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.
Does a priest who lives a lavish lifestyle water down belief in the Real Presence?
Most EMs I've seen are at least as, if not more, reverent in their manner of distribution than many priests. Perhaps these laymen affect your view of the Eucharist, but that doesn't seem to be the case with the vast majority of Catholics.
for a Mass on a feast of Our Lady, for example, I happen to think it would be wholly appropriate.
You are thinking programmatically, not liturgically. The textual content of the song is what we're discussing here; it's the song as a musical composition that's being considered. I'm sure there are Gregorian chant versions of the Ave Maria; if so they would be much more faithful to Pius's regulations.
Is Ave Maria not conducive to prayer?
By which you mean the Schubert composition? Of course it's conducive to prayer -- private prayer. It's a pious song, and a very beautiful one. And I don't deny that it's conducive to prayer in church as well. But other musical forms can do that as well, while not contradicting other important principles.
I'm just trying to figure out why "Salve Regina", for instance, would be appropriate while Ave Maria wouldn't.
Whose "Salve Regina"? Again: this isn't about the text; it's about the music. A chanted Salve Regina is fine; an operatic or rock or rap one would not be fine.And I'm wondering why hymns/songs must be able to be sung by the congregation if they are to be used.
Because liturgy is not a time for private devotion. At Mass, we all have our proper parts, but popes have been encouraging the laity to participate actively (at the appropriate times) since long before Vatican II.
I know you're not argiung. I appreciate your patience, and hope you don't think I'm being perverse. It's just that as sacramental people, everything we do has symbolic importance. Using signs is bound up with how the church prays, taking minute care that what we imply in art, music, word, and movement are integrated and coherent.
Thanks breakers! It's my personal favorite too. Great instructional, devotions and prayers included through out the missal.
You will recognize this, GipperGal, from the historical Maronite church architecture. The "curtain" or veil was traditional for the Syrian Aramaic Church. The first Maronite Churches were constructed on top of Jewish synagogues and to this day, retain some of their original elements.
The Ark of the Tabernacle was a wooden casket used as a repository for the holy things (Tablets of the Law). It was considered the throne or dwelling place for the Lord. The Ark in the Holy of Holies was protected and concealed by a veil to emphasize the "shekinah" or glory of God under His tent.
It is significant to note the development in the Christian understanding of the temple which was identified with the Body of Christ. The Church was not merely the symbolic but the real presence of God. This new temple was made up of the apostles and prophets who were the foundations of the temple. Christ was its cornerstone and principle of cohesion (unity) and each Christian was a living stone set on the foundation by the Holy Spirit. Together with Christ, the community of believers made up His dwelling place. (1Cor. 3,9; 2 Cor. 6, 16; Ephs. 2, 19-22). This earthly temple was a forshadowing of the heavenly temple (Apoc. 3, 12; 7, 15).
It is this understanding handed on by the early Church, which formed the attitudes for Christian worship and formulated the guidelines for Church architecture in the Syro-Antiochene Church, the oldest tradition in the Catholic Church.
That tradition is retained in the Maronite Divine Liturgy, with the Prayer of the Veil.
O Lord,
may your peace, true love,
and eternal and divine grace
be with us and among us all the days of our lives,
and we will give you glory and thanksgiving,
now and forever.
Some of the Maronite Churches are now restoring the curtain .... veil. Vatican Council II Fathers challenged the Church to interiorize its faith and renew its public worship. This need to return to the sources is due to the fact that over the years, the Maronite Church, wishing to manifest its unwavering fidelity to the Church of rome, readily accepted Roman adaptations and latinizations. As a result, the Maronite Church has fallen away from its original traditions. The deep thirst to rediscover the original Maronite traditions has been taken up by each diocese and by the Church Synod.
In the Latin Church, this 'tradition' predates VCII and was intended to show respect. It was also a requirement. You could not stay in church without a head covering. Oftentimes, women who forgot their 'veil' or 'mantilla' would plop a Kleenex on their head in order to conform with this requirement. The Council Fathers made the veil, optional.
