IS YOUR MASS VALID? Liturgical Abuse

Our Lady's Warriors ^ | Bruce Sabalaskey

[NYer]

2. What is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? 

Firstly, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a term rarely heard today. Why use

that term? Before Modernism greatly influenced the Church, that was the term

understood for hundreds of years by every Catholic. This title explains fully

what the Mass really is - the very same Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the

Cross made present to us today in time. Absolutely nothing on earth could

possibly be even remotely more important. Once you understand this, then the

importance of a proper Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will become clearer. Vatican

II Sacrosanctum

Concilium explains in detail: 

#2: For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the

Eucharist, "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and it is through

the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and

manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.

#7. To accomplish so great a work Christ is always present

in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the

sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, "the same now

offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the

cross, " but especially in the eucharistic species. by his power he is

present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ

himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who

speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church.  Lastly, he is

present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised "where two or

three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them"

(Mt. 18:20). 

Christ, indeed, always associates the Church with himself

in this great work in which God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified.

the Church is his beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through him offers

worship to the eternal Father. 

The liturgy, then, is rightly seen as an exercise of the

priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man's

sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its

accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public

worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head

and his members. 

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration,

because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of his Body, which is the

Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action of the Church

can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree. 

#8. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste

of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem

toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand

of God, Minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle. With all the

warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating

the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we

eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until he our life shall

appear and we too will appear with him in glory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains:

#1330  "The memorial of the Lord's Passion and

Resurrection. The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of

Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy

sacrifice of the Mass, 'sacrifice of praise,' spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy

sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of

the Old Covenant."

#1366 "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents

(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: 

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption.

But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper

'on the night when he was betrayed,' [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented,

its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily

commit."

#1367 "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are

one single sacrifice: 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on

the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who

offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody

manner.'"

#1368 "The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church

which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself

to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his

Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and

so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering."

Canon Law reconfirms the truth:

Canon 897:

"The most venerable sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the

Lord himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives

and grows. The eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the

Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and the

source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God's people is

signified and brought about, and the building up of the body of Christ is perfected. The

other sacraments and all the apostolic works of Christ are bound up with, and directed to,

the blessed Eucharist."

Clearly then, the Mass is not a "meal." - it is a Sacrifice. This

is dogma.

[St.Chuck]

"None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church. So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers."

I would interpret that statement to mean, leave me alone. Do not reach over two pews at the sparsely attended daily mass to grasp my hand so that we may stand contorted in some "Twister" type posture. How do you interpret it? I try to sit as distant as possible in those settings, to avoid the indignity.

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

I interpret it this way, try not to impose what you want on others. Try to accommodate what others may, in their ignorance, impose on you.

I personally prefer to fold my hands in prayer. But if the person next to me prefers to reach out for my hand, I will not refuse it. I expect that they think that their gesture is one of good will, and I accept their gesture in good faith, giving the good benefit of the doubt.

As to the indignity, I would rather bear any on myself, then impose it on another by refusing a gesture they make in good faith. I'm not a very dignified fellow, anyway. ;-)


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

Oh, I'll except the hand, but the handgrabbers need to get a clue.

[St.Chuck]

So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers."

Such a non-statement. Church-ese. He should add, obviously the most dignified posture is with your hands folded as if in PRAYER! That's the way to do it! Any other way is strictly forbidden. Wouldn't it be nice if a heirarch wrote like that?

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

"Such a non-statement. Church-ese. He should add, obviously the most dignified posture is with your hands folded as if in PRAYER! That's the way to do it! Any other way is strictly forbidden. Wouldn't it be nice if a heirarch wrote like that?"

Well, no. Not at all. That isn't at all what he's said or meant, or meant to say. Archbishop Chaput specifically said, "None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."

