www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Are we in union even with these people?

Hello and true unity to all!

Let us remember the decision made by our dear father St. Cyril: to have the Liturgy celebrated in a form for the people of the land (Rus, at that time, and us in our time) to understand, in our particular languge, yet to be a Liturgy still holy and sacred.

This holds true for our time and our space, even though time and space have no meaning in the realms of which we speak - we understand them only "through a glass, darkly".

We need a Litugy that speaks to us in our language. (English, since we are citizens of the United States, and that is our language, just as French is the language of France. That is what Cyril envisioned.)

We need a Liturgy that shows respect and AWE (please look up the precise meaning) for the mighty presence of God physically present with us. Trite, common dance moves have no place here. Respect and total devotion are the motions (if any) that we should express.

Picture yourself in front of the One who would die, horribly, for you, and you only. And He does. Every time, only unbloodily.

What would you do? Would you dance? I think not.

And this is what happens every Sunday; indeed, every day, wherever and whenever Liturgy is celebrated.

Trinity

This is not about our liturgy this is about the RCs and are we in communion with them. I would say we are no matter what they do among themselves we are still in communion with them. We dont need to copy them pre or post Vatican II. Personaly of thats what they want to do it does not worry me. I wont be there.

ICXC
NIKA

Dearest Trinity,

You should see my dance I have copied. It is very true to form. I received lots of compliments from MzByz1974 when I last performed it.

Amen.

-- John

Hello,

I understand you would not. Probably I wouldn't either, because I do not dance at all.

However, I do see the very distinct possibility of people who would.

People, like the Aztecs, my forefathers, who would consider dancing the top-most form of worship and that is what they would do if they met the Lord.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an image of a dancing maiden. The position of her knees and especially her hands (which to our eyes looks like a posture for prayer) is a posture of dancing.

She is initiating the dance, and she expects us to follow.

Somehow, I am not ready to just dismiss the invitation.

Shalom,
Memo

Thanks to my new computor, I have just seen the video that started this thread. Frankly, I found it enjoyable, and spiritually enlightening in it's own way. I can fully understand why Cardinal Mahoney would have this celebration. What it was not though, is a Mass...and it shouldn't be called one.

It seems most of the people that attend, (and why not), have not reached the spiritual growth of appreciating the fullness of the Eucharist, so why are they being given it? It seems smarter to me to have the Mass after the celebration, maybe in a small chapel, and make it a more somber affair.

It reminds me of our midnight Easter celebration. Most people in Greece and here leave immediately after the Anastasi. They do not stay for the Liturgy, nor partake of Holy Communion.

Well strangely enough, that has been changing ...in this country at least. I'll never forget the shock of a GOA priest when his sermon actually convinced people to stay. In time spiritual growth will come for some at least, so why not continue to have these celebrations and give the people, especially our young people, that chance to grow.

Zenovia

Hi,


Well, the video is not a complete Mass.

The video is 20 minutes long and that particular Liturgy was well over 2 hours long.

Does that help?

Shalom,
Memo

"Well, the video is not a complete Mass.

The video is 20 minutes long and that particular Liturgy was well over 2 hours long.

Does that help?"

It helps us to get less sick watching it since they left out at least an hour and forty minutes.

I think what this all comes down to is respect for the Liturgy. We need to be respectful of the Liturgy, (Mass) period, no matter what culture we come from.

Some of the comments on this thread are crossing the line into uncharity. We can disagree with the way this Mass was celebrated but we, as Christians, should be able to express our disagreement with charity and without sarcasm.

Dear John,

I agree with you. Personally from what I saw in the video, it was a beautiful celebration. As far as I'm concerned, I would rather see our young people attending that than what they do attend for enjoyment.

My point though is: Why can't there be different forms of worship according to one's own specific spiritual level?

For those who are critical of the video, all I can say is that there seems to be many, many more that were not...or they would not have been there.

As for the dancing, I have seen dances similar to these danced by the Messianic Jews in Israel. Not that it matters one way or the other to me, as long as the Mass or Liturgy is performed in a more somber atmosphere in order to reflect the seriousness of the Eucharist.

