Posted on 06/02/2005 11:17:53 AM PDT by Pyro7480
On 21 May 2005, I attended the bacculareate Mass at Villanova University in southeastern Pennsylvania. My sister was graduating from this school, which was founded by Augustinian priests in the mid-19th century.
The Mass took place in the early evening at the university's stadium, and other than a brief shower, the liturgy started well. A choir sang Palestrina's Tu es Petrus prior to the beginning of the Mass. I was delighted to hear that particular piece of music. However, I should have a heeded a warning of sorts that was right in front of my eyes. There was a table close to the stage were the Mass was going to be offered, and sitting on top of the table were glass chalices, which obviously were going to be used during the Mass.
The atmosphere of the Mass shifted quickly as the processional hymn began. The line-up of the ministers began in a normal fashion. At the very beginning of the procession was a graduate in academic garb carrying a censor. However, not far behind were other graduates carrying multi-colored banners. They were the oddest things I had ever seen processed in during a Mass. It wasn't clear at all what their point was. The colors used weren't Villanova's colors. In fact, they used bright pastel colors. But they didn't have much to do with the Mass itself, so it was a forgiveable error.
The banners, however, was just the beginning of events that could be described as the results of lapses in judgement. The music during the Mass itself belonged to typical post-1970's composing, so that wasn't exactly unexpected either. But when the time for the offertory came, my heart began to sink. The hosts that were to be consecrated were brought in to the stage where the altar was in large wicker baskets. It wasn't immediately clear at that point but inside the larger wicker baskets were smaller wicker baskets, lined with white cloths of some sort, which actually contained the hosts. The wine that was going to be consecrated were brought in large glass/crystal containers.
Both the hosts and the wine were left in their containers during the entire Eucharistic prayer. When time came for communion, baskets containing consecrated hosts were brought to each side of the field. The smaller wicker baskets containing the hosts were taken out of the larger baskets, and most of the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament was taken care of by lay people, most of whom were college students.
When one of them came with the basket, the rest of my family went for Communion, but I decided not to go. I prefer to receive Our Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from the hands of a priest or deacon. Anyway, at that point, I was feeling rather offended by the manner Communion was being distributed. They were treating Our Lord as if He were an appetizer that was being served at a restaurant. When my dad sat back down next to me after receiving Communion, I told him what was wrong about what was taking place.
As the distribution was winding-down, I noticed that some of the students who were distributing Communion were committing more abuses. I saw one of them self-communicate. Some of them stacked the baskets on top of each other, and it was probably the case that on top of the clothes, there still rested small fragments of the consecrated hosts.
After the Mass concluded, my family went to a nice Italian restaurant nearby. I brought up the issue of the Mass. My mom seemed to understand why I was feeling offended. My sister on the other hand, said in response to my complaint (in a rather sarcastic manner), "I'm sorry my liturgy offended you." She couldn't understand why it was wrong to serve the Blessed Sacrament in that manner.
My final thought on this issue: If it is possible for papal Masses to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people during Communion, and do it properly, then an American institute of higher learning which has Catholic roots can afford to do take the proper steps to accomodate a few thousand during a bacculareate Mass.
Saving up for it. I do have one I purchased, oh, about 8 years ago at Zimmer's Gifts in Toluca Lake, CA -- near L.A. by Scepter Publishers. Zimmer's does not have a web page that I can find, but this gives a phone # and a map. I'm not that familiar with all the stores in this area, but Zimmer's an excellent store with lots to choose from.
I've "heard" good things about CatholicFreeShipping.com in Huntington Beach, but, seeing I don't drive (long story off topic here LOL), I haven't been there ... yet.
Google is great ;)
Ah ha! Thank you! Great explanation!
Thank you for the veil explanation. But my original question still stands, why must a woman's head be covered?
From Catholic.net (my note -- I've seen this one posted in about 3 or 4 different places on the 'net ... don't know where the original is from ... but I doubt it's from the Canon ... looks more like a very personal opinion. Still ...)
"In answer to the question, it is highly commendable for women to have their heads covered in church. I asked a devout Catholic woman why she has her head covered in church. Every word of the following statement is quoted verbatim from her answer. She said: "The first reason I cover my head in church is to show reverence for the second person of the Blessed Trinity who became man so that He could humble Himself to accept death, even death on a cross, out of love for me, a sinful person. The second reason I cover my head in His true presence is to make reparation to Him for the many sisters who have made vows to be His bride and now are walking around like proud Eves instead of humble Marys. They no longer wear their sign of humble submission to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The third reason is to remind myself and others that Jesus Christ is truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity here in the tabernacle, and that we should act with the greatest reverence toward the God who became man for us to suffer and die in our place, that we may one day enter into eternal happiness with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
"What exactly is a "veil"? Is it a scarf that you put on your head? Why is this done?"
----
This is a good source for chapel veils, mantillas, etc. Those things including hats qualify as head coverings for Church. http://www.halo-works.com/shopping/veils.html You can browse through the site and get a sense for what we're talking about.
The Apologia site is an excellent resource on all things traditional. http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/index.html
On this page she gives a very good explanation as to why we wear veils. I'll excerpt some of it below.
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/theveil.html
We always had mostly English hymns, too (and not many good ones) at low Mass. High Mass, of course, was all Latin (though I never had the chance to hear many, except for frequent Requiems).
