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.
It was a footnote attributing his sources.
Thanks, This particular issue is not in my boat as it were, but really interesting post.
The truth is the truth, is the truth, is the truth...
2+2 will always equal 4.
I'm afraid you missed the point. Referring to the commission proves nothing; as an unofficial consultative body it can have authority only from the force of its arguments (unknown) or from the probability that the deliberations of such learned men will be correct. I find the SCDW's argument more convincing than that probability.
I know that. All I said was that most of your quote was from Vennari and not from the book as you accidentally said it was, "this is from the same book".
In other words, you prefer to believe whoever states what you want to be true.
That's hardly so, since if I had my way the TLM would not have been suppressed either de facto or de iure.
I'll stick with JPII's commission of 9 cardinals, including the present Pope.
Maybe, maybe not.
The term 'actuosa participatio' REALLY means "actual" or "real" participation--and as has been argued by highly-credentialed liturgists, this begins internally, with a 'metanoia' or conversion, of oneself to a conformity with Christ.
This metanoia does not necessarily require activity, song, or verbal response.
Thus, art song which is religious and not merely a vehicle for "performance" is perfectly acceptable.
Again, context counts. One solo, done without excessive melodrama or vocal floridity, is not a violation of liturgical norms, IMHO.
Yes--but Ratzinger specifically alludes to the "ripping of the (Temple) veil" at the death of Xt in an essay, concluding that this ripping moved worship to a "cosmic" status, rather than confined to the Temple.
IOW, the ripping symbolized the inclusion of the Gentiles in the New Covenant.
Exactly the same reason why "electronically reproduced" music is NOT EVER allowed during the Mass.
No. They're using previously consecrated hosts.
Can you define what you mean by the "personal principle" of the Church's sacramental ministry?
Forgive for saying this, but you are being rather murky in your explanation.
Last paragraph, first sentence: "was" should be wash.
The separation between 'profane' and 'sacred' lies FIRST in the text. May seem obvious, but that's the first screening.
Next we use connotation. This is a little more amorphous--but in essence, if the style of the music is closely associated with the "non-worship" world, then it's likely 'profane,' and not appropriate.
It's sort of like some other standards--if the 'average' man on the street thinks "American Idol" when hearing the music, it's profane. "Idol" isn't always the question, however--sometimes it is much more subtle. I've heard very good progressive jazz played in the Church. It's simply wrong--and the individual who did it SHOULD know better--but that's 'profane.'
Hassler's Missa Secunda's Kyrie is definitely a dance tune, but one has to listen very carefully to hear that--thus the 'average man' would not think of it as "profane."
The concept of "sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, sacred music" is very useful. In fact, the church and all that goes on inside the church should not be 'of this world.'
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.