As to speaking in "Church-ese", Archbishop Chaput is a rather toe-the-line bishop, trying not to be either to the right or the left of the teaching of the Church, and of her Supreme Pontiff. He is also not a mincer of words. There was a post from September or October where he said rather clearly that it is morally unacceptable to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

So, having a reputation as a good, orthodox, upstanding bishop, I must defer to his judgement, unless I see that someone who is his superior (and I know of only one person on earth who fits that bill) disagree with him.


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

Archbishop Chaput specifically said, "None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."

Yeah? So? He might as well have said "Do what you feel like. The Church has no rules concerning the matter. Therefore, I'm not going to impose any. Just do what you think fits your personal definition of dignified. Unity is no concern here."

My point is that the good bishop didn't say much of anything. Your defense of him is that he hid behind the nonexistent mandate of the church and call it toeing the line. My suggestion is that he draw his own line, at least in his own diocese. Just a thought.

[.45MAN]

Thanks forthe Bump I will read this today..Have a wonderful NEW YEAR

[ventana]

You and sitetest are more generous then am I. I smile and politely shake my head no, I have taught my children to do the same. I see the effect of this in my church, more people are willing to either stare straight ahead in an effort to ward off the advance as are more people willing to gingerly look in my or anothers direction for permission to reach and connect. The willy nilly rush presuming all wish to worship this way is subsiding. Those that like to seem to sit nearby one another; those that don't sit apart. That seems a compromise, a distracting compromise, but one nonetheless. I have a kneejerk reaction to group think and group action. Again, I am not being as charitable as you both and perhaps I should rethink this. V's wife.

[VermiciousKnid]

Here's what I do to ward off the hand-holders: I have my rosary in my hands at all times, and issue them to the kids as well. They are young yet, but my eldest is quite capable of saying the rosary during Mass, and does. The youngest is old enough to say the Our Father aloud with the congregation, and does so with his hands folded around his rosary.

I find that this method works.

Happy New Year!

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

"The Church has no rules concerning the matter. Therefore, I'm not going to impose any. Just do what you think fits your personal definition of dignified."

The first sentence is about what he said. The next sentence can reasonably be inferred. The third is a little wide of the mark, but I won't quibble.

"Unity is no concern here."

This, he didn't say, and it isn't right to say that he said it.

"Your defense of him is that he hid behind the nonexistent mandate of the church and call it toeing the line."

Uh..., actually, I'm not defending him. He doesn't need it. I'm saying that this is what was said by a respected, orthodox, competent bishop. I'm not defending him at all. I'm looking to him for leadership and guidance.

If my pastor or bishop had said something about this issue, to them I would listen. If the Holy Father, or a competent congregation of the Curia say something about this issue, I will listen to them.

But Archbishop Chaput is the highest-ranking member of the hierarchy that I've heard speak about the issue. His words seem like a reasonable guide.

What I take from what Archbishop Chaput said is, within the overall context of respecting the dignity of the Mass, to act with charity and respect for others.

By not forbidding hand-holding, the archbishop lets us know that hand-holding is not, of itself, disrespectful of the dignity of the Mass.

"Twister"-like permutations of humans stretched across aisles seem to me to be disrespectful of the dignity of the Mass. But I haven't seen such a thing in many years, and certainly never at our parish. No one from the pew in front or back has ever tried to hold my hand during the Our Father.

So, until someone in authority over me tells me otherwise, I'll stick to the principle of charity first, and if any small indignity or offense is to be given, I'll try to be the one to accept it and thus extinguish it.


sitetest

[NYer]

Do not reach over two pews at the sparsely attended daily mass to grasp my hand so that we may stand contorted in some "Twister" type posture.

LOL!! Thanks for making my day. I've witnessed these contortions at sparsely attended masses.

Sitetest I don't doubt that Chaput is well meaninged but here again, personal interpretations can lead to misunderstangings, especially among congregants. Just watch the facial reaction when a group of hand holders extends their reach to someone who chooses not to participate.

[sitetest]

Dear ventana,

Sometimes I think that I must be in Oz.

