AmericanPapist Comments
I understand the Pope's concern. the last thing the Mass should become is one of these Happy-Clappy Revival-type Put-Your-Hands-in-the-Air-and-be-HEALED!!!! things. I should know, I went to several of those things in my ill-spent youth. These Amen-
Brother! things are the last thing a Mass should be--and I am Protestant.
Go turn on Benny Hinn to see exactly what Papa Benedict wants to avoid.
I had translated the original text of Pope Benedict's answer - only excerpts of which are quoted by Rodari, whose text is the one quoted by Fr Zuhsldorf, who is then cited by Damian Thompson - last Sunday over at the New Liturgical Movement: see here.
Blame for outdoor Masses being spectacles is being placed on Archbishop Marini, but not on JP II? Our last pontiff was a showman who loved flare, so if such large Masses were spectacles, I would think he deserves the blame. The archbishop merely did his job to make them successes. If the Pope wanted things differently, we would have seen things done differently, no?
I am curious about WHY these masses are a problem. I can see the priest not liking them, for among other reasons, they are horribly long. But I am not convinced that there is anything doctrinally wrong with them.
On one hand, the very first mass was a small, intimate affair. On the other hand, there was the "Loaves and Fishes" miracle, in which a large crowd was fed, spiritually and then materially.
I do note, however, that there were no "liturgical dancers" at either event!
I am skeptical about curmudgeons who use words like "dignity" or "scandalous". I am VERY skeptical of anyone, even a Pope, who tries to get inside the head of the Lord. If we could figure out the Lord, he would not be the Lord. I like Pope Benedict, but in this case I think he is wrong.
The Lord will make the celebrations what he needs them to be. IMHO the more people who can attend a mass presided by the Holy Father, the better.
Interesting assumption here,namely, that Jesus HAD an intention about the venue/size of Masses in the first place. I've always been leary, a bit, of the WWJD approach to decision-making. Seems to me, a lot of time, Jesus would say, "Hey, I put you in charge, so you decide."
Nathan, your defense of the abp seems right to me.
One of the highlights of my life was attending Pope JPII's mass in NYC in 1995. All the concelebrants were bishops. The mass was celebrated reverently. It was certainly NOT a "spectacle", atleast not in any bad sense. Afterward, I recalled the words of St. Therese after attending a papal mass: When, at the Consecration, I saw the Lord descend into the hands of His Vicar, I realized that he was truly the HOLY Father.
If you would like to find out why these Masses are a problem for the pope, I would again suggest you read what the pope actually said at http://
thenewliturgicalmovement....multitudes.html
This should be no surprise to those who have read Benedict's works before becoming pope. In one of his works (I think Spirit of the Liturgy), he discusses his reservations of these large Masses. His main suggestion there was to not distribute communion to the people. I think the Holy Father's main concern is that there is no way for the celebrant to ensure that the Eucharistic Lord is treated with reverence by all participants.
francis has got something here. The point is the Mass is about the worship of the Lord, and only as sacrament is it about grace for us. And in that respect, Communion received from any priest is just as efficacious as Communion received from the Pope.
Before Vatican II, the practice at St. Peter's was to have the Masses inside, and to give Communion to a select number of persons who had tickets for the purpose. While one could easily throw the accusation that this is some kind of discrimination, it would only be so if the only end in mind was a certain acceptance of persons. But if the intention is to avoid abuses, it is no discrimination, but simply a measure taken for the sake of a great good. No one is being denied Communion; they don't have to receive at every Mass they attend, and can go to another Mass the same day.
From my own experience, I am exceedingly grateful. Going to Mass at St. Peter's, whether inside or outside the Basilica, is always a nice experience, but Communion time is always quite dreadful. To the Vatican's credit, in the past year, measures have been taken to minimize the abuses; but the ministering priests can only do so much. It's disedifying to see throngs of the faithful reaching out over the barriers to take the host in the fingers of one hand. Sure, people are badly catechized, but things aren't helped by the huge crowds in which every single individual demands the right to receive Communion at this very Mass.