Zenovia

I just viewed the vid and I am so thankful my Dominican RC parish does not have anything like this going on! Thank God!!

Oh, Memo, you are so sweet!

But please remember: your ancestors dug the hearts out of living sacrifices in the midst of a pagan ritual - hundreds of victims per day - it doesn't really compare! Because of the horror, the mighty temple that was the center of Mexico City was buried by the missionaries and people like Juan Diego, who realized the horrific slaughter for what it was. It has been buried until now, and is only now being brought to light. As to your ancestors, they might dance, but I think I mentioned in an earlier post why we might not.

(Please do not think that I am singling out Mezo-Americans for some sort of prejudicial backlash.)

Our Lady of Guadalupe is most emphatically NOT dancing, as anyone with eyes can see. She is in a posture of praying. The pupils of her eyes hold the image of the men who saw her first - did you know that?

What's even cooler - she has her foot - AGAIN - on the crescent moon. Are you aware of how many Hispanic ladies have decided to convert these days, and marry Islamic men?

You who are in Guadalupe are in possesion of a Living Icon. Not that all icons aren't living in their own way, but this is something special indeed.

How blessed are you!

Trinity

Because there are norms that are to be adhered to. Because the Catholic Church (particular in regard to the Roman Catholic Church and a Roman Rite celebration as this was supposed to be) has spoken on what is an is not allowed. The GIRM is pretty clear as was Redemptionis Sacramentum [ewtn.com] .

And the fact that most Catholics are "okay" with things like this is hardly the proper litmus test. It is estimated (and I believe conservatively so) that 70% of Roman Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. Does that mean that such a lack of belief is "Okay" because the majority don't have a problem with it?

Many of these abuses take place because the laity don't know any better. Catechesis is horrible and the laity are a group of people so ignorant about their faith that they no longer recognize Christ present among them in the Eucharist.

I attended a daily Mass on Saturday that literally made me want to cry. I was, as near as I could tell, one of only two who found any problems in the Mass. It was a Roman Rite Mass that took place during a marriage building weekend retreat. It was, incidentally, my last Latin Rite Mass. Everyone, afterwards told the priest what a wonderful Mass it was and were all smiles. I, along with my husband, were nearly in tears.

Here's what happened.

The retreat was at a Franciscan retreat center and the lecture portions of the retreat took place in the chapel which the facilitators kept calling the "conference room". It is a long rectangular room. The chairs were arranged, in one half of the room, in a semi-circle in front of a folding buffet table where the facilitators and the priest sat. This semi circle faced one of the long walls of the room. Outside of the circle of chairs in the back corner of the room I noticed a tabernacle. The Sanctuary light, appeared to be unlit.

Later in the evening after we were dismissed we had come downstairs to get something to drink from the dining room (across the hall from the chapel). The lights in the chapel were off and it was then that I was able to notice that the Sanctuary lamp was indeed lit. So there we had all been all night walking in and out of the room, talking and conducting the retreat and all the while Christ was in repose in the tabernacle and not one person (not even the priest) ever made any sign of reverence toward him.

Fast forward to Saturday morning and Mass.

We head down to the chapel/conference room for Mass. The chairs are in the same position around the buffet table. The same plain tablecloth is on the table (you can tell its the same because you can see the stain from where someone spilled coffee).

Only now instead of the facilitators books there is a candle, a Bible, a container of unconsecrated hosts, a plate (earthenware) in to which each person who will be receiving communion is supposed to place one unconsecrated host, a gold chalice and a plate with the larger host which the priest will elevate during the consecration. The last two items were on set upon a separate cloth on top of the regular table linen.

Still no one (except for Tom and I) had made any gesture of reverence to Christ in the Tabernacle.

Fr. T came in before all of the attendees had come down from their rooms, so he stood around talking and joking with us.

Then once everyone came in he began the Mass. After the readings (where were done by couples in tandem she reading part and he reading part) Father realized most people had come in later and had not heard the instructions to place an unconsecrated host in the dish if they were going to receive the Eucharist. So he announced it then and had everyone come up and do that.