In my parish, there are hand-holders. And those that don't hold hands. And it seems that the hand-holders are not very presumptuous. I've never seen an ungracious offer, refusal, or reaction to refusal, to hold hands during the Our Father in our parish.


sitetest

[NYer]

Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; "Eucharistic Ministers"

Here is one more example of Vatican II blown out of proportion. A little help has now become an army of ministers who dip into the cup with their heavily perfumed fingers. Don't know where those hands were before they held the host or cup. Nor do I appreciate sipping the Blood of Christ from a cup which reeks of Old Spice.

[Desdemona]

In my parish, there are hand-holders. And those that don't hold hands. And it seems that the hand-holders are not very presumptuous.

In my old parish there were far more presumptuous hand-holders than not and the worst offenders were in the choir. THey wouldn't take no for an answer. I developed the habit of crossing my arms, walking as far away as posible and holding music to avoid them. Because half the time they had the sniffles and cough. Talk about inconsiderate. That was aside from the indiginity.

[Desdemona]

One great thing about the parish I am in now, at the 9 am there are NEVER eucharistic ministers. NEVER. And when there are at other Masses, they only have the cup. And it's usually a couple who are friends of my parents. Very nice, devout people.

The priests distribute Communion ONLY. And believe it or not, several people have left that parish over it.

[NYer]

How consoling to know that there are still parishes where full reverence and respect for the Eucharist, still exist.

i>And believe it or not, several people have left that parish over it.

Left because they can't serve as Eucharist ministers?

[Desdemona]

Left because they can't serve as Eucharist ministers?

I guess. I've only heard it second hand and that is a very biased source. There is a parish in the ghetto where all the suburban revolutionaries go. This includes MANY Jesuit priests from the university. Rumor has it a good number of parishoners at my new parish got fed up with Monsignor P's conservativism and orthodoxy and went to the revolutionary parish so that they could do all the new-wave stuff and, direct quote here, "experience good liturgy."

I think they leave that parish in the ghetto open to keep the revolutionaries out of the rest of the archdiocese. Seriously.

[Ex-Wretch]

Please forgive me. I mean no disrespect. I truly fear God and endeavor to keep His commandments. I was also raised in the RCC, was an altar boy pre-VaticanII (i.e. we did it in Latin), graduated RC grammar(Dominican nuns) and all-male high school(Dominican priests) and was married in the RCC to a RC. I believe I am not ignorant in the ways of the RCC.

Having said that, I also believe that the Holy Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God and trumps the "traditions" and "catechism" of the RCC for instruction to the believer.

I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and have given Him my life. When I read that He died once for all time and then sat down at the right hand of the Father, I can understand how He, the Father and the Holy Ghost could be offended by those who just won't let Him come down off of the cross because they feel they are doing Him service by continuing to crucify Him afresh at every opportunity!

Can you not see that you are exalting your man-made traditions over the very Word Himself?

[Desdemona]

Can you not see that you are exalting your man-made traditions over the very Word Himself?

Can you explain this further as we were discussing Mass and the Eucharist which comes completely out of the bible. Specifically, we were discussing the Lord's Prayer, which is a direct quote.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

But Archbishop Chaput is the highest-ranking member of the hierarchy that I've heard speak about the issue. His words seem like a reasonable guide.

The USCCB has weighed in. The old Sacramentary does not allow either hand holding or the orans gesture, thus neither are licit. The new Sacramentary allows the orans gesture but has not been approved by the Holy See, thus hand holding and the orans gesture are still illicit, despite what Chaput thinks or writes. He thinks if the GIRM doesn't explicitly prohibit something then it's alright. He is mistaken.

Orans

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.

Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture? What is the status of the bishops’ proposal to include this practice as part of the liturgical norms for the US?

No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. I might also note that in the course of its discussion of the this question, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.




__________________________________

Committee on the Liturgy
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3060

November 10, 2002 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/orans.htm