WYD Final Mass

[SenorSalsa]

AMDGtoo, does your name happen to refer to the AMDG household of FUS fame?

 

[grandfather]

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.

There must be an archive for anyone who wants see it for themselves. It was a stage spectacle, a Pacific island war dance.

Think for a minute about what you would do if you were to come into Almighty God’s presence. He is infinitely glorious and nothing can stand before Him. You might fall on your knees. You might fall on your face. That is the idea of what goes on at Mass. We come before God and we are sinners.

So why don’t we do a little dance, jump around to the beat of drums like mighty warriors or monkeys? Maybe what we should do is a little rap if we come from the inner city, or a salsa dance or tango if we are from Argentina, or Flamenco from Spain. Maybe we can put on a show and if He likes it He will forget about our sins.

What was the purpose of this display? What does it have to do with worship or the sacrifice of the Mass?

 

[AussieAnn]

I was there and can confirm that there was no way that “The Body of Christ” was not spoken nor where there no replies. This would be unheard of. No one in my “area” was not saying “The Body of Christ” and I spoke to many, many people afterwards and no one mentioned it. It would be unheard of here in Australia not to speak these words. I’m not sure why anyone here would think otherwise? My area was one of the first to finish Holy Communion and I had a long time to look around at other areas and I saw everyone saying the same as usual “The Body of Christ” and the reply, “Amen”.

 

[Sheeniac]

Divisive? Sorry, this is a broad Church with many rites within her. If we can have so much diversity in rites alone, then a little more diversity in receiving Communion is not going to kill us!

I say this as someone who loves both the EF and the NO.

I missed most of it, but saw the very end when “everyone” (cardinals mainly) was kissing the Pope’s ring. B16 is just the cutest Pope!

 

[VociMike]

There must be an archive for anyone who wants see it for themselves. It was a stage spectacle, a Pacific island war dance.

It starts about 38 minutes into this video:

video.wyd2008.org/?MediaId=95eb2b14-9cef-4b6b-9ac4-a70d39412062

 

[grandfather]

There are some photos of the dancers at this site. It is the secon post from the top at the moment. The EWTN commentators idea of appropriate.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

 

[Joysong]

I was there and can confirm that there was no way that “The Body of Christ” was not spoken nor where there no replies. This would be unheard of. No one in my “area” was not saying “The Body of Christ” and I spoke to many, many people afterwards and no one mentioned it.

AussieAnn,

It is a little disheartening to be implicated as a liar, ever so subtly. The reports were that 400,000 were in attendance at that mass, and perhaps in the immediate area where you were receiving communion, this was true for you. However, you would have no way of viewing the many areas of the congregation as a camera can do. I say, as does JimR, that this is what we both observed, and if you download the video when it is available on EWTN, you will see for yourself that our words are true.

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, the issue of receiving Holy Communion is neither divisive nor wrong on the Holy Father’s part. He is simply reminding all of us that kneeling and receiving on the tongue are the universal norms. Standing is not an invalid posture; however, kneeling is legitimate. As Msgr. Guido Marini, the Holy Father’s MC, expplained:

hand remains, from the juridical point of view, a dispensation from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to the bishops’ conferences that have asked for it. The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church. In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery. In our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to recover and emphasize these aspects.»

What, pray tell, is so divisive about that?

Regarding dance, the commentator on EWTN, who is not known for his liturgical (nor factual) expertise, got it wrong. If liturgical dance is to be used, it is used by the indigenous culture within the confines of the missionary territory, not during a Mass outside of that particular circumstance. As Cardinal Arinze indicated in his comments on the matter of dance:

Somebody can say, “but the pope visited this county and the people danced”. A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father – he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny – is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go.

Now, I say that the commentator got some factual stuff wrong regarding the Holy Father’s biography. First of all, Benedict is the youngest of the three Ratzinger children. His older brother’s name is Georg and their sister’s name was Maria (she was the oldest of the three). Furthermore, he was not elevated to the rank of Cardinal in the 1980s; he was created a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. In 1982, he assumed the duties of Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[benedictgal]

Just a quick clarification on the issue of intinction that someone brought up. This wasn’t self-service at all. The priests and bishops were concelebrating with the Holy Father. Therefore, the manner in which they communicated was perfectly legitimate. Obviously, with that many concelebrants, it is difficult, if not impossible, for all of them to go to the altar (especially with that configuration).

Now, had all of the clergy been in choir dress, that would have been a whole different story. I’ll let Cardinal Arinze explain that one:

Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take.