A couple of people have posted links to mantillas; IIRC, the mantilla came in during the 60s. In the 50s, women typically wore hats to be "dressy" -- check out some old I Love Lucy reruns! Some women and girls used to wear a silk scarf -- a square one folded into a triangle and tied under the chin; this was discouraged by the nuns. (Jackie Kennedy was shown going into church like that one Sunday, and there was an uproar!)
The reason for head covering was attributed to St. Paul -- I don't have the reference handy, but he said a woman's head should be covered, because "a woman's hair is her glory" (and would be a distraction to men).
There were abuses in the old days too -- for a "visit" (churches used to be unlocked during the day, and you could stop in and light a candle, say a prayer), some -- esp. high school girls -- would bobby pin a kleenex to their heads!
Can I ask what AQ is?
I wear various kinds of head covering, depending on where I am.
When I go to my regular parish for Mass, I usually wear a chapel cap, which looks a whole lot like a black doilie. (On Easter Sunday, I wear the one and only hat that ever looked nice on me.)
If I am at an FSSP chapel, I switch over to the longer chapel veil.
As for WHY I do it...well, I do it to show that I really believe in Jesus' presence at Mass. I do it to remind myself to be reverent. I even do it because my mother did it before me, my grandmother before her, and her mother before that.
For a period of time (during college), I did not wear a head covering to church because I felt funny about being the only one. As I got older, I realized that wasn't a good enough reason and I started wearing it again.
I get some ladies asking where I got the veils, I get some people laughing at me, and I even get some truly scathing sarcasm directed at me (yes, even from some of the clergy).
But I'm doing what I think is right, and I'm teaching my kids that even if some people make fun of you, you should ALWAYS try to do what's right.
Regards,
I still have mine from pre VCII. In fact, I have two. You're welcome to one of them. Just freepmail me an address where I can send it.
No--Paul's parish (St Charles Borromeo) does NOT have a Tridentine Mass.
But when Paul's directing the music, there is NO trash, period. Paul's last 'outside' gig was as Director of the LA Master Chorale--he was also the choral director for Marymount before and after the merger w/Loyola.
Actually, you might find a few at the location of the Tridentine Mass.
Otherwise, Loome books (Minnesota) will have some. Someone is publishing them, too--new "old" Missals, but I don't know who. Pinging a good source of that knowledge
My guess is that the Epistle reading was a local option. As to the English hymns at Low Masses--maybe. Here, at Low Masses, there was no organist. No organ, no singee.
Both you and gbc are correct.
"Derogation" is not the same as "abrogation," and that's not a smartass observation, despite my inclinations...
The Old Rite was 'derogated,' but NEVER 'abrogated.' IOW, the NO replaced it, without a formal declaration that the Old Rite could NOT be used.
Homely analogy--you buy a second car and decide to use IT in preference to your first one. The first car was 'derogated.' Nothing wrong with it, you didn't sell or get rid of it--you just don't USE it.
VU is my alma mater. Frankly, the religious aspect of the University has been going downhill since they redid the Church, IMO. Years ago the interior was beautiful, dark, gothic, matching the exterior. Then they "updated", moving the alter toward the center, pink marble. It's hideous.
GG,
You are not being given accurate information. The Novus Ordo was not promulgated till April 6, 1969. It didn't come into effect until November of that year and that was only a partial missal. The complete missal with propers and calendar didn't finally arrive until November of 1971.
The Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. Pope John Paul II established a commission of nine Cardinals (Card. Ratzinger among them) and they concluded that the TLM was never legally prohibited. In 2003 then Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope B16 stated to Raymond Arroyo on television in English that the Old Rite had never been prohibited.
And Vatican II itself states, ""This most sacred Council declares that holy Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal authority and dignity: that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way . . . "
Everybody knows that a tremendous latitude in church music is tolerated, practically speaking. Whether this is advisable is another thing, as I've tried to show. The argument for a minimalist approach to instrumentation arises from the liturgical points I've already mentioned: that liturgical worship is a vocal act and a communal act; and music is there to support that -- not to overwhelm or distract from it.
As percussion instruments, the same problem applies to guitars as with pianos: they require a rhythmic beat. Of course there are many fine hymns (as opposed to chant) and these have a rhythmic component. But is a strummed guitar really the best instrument to support a proper hymn? And once again, being a profane instrument, the very presence of the guitar is a gateway for inappropriate music in a pop idiom to smuggle itself into the church.
Mozart was a true genius, who composed much music that's truly sublime. But I'm wary of Mozart as well. For one thing, though a baptised Catholic, he was not a believer. If like me you believe that sacred art is not merely decoration -- an extra -- but organically linked to the liturgy, then you have to believe that only believers immersed in the life of the Church have the discernment and deep sacramental grasp of their role and what the Church is about necessary to produce something truly Catholic. Yes, Mozart was a fertile genious, but he was also a freemason and a notorious egotist. His religious music is thrilling and inventive, but those qualities are not necessarily what's wanted.
I believe that if Catholics had as much respect for art as they have for, say, a new car, they would examine it more closely and critically before deciding if it's quite what they need.
Altar Missals (about $300) are available from Roman Catholic Books in Colorado.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.