see where priests and deacons. With hundreds of Bishops, priests and deacons present there was no need for EMHC’s and they should not have been used if they were.

 

[grandfather]

I

Also, I heard the EWTN commentators justifying the liturgical dance, that the Tahitians performed. I didn’t see it, but they said it was beautiful and appropriate. They also said that liturgical dance in the US would just look goofy.

Jim

I have no idea what the dance had to do with worship of God. It was a dopey performance in front of the pope. A group of bare chested men in grass skirts and a sash doing a war dance with some kind of cheer leader baton in their hands covered in shiney foil is not worship. It was silly at best. The Franciscan commentators would not have said anything about it at all if it did not need defending. They were on the air to be cheerleaders for WYD. What were they going to say? Wasn’t that ridiculous?
What was that stupid dance all about?

This is the universal Church. How could something be appropriate in one place and goofy in another?

The celebrant is supposed to lead the people in worship, the offering sacrifice, not be entertained by silly prancing. Worship is not supposed to be a stage show, but that is what it has become.

 

[AMDGtoo]

My personal opinion is that intinction, should never be allowed. Its totally unscriptural.

Really? I seem to see “intinction” (dipping a morsel of bread) in the Gospels of John, Mark, and Matthew.

 

[Joysong]

Jim,

It occurred to me when I saw the mass again later today, that this might be the custom in Austrailian dioceses, because several EMHC’s did not speak, nor did the people - understandably, for how could they answer “Amen” when there is nothing to respond to? After sharing this here, I paid very close attention the second time, and it was as you and I saw it.

The only explanation I can offer is that this might be peculiar to Austrailia. We could ask Barb, perhaps. OTOH, those kneeling in front of the Pope did hear from him, “Body of Christ” – and you could distinctly see their response, “Amen.” I noted too, that he did not say “Corpus Christi.”

 

[Joysong]

Really? I seem to see “intinction” (dipping a morsel of bread) in the Gospels of John, Mark, and Matthew.

This was not dipping the ‘consecrated’ morsel in wine, AMDG. It was a special herbal preparation specific for seder meals that is used even in our day in remembrance of the original passover.

 

[The_Prodigal]

I also did not like the clergy receiving through intinction. Many literally held their mouths over the cup, so that the precious blood would not drip on the ground. Others looked like they saw the problems with that way of receiving and just dunked and took the host in their mouths.

My personal opinion is that intinction, should never be allowed. Its totally unscriptural.

It seemed from EWTN’s coverage that dozens or perhaps greater than a hundred priests were concelebrating and therefore receiving Holy Communion. If they had all received the Precious Blood by drinking from the chalices, there would have been a need for many chalices to be consecrated. As a practical matter, receving both species by intinction reduced the need for additional chalices.

Did anyone see the liturgical dance?

Jim

This question may be a bit misleading to those who didn’t watch the broadcast. There was certainly ritualized movement by some Pacific Islanders in traditional costume, as part of the Gospel Procession, accompanied by (to my ear) quite beautiful music from that part of the world.

It was not at all like the modern, Western, interpretive dance that is sometimes castigated as “abuse” in some CAF threads.