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.
Maybe.
But they would be extremely few and far between.
Over the years, the piece has lost its "secular" connotation. Some can say (as was said above) that it's really an art-song based on a poem by Walter Scott, and thus and so forth, and yadayada.
But I KNEW that, and would still use it precisely because it has long ago lost that connotation of 'secularity.'
For that matter, one could also use the "Ave Maria" written by Verdi for Desdemona in "Othello." Very few typical parishioners know the source--but they will hear it as a prayer. Even if they know the source, they will STILL understand it as a prayer.
Did Vatican II authorize EEM's?
No. John Paul II did, early in his pontificate.
Thanks.
Indeed, and it doesn't take Latin to educate using proper Catechesis.
I have written this several times across several threads: I'm an EMC myself. I consider it the greatest honor possible to assist the ordained at mass. We have one Permanent Deacon and three Priests (Pastor, Associate Pastor, Retired Priest) for a parish of 2200+ families. We have four masses every Sunday (0730, 0900, 1030, and Noon) with 30 minutes between each for changeover. The Church nave itself accomodates ~800. At every Sunday mass there are two ordained (some combination of Priests and Deacon). Along with the ordained clergy there are 8 EMC Precious Blood Stations and at 0900 and 1030 mass, 4 EMC Precious Body stations. At 0730 and Noon, there are 2 Precious Body stations. It is IMPRACTICAL for us to limit the reception of both forms of Communion to the ordained alone. EMC's are a necessity, and the vast majority of them (I can't think of any time in the 30 years I've been part of the parish) that a lack of the utmost reverence for the awesome nature of the Body and Blood of the Lord has ever been displayed. I often find myself, when serving as EMC to be overcome by the awesome presence of that which I hold in my hand. It usually manifests itself physically in tears, or sharp pains in the palms of my hands. I mentioned this to be, what I consider the highest honor bestowed on a living layperson. I truly believe that. I feel the Church agrees.
I thank God for the the privelege granted to me, a lowly sinner, dust really, to Him who is, to serve in this capacity. I am VERY SERIOUS about this.
Peace be to you...
Not trying to score points off you, but maybe this is a good time to review the historical record. I suspect a lot of Catholics, like me, have been reading up on the Liturgical Movement in recent weeks.
Mediator Dei is quite plain on the subject of participation:
105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.
In addition:
Pope St. Pius X: “Don’t pray at Holy Mass, but pray the Holy Mass...If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and lips all that happens on the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass.”
Pope Pius XII: “Place the missal in the hands of the faithful so that they may take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass; and that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.”
According to my St. Andew Daily Missal (published in 1937):
"How the faithful can take an active part in this Sacrifice...
"4. To these three ways of interior or spiritual participation, which can be practiced at every Mass, we should, as far as circumstances allow, add exterior or material participation, which may consist: in reading liturgical prayers with the priest, in singing congregatonal and Gregorian chant at High Mass, in responding aloud at Low Mass, and, best of all, in receiving Holy Communion witht the priest during Mass. In this way, we shall draw plentiful fresh draughts of the true Christian spirit at its source, as Pius X wished.
"Certain texts of the Mass are reserved to the priest, and should never be said aloud by the faithful: we can still make these parts our own, not by a mechanical repetition but by reverent and serious reflection, corresponding to the thoughts expressed by these prayers.
"Other parts of the Mass were originally and are still meant to be said by the people: They are of two kinds: those that are to be chanted by the congregation at High Mass, and those that are responded by the ministers, or by the server at Low Mass, on our behalf.
"A first degree of 'Missa dialogata' consists in responding aloud with the server. A second degree (which deserves properly the name 'Missa recitata') adds to the first degree the recitation with the celebrant of all the prayers which are sung by the people at Missa Cantata, the Gloria (Et in terra, etc.), the Credo (Patrem omnipotentem, etc.), the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei. (1)
"Before Holy Communion we should say not only the Confiteor with the server, but the Domine, non sum dignus, which the priest says at that moment on our behalf, may also be said three times with him."
"(1) The lawfulness of this use is henceforth beyond any doubt..It has been expressly authorised, recommended, or even put into practice in the first or second degree by the bishops of different countries, and it is most favourably regarded by Rome."
...congregation often applauds on Sunday for the "performance" ...
**
In my former parish, the priests regularly led the congregation in applauding a woman who gave solo gospel- type renditions of songs and hymns. Very disturbing, but not the most disturbing thing that happened there.
Applauding in church on Good Friday! Oh, that must have been awful for you. I often find myself during Mass asking for forgiveness for the resentment I feel regarding what goes on, for example, some congregants' extending and raising of the arms during responses such as "And also with you". I know that this practice is not a sacrilege, but it is to me so inappropriate and seems like a way to draw attention to oneself.
Then there's the new 'enlightenment' of the 'Oran's' hand position...
**
What is it with that!!?? It makes me grit my teeth.
Applause is appropriate when it is done in the name of God. i.e., applauding a 1st Communion is laudable because the community rightly celebrates the importance of this magnificent moment in the life of that child.
**
I most definitely do not agree with you.
I attended a Baptist wedding on Saturday.
Now, I'm 36. (This will become important for later discussion.) I wore a pale-green pantsuit (full-length pants, shell top, jacket over).
The older ladies in attendance dressed much like me - some in pantsuits, some in dresses, all in appropriate shoes, with our hair and makeup done.
Some of the younger attendees were in halter or tube tops and clingy skirts. They clearly were not wearing much-needed undergarments. Many were in not just sandals, but rubber shower slides.
I was appalled at the lack of respect for the sacrament displayed.
Applause during church? I may be way lapsed, but even I know that is grossly inappropriate.
Heck, I don't even like to applaud the bride and groom. (But then, I also don't like to stand up and turn around and make a spectacle of the nervous bride as she tries not to trip on her way down the aisle.)
Miss Manners was asked once about applause in church. Her response: "If God wishes to applaud in church, He may. From anyone else, it's inappropriate."
When I've attended
recent funerals, I've seen
many people dressed
like pro golfers. Folks
toss on random clothes and go.
It's disconcerting,
but real old people
and real young people don't care
about conventions.
My fiance said it was likely a rural/urban difference.
I said it couldn't be, because if that were the case, only us city folks would have been dressed up. We were not alone . . . plenty of rural attendees dressed up.
Just not the young ones, which makes me think it's a generational problem.
And it IS a problem. When I get married in September, I do not wish people to wear to my wedding what they would wear to the pool. You'd think that'd go without saying, but these days . . .
Yes, Mr. Sinkspur: Communion services. Not Eucharistic services. Because only a priest can conduct a Eucharist. So why do you persist in using the illegitimate term "Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister", when there is NO SUCH THING?
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.