And those latinizations shouldn't be in the Maronite church. Or the Byzantine. Or the Coptic..etc.
Yes, I believe there was a big debate about this in Michigan when the Maronites build St. Sharbel's in Sterling Heights. BTW, I just heard from my nephew that St. Sharbel's Maronite community in Sterling Heights(which was brand-spankin' new when I left Michigan to move to the land of the Taj Mahoney) has grown so much in the last ten years that they are now talking about building another Maronite parish in the area! You'll find this part fun, NYer: Apparently, the reason why the community is growing so big so fast is not because the Lebanese are suddenly having an immigration or baby boom, but because so many Latin Rite Catholics have joined the Maronites! I thought of you when I heard that. LOL! (Can you imagine if they included all these American Maronite parishes in the a new Lebanese census? We'd out number the Druze and the Muslims for sure this time! No more of this 60 vs 40 percent stuff. Hmm... Actually, this ain't such a bad idea. Does anyone have Patriarch Sfeir's phone number?)
The Maronite rite wouldn't be the maronite rite without some of those Latinizations. It's probable that those latinizations are what have kept the maronites from schism out of all of the Eastern rites.
What is the prejudice against the latin influence? Would St.James have railed against picking up an idea or two from St. Peter? Answer: No.
For example unleavened bread has a more sophisticated spiritual imagery behind it than leavened bread. (though leavened bread is sufficient for the consecration)
How far do you want this to go? Might as well get rid of anything in the Maronite rite that isn't "pure" No Arabic. Strictly Syriac.
It is Christ we are receiving in the Eucharist. Taking Him from an EEM doesn't lessen His Presence nor the graces one receives.
It is already a reality that laymen are conducting Communion services in some mission parishes on Sundays, and during the week in many others when the priest is unavailable.
Should the faithful be denied the Eucharist because a priest is not there to distribute?
It is Christ we are receiving in the Eucharist. Taking Him from an EEM doesn't lessen His Presence nor the graces one receives.
Receiving him in an envelope in the mail wouldn't lessen his Presence or the graces either. Why don't we just order him up online and have Fed Ex or UPS or the USPS handle it? If there's no priest, then why bother going to a stupid "communion" service? It's not Mass. We can save a lot of time and useless overhead that way. In fact, a priest could be the one who distributes to thousands that way. Then, like Netflix you could just drop the envelope back into the mail.
"What is the prejudice against the latin influence? Would St.James have railed against picking up an idea or two from St. Peter? Answer: No."
I have nothing against the latin rite or latin tradition per se. I happen to be a latin rite Catholic. I just don't see that the church as a whole gains by homogenizing into one tradition.
There are roughly 21 eastern rites (churches) in communion within the Catholic church. The Maronites represent one of those rites. There happen to be several others. I strongly doubt that adopting latinizations is a primary reason why the Maronites are in communion.
Learning ideas from one another is one thing. Having someone else's traditions essentially forced upon you is quite another. So while I would agree that St. James would not rail against St. Peter for picking up ideas, I doubt that either Saint would condone an insistence that one church should practice the other's traditions.
Unfortunately, that has happened quite a bit in the U.S. One of the major schisms eastern Catholics experienced in the U.S. was caused by latin rite Catholics essentially forcing the latin norm of celibate clergy on eastern rite (Byzantine) Catholics who have had a long tradition of married priests.
It's up to each rite as to how far they go in returning to their own traditions. The broad direction received by the eastern Catholic churches from the Vatican for many years now has been to return to their traditions.
Interesting. The local Ruthenian church in my area has something of the same dynamic. Very few of the parishioners are ethnic Ruthenian.
Communion by FedEx is improper because it violates the principle of personal transmission. For example, confession to a priest over the phone is invalid, not because the priest is any less a priest when he's listening on the phone, but because electronic transmission violates the personal principle that is the key to understanding the Church's sacramental ministry.
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.