Even if you are bishop or cardinal, and you are not celebrating that Mass, you must be given. You must not take.

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

…Only the celebrating priests or the concelebrating communicate themselves. Everybody else must be given it, even if that person is a bishop or a priest.

It was a little bit disturbing to see people just reach out and grab Our Lord from the priests. Even with that many communicants, some decorum needs to be observed. Of course, Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, noted that there will always be problems with large-scale Masses.

 

[benedictgal]

If intinction is so incorrect, as the OP noted, then, why would Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, make this statement:

Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the Precious Blood and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.

And, just who were the Eucharistic Ministers at the closing Mass? Priests and deacons were exercising their duty.

Now, the other issue that was somewhat problematic was the music. Some of it was too theatrical. The Agnus Dei took too long to get started with the excessive musical interlude. I think even the Holy Father looked like he wanted to move things a little faster. Ditto for the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Memorial Acclamation. These otherwise beautiful pieces were reduced to the level of a performance.

The “Taste and See” communion song was less than desirable. It was too much of a performance piece, too much rhythm and not solemn for Communion. The schola from St. Mary’s Cathedral was most impressive. The group definitely knew what it was doing. It was also a little disconcerting to see the Tahitian or Fijan choir just sitting there during their performance. It wasn’t even a traditional Alleluia. Where was the versicle?

The norms for the proclamation of the readings were also non-existent. According to the GIRM, the same reading is not supposed to be divided into two lectors (with the exception, of course, of the proclamation of the Passion).

1. If there are several persons present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. For example, one deacon may be assigned to take the sung parts, another to serve at the altar; if there are several readings, it is well to distribute them among a number of lectors. The same applies for the other ministries. But it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two lectors, one after the other, except as far as the Passion of the Lord is concerned.

I think that someone is going to talk to both Msgr. Marini and the liturgical team to avoid these kinds of things for the next WYD Mass. At least the kids didn’t read the same Gospel in several different languages like they did in Cologne. That was bad.

At least the jazzy/noveau stuff from Cologne was avoided. Unfortunately, it got replaced by showmanship and performance. Let us see what will transpire in Madrid.

 

[brigid12]

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.

Jim

Hi, Jim - I believe the Holy Father has, in a number of his writings (I think, mostly pre-papacy), said that one of the reasons he prefers the Mass said Ad Orientum is that it keeps the priest from being a performer and keeps the Mass from being a performance of a human-being as opposed to one where the priest is leading the people in glorifying/praising God (and, of course, performing the sacrifice of Calvary). My suspicion is that the plenitude of candles on the altar, since the Mass was said Ad Populace (sp?), were a way to accomplish the same thing. In fact, sometimes the candles on the altar on the EWTN Masses seem fairly plentiful, too.

 

[AussieAnn]

AussieAnn,

It is a little disheartening to be implicated as a liar, ever so subtly. The reports were that 400,000 were in attendance at that mass, and perhaps in the immediate area where you were receiving communion, this was true for you. However, you would have no way of viewing the many areas of the congregation as a camera can do. I say, as does JimR, that this is what we both observed, and if you download the video when it is available on EWTN, you will see for yourself that our words are true.

Actually I was not implying you were a liar. I was simply questioning what you thought you saw. Like you are questioning what you think YOU saw on the broadcast. I have also been working as a volunteer and co-ordinator for the WYD team for much time now and would be sure that a fact like that would have brought to my attention. I also knew many religous who were in many different pods and placements around the venue and am fairly certain that I would have at least heard of this happening. I am also fairly certain that Cardinal Pell would not have ok’d this kind of practise. Just because I disagree does not mean that I am calling you a liar. I just think it is a fairly bold statement to make about the faithful there from the broadcasts you viewed that is all. There was no need to get so defensive just because I have a different view.

The bottom line is it all went wonderfully. The young people had a wonderful time and there was a great renewing of faith. I just can’t get into all the scrutiny you people get into. I think it ruins the spirit of it. I thought the Pope looked very happy anyway. It was such a special and amazing thing to be apart of.

 

[AussieAnn]

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.