Now here are the things that really concerned me:


* During the Our Father he actually instructed everyone to hold hands and he proceeded to hold hands with two of the facilitating couples. He didn't say, "If you want to." or "Hold hands with your spouse" or even "It is okay if you feel like it". He said something about how now is the time when we should all hold hands and pray as Jesus taught us. When he actually moved from behind the altar/table to join hands with people in the front row.

* During the Sign of the Peace (after he had done the ritual hand washing) the priest went around the room and shook everyone's hand. Something the GIRM specifically says is not allowable.

* When it came time to kneel during the consecration he said, "If you want to stand you can stand. If you don't feel like standing you can sit. But we don't have any kneelers so you can't kneel." Though one couple was kneeling. Incidentally from habit in the Eastern Rites we remained standing. When Fr. T noticed that there was a couple kneeling inspite of there being no kneelers he said, "Oh well I see some people there are kneeling anyway." and pointed to the couple, who looked embarrassed.

* At various times during the consecration he would pause in the middle of the necessary and required prayers to give instruction on what he was doing. And once shared some personal anecdote. I honestly don't remember what it was that he said because I was too busy being shocked that he did it.

* I also seem to recall that there are prayers that the priest says during the consecration in the Latin Rite which he does not say aloud to the entire congregation. But Fr. T didn't do any of those. I know he didn't do them because he wasn't ever silent. There was no pause. What silence there was ended up being filled by commentary for those non-Catholics among us. Since it has been so long since I have attended a daily Mass in the Latin Rite (more than two years) I do not remember if the consecration is exactly the same in both the daily and Sunday Masses. So perhaps there wasn't anything else he was supposed to say. But I know he didn't say any of them because we were seated in the front row not more than 4 feet away from him.

When it came time to receive the Eucharist I felt very uncomfortable about doing so, but I did it anyway. Which may well have been a mistake on my part.

When I received on the tongue Father was very surprised and paused for several moments continuing to hold the Host low, at mid-chest height. He was clearly waiting for me to change my position and receive in the hand.

Does the fact that most of those assembled thought this was permissible and "good" make it permissible and good? I think not.

Using what the laity accepts and deems appropriate is not and never should be the proper litmusts test for what is orthodox.

Carole

Hello,

Thank you. I am afraid I cannot reciprocate without being hypocritical. I am sorry.

Well, I am pretty sure the Greeks and the Slavs did their share of pretty horrid things before they received the Gospel.

That is besides the point.

The point is that Our Lady came to one of these brute savages and gave him an image of herself.

In this image, she appears in what the savage brute in question and his fellow countrymen would not have identified as anything else but as a dancing posture.

Sure.

And you are right, of course. She is praying indeed. But praying with her whole body, in dance, as did St. Juan Diego and his fellow countrymen of that day and age and of this day and age.

When our "matachines" process into the church dancing, they are offering to God their highest form of praise: their dance.

Please, do not presume to know more about Our Lady of Guadalupe than I do. I am by no means an expert, but I am a son of the cultrue that received this wonderful gift over 450 years ago. I have an "insider's" point of view that is very difficult to make up for.

You can take a look at a thread I started a couple of years ago here in the Town Hall and I finally managed to complete last December. In that thread I translate pieces of the Nican Mopohua and I attempt to explain some of the cultural details that are bound to be lost in a mere translation.

Well, let me tell you that the very word "Guadalupe" is not Nahua. It is Spanish, and the origin for the word is Arabic "Wadi Al'lub", which means "River of black pebbles".

The reasons why the Spanish-speaking clerics who were involved in this event picked "Guadalupe" to render what was probably "Coatlaxopeuh", literally "who crushes the snake" are very complex and quite interesting. Again I refer you to that other thread I mentioned before.

Thank you, yes, we know.

That is why it is important for you, who are also intended recipients of this wonderful gift from God's mercy to understand and respect the cultural context in which the gift was given.

Only then you will be able to fully appreciate its meaning and implications.

Shalom,
Memo