The mega-masses outside of Rome are not much better. I have heard of one particular event where Communion was being distributed out of cardboard boxes. Being a former MC myself, I know what it's like to have to worry about 50 patens/ciboria being consecrated all at once, and watching for their proper distribution.
I personally understand the great desire to consecrate every convention, conference, large get-together, etc. with the greatest act of worship possible. And a holy and fitting desire this is. However, the one sacrifice of Christ renders such meetings exceedingly holy apart from the numbers that receive Communion at them. Smaller Masses can be offered for smaller groups later by priests that did not concelebrate, and there, the faithful may receive. This happened frequently in the past when concelebration was reserved for Holy Thursday. While the values of concelebration are evident, its liberal practice has simply entailed that less Masses are being said. The sacrifice of Christ is one, but each Mass really is a re-presentation and application of his merits to a specific intention, and a distinct act of worship on our part. This being the case, the "mere" quantitative multiplication of Masses that would be offered were concelebration to be resorted to less frequently, is not something to belittle.
Thank God for this!
In Köln in 2005, my son saved the outdoor Mass there through his quick initiative. He was helping get all the articles together for the big outdoor World Youth Day Mass. The Germans in charge looked at the big pitcher which was to hold the water for the Offertory and shrugged their shoulders, "Well, we forgot to get water and we don't have time to get any, so we will just not use any! My son was suitably horrified and told them that he would find some water. He thought quickly and went to the food tents and begged them for some water. As soon as he explained what he needed the water for, the food vendors were only too happy to oblige him. So he took the pitcher full of water back to the organizers who were so surprised that he had found water! That, of course, is a good example of American ingenuity!
He told me about this and I was just flabbergasted that organizers of a Papal Mass would even consider not using water at the Offertory!
K. Keiser is right about the effect of concelebration=fewer Masses said. I have experienced it time and time again at the parish. The priest cancels the parish Mass (usually the only one of the day)to go concelebrate someone's wedding, funeral or a Mass at a large gathering. I don't think that is right. With the priest shortage, concelebration should not be done so often and so freely. Each priest should read a Mass. The more Masses that are said, the better off the whole world is!
This line sticks in my craw: "we don't know that this is the structure the Lord would have wanted".
While I absolutely agree with the sentiment... I'm sure the Lord simply CANNOT be a fan of those Damned Yankees, much less Yankee Stadium in all its Bronx dumpiness, I wonder what the above clause would suggest for mass held in crummy 1960's ugly churches (not to mention the 1970's egregiously ugly churches!) and later contemporary churches which do not AT ALL serve to glorify the presence of the blessed sacrament.
Have you seen some of the churches in America? Goodness! They are unfit places as holy ground.
We don't know that this is the structure the Lord would have wanted, indeed.
I recall that when Pope Paul offered Mass in a baseball stadium in NYC in 1964, only seven children were selected to receive communion.
Slightly different take offered by the New Liturgical Movement website translation:
"...if there are concelebrating, e.g., a thousand priests, one does not know if this is still the structure willed by the Lord."
This doesn't sound to me like the WWJD-esque "Is this what Jesus would have wanted?" Rather, it presupposes a normative pattern and asks "Does this approach still maintain that pattern?"
Tom J: In the seminary, 20 years ago, a classmate told me of a Papal Mass in his diocese on the west coast, after which leftover consecrated Hosts were trucked around the diocese, in plastic garbage bags, seeking every available cubic inch in the tabernacles of the churches. At least they were new, clean garbage bags. More than one person has told me of seeing consecrated Hosts trampled in the mud at these mob scenes. The Vatican spokespeople are using very mild language to hint at the Pope's concerns.
Tom J: The loaves that were fed to the multitude were not the Eucharist.
Commenting by HaloScan