Actually JOYSONG I may have sounded terse in my reply to the matter of Communion and if so, I apologize. However, I did feel terse. But not towards yourself in particular. I read the above post and other posts criticising the Islanders celebration or “dance” and realised they were littered with nothing but sarcasm, mockery and sniggering classroom like criticism. I believe that Americas view of “dance” is completely different to the Island people and peoples of oceania and New Zealand. It is not “dance” in the sense of hedonistic pleasure, nightclubbing and cavorting as it is in the West. Quite often what we intepret as “dance” is there custom of celebrating occasions like: Meeting, understanding, the commencement of a particular story or time, or even the commencement of a battle. I am no expert in these cultures, but as they are part of our faithful Church Universal I see no harm in accepting their faithful contrbution towards what I felt was a Traditional, sobre and beautiful celebration of the Mass. It may not be something I would ordinarily listen to or watch but that is not the point. I wonder what the fruits of this conversation will be?

 

[Joysong]

Actually I was not implying you were a liar. I was simply questioning what you thought you saw.

Actually JOYSONG I may have sounded terse in my reply to the matter of Communion and if so, I apologize.

I may have been mistaken about what I “thought I saw” but when JimR said that both he and his wife noticed this also, I realized three of us could not have imagined it. It is not worth arguing about, and was simply offered as commentary on our observation of the liturgy - and not as a debate issue.

I understand your feelings about some of the posts, however, which only added to your underlying ‘terseness.’ It happens frequently in this forum.

Peace,
Carole

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal:

It was a little bit disturbing to see people just reach out and grab Our Lord from the priests. Even with that many communicants, some decorum needs to be observed. Of course, Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, noted that there will always be problems with large-scale Masses.

I listened to the liturgy again late last night for the third time, just to assure myself of what I saw, and I did a double-take over that, too, BG. When I first saw it ealier today, I thought it must have been my imagination, but the camera picked up a particular young man with his hands out ready to grab the sacred host. There wasn’t a procession line, but it looked almost like the priest in that area was being swarmed.

I appreciate your comments about intinction, and that communion must be ‘received’ when the cleric is not concelebrating. There were several minutes of video on this, and I suppose that may have added to JimR’s and my observation of nobody ‘saying anything.’ At the end of the long line of clerics were a group of young adults in simple garb like an altar server. Whenever we receive both species, the EMHC always says, “The Blood of Christ” – to which we answer, “Amen.” Nothing was said at all, which seemed very odd to me. Nor was there the sign of reverence such as a bowed head. They simply ‘dipped’ and went their way.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

This was not during the institution of the Eucharist.

During the institution Jesus said,
take and eat, take and drink.

He never said, dip or dunk.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

Of course, he also gave Peter the authority to bind and loosen. If Peter, in his authority as Christ’s Vicar, declares that intinction is a valid form of receiving the Precious Blood, then, his decision is ratified in heaven (“Whatever you declare bound on earth will be bound in heven…”).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course, he also gave Peter the authority to bind and loosen. If Peter, in his authority as Christ’s Vicar, declares that intinction is a valid form of receiving the Precious Blood, then, his decision is ratified in heaven (“Whatever you declare bound on earth will be bound in heven…”).

I understand that intinction is allowed.

However, anyone watching the WYD Mass, would’ve noticed the obvious problems with even the clergy receiving this way.

If the laity had been receiving through intinction, the problem would’ve been compounded.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

I understand that intinction is allowed.

However, anyone watching the WYD Mass, would’ve noticed the obvious problems with even the clergy receiving this way.

If the laity had been receiving through intinction, the problem would’ve been compounded.

Jim

Perhaps you didn’t read the explanation I quoted from Cardinal Arinze. The clergy were concelebrating with the Holy Father. What they were doing was justified. Had they not been concelebrating, that would have been an entirely different matter altogether. Had they been in choir dress, then, they would not have done what they did. That also goes for the bishiops and cardinals who were also concelebrating with the Pope.

 

[grandfather]

I understand that intinction is allowed.

However, anyone watching the WYD Mass, would’ve noticed the obvious problems with even the clergy receiving this way.

If the laity had been receiving through intinction, the problem would’ve been compounded.

Jim

If we can step back from the particular issue on hand to look at a bigger one that it highlights it might help us to see the general condition of the Church. There are many issues about what is proper or not liturgically that are constantly being debated.

In this case the Church has been living with this Sacrament, confecting It, distributing It, for two millenia. How is it possible we are now confused about how to go about it? How can there be debate and turmoil over how to do something we have been doing since the beginning? How can there be confusion over something that is so basic to who we are and have always been?

This is not an isolated bit of confusion. How many other issues are there that should be long settled so we can go forward living the Sacramental life without confusion and discord? We don’t know how to receive Holy Communion anymore?

Why is there so much turmoil over things that should be basic to Catholic life? What caused all of this confusion? We can debate how to settle a controversy. That is about what to do next. But where did it come from? What is the cause of the trouble?