Masculinity and the Liturgy

From 1 Peter 5 October 8, 2014:

Today, I want to broach a controversial topic, knowing full well that I may cause a ruckus. I want to talk about masculinity and the liturgy.

I will start with a few caveats. First, I do not believe the liturgy should ever be a controversial issue. It shouldn’t be a matter of politics, factions, personal preference, or cultural fads. But sadly, many have made the liturgy their personal plaything, making these conversations all but impossible to avoid.

Second, all of the following opinions are just that—opinions. I am an uneducated layman. I am not a theologian or a liturgical scholar. If you want an in depth treatment of the liturgy, read Pope Benedict’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.” That said, I am a man, and I want to share my personal observations on why I believe the liturgy is now less masculine.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I attend the Latin Mass. I am not a sedevacantist, nor do I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is somehow invalid, making those who attend it from choice or necessity inferior Catholics. I love Pope Francis, I love our priests, and I love the Catholic Church. All right, onto the issues.

My Experience

I want to begin by sharing a few of my experiences as a convert. On the final stages of my road to Rome, I spent a good deal of time with high church Anglo-Catholics, regularly attending liturgies at a seminary and church near my home. These Anglicans took the liturgy seriously, and their services were conducted reverently and beautifully.

In fact, their services looked so Catholic that experiencing them led me to study further exactly why Anglicans weren’t Catholic anymore. The rest of the story is beyond the scope of this post, but the point is, I came into Catholicism with an experience of very reverent and dignified liturgy, kneeling to receive communion, and an atmosphere of sacredness.

Eventually, after months of studying Catholic teaching, I worked up the courage to attend a Catholic Mass. I had no idea what a Mass looked like, but at the very least, I expected it to be more beautiful and reverent than the Anglican liturgy. After all, the Catholics had the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, while Anglicans did not have the real thing.

One Sunday, my wife and I slipped in the door of a beautiful, Spanish style parish near our home. What followed was eye opening, and frankly, a bit disappointing. The music was tacky at best—a piano and guitar playing shallow ditties. The altar was stripped and bare. Where there was once an incredible high altar (there was a painting of it in the back of the Church), there was now a bizarre piece of glass with swirling colors. The priest’s vestments looked like a pinstriped sheet. Even the language of the Mass was far from sacral—it was almost on a kindergarten level. When it came time for the parishioners to receive communion, a number of laymen came forward to distribute it, and it was received standing and in the hand.

All of this was in stark contrast to the sacredness I had experienced in the conservative Anglican churches I had attended. In this instance, the Anglicans literally out catholiced the Catholics.

This was hard for me to digest. Intellectually, I knew how powerful the Mass was from my studies of Catholic doctrine. Yet, when I encountered it first hand, it was far from a transcendent experience. Rather, it was trite and banal. A few months after we were confirmed, my wife and I were attending a Latin Mass.

Where are the Men?

An Irish Catholic friend has told me that his grandfather, who was a coal miner, would rise well before dawn to attend 5:00 am Mass with his fellow miners. These men took the faith seriously and they loved the Mass. They also weren’t unique. Parishes used to be packed with men who saw the Mass as something masculine, inspiring, and something worth sacrificing time for.

A few decades later, most parish Masses are dominated by women. The lectors are women, the cantors are women, the extraordinary ministers are predominantly women, and the altar servers are often girls. Other than the priest, there are hardly any men involved in the liturgy.

This is not to denigrate women. The most glorious creature God ever made is a woman. I also do not mean to say there are no men involved in parish life, because this is not the case. I am referring specifically to the liturgy.

Why is this? I am not a liturgical scholar, and I can’t propose to provide a precise diagnosis. Many others, including Pope Benedict, have done a fine job of that. Instead, I will share seven reasons I think men no longer love the Mass.

1. Lack of Order

In the Extraordinary Form, there are few surprises in the liturgy. While there are occasional seasonal changes, it follows a set pattern that can be learned easily. The actions of the priest and acolytes are regimented and orderly, and the Mass looks essentially identical no matter where you go. In short, the Extraordinary Form is rigid, disciplined, and almost militaristic in its precision.

In contrast, the Novus Ordo Mass is much more fluid. The priest can choose a number of different Eucharistic prayers, the penitential rite at the beginning of Mass can be chosen at the discretion of the priest, welcoming remarks and announcements are commonplace during the opening and closing prayers. Extraordinary ministers are not required, but they are almost always there, even if there are only 10 people at a daily mass.

The Novus Ordo can be beautiful and transcendent, or it can be incredibly poor. The point is, you just don’t know what to expect. The difference between the two forms of the Mass is really the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

2. No Longer Exclusively for Men

Radical feminism has ensured that there are almost no roles left that are exclusively for men. Whereas men and women used to have distinct and exclusive roles, the lines have now been blurred.

Sadly, this blurring has crept into the liturgy.

Being an altar boy used to be a high privilege. It was even considered a potential first step on the path to the priesthood. Even if a boy didn’t become a priest, he would have a unique opportunity to see the dignity and masculinity of the priesthood firsthand.

Now, girls can be altar servers, and boys aren’t as interested. It’s like adding girls to the football team—it saps the masculinity right out of it. While it may be hard for women to understand, exclusively male roles are a healthy thing for boys. Quite literally, boys need to be boys, and they need to learn from masculine men.

In addition to altar girls, the distinctive role of the priest—who is, of course a man—has been diluted by the introduction of laypeople into the liturgy. The very fact that a woman can now distribute communion or read the Epistle immediately makes the liturgy less masculine.

You could argue that the priesthood is still exclusively for men, and that’s true. But if you start distributing the priestly duties to laypeople, it doesn’t really matter if women can’t be priests. They can still do the priest’s job.

3. Sentimental Music

The music at most parishes is abysmal. It is more suitable for a Greenpeace rally than the church of God. It is sickly sweet and sentimental fluff that no man in his right mind would want to sing. The lyrics are all about our feelings, and they use vague ambiguities to describe our relationship with God. Of course, a growing number or parishes are working to change that, but the majority are still stuck in the doldrums.

I don’t mention music just to nitpick. Music has everything to do with the atmosphere of the Mass. The Gloria set to a tune that sounds like the theme song of the kids show My Little Pony is going to trivialize the source and summit of the Catholic life.

On the contrary, beautiful, dignified, ancient, and masculine music like Gregorian chant (the music Vatican II actually called for) sets a solemn tone that inspires the lifting of the mind and heart to God.

4. The Priest Faces the People

Frankly, most people don’t think the priest facing the people is a big deal. Even if it is, it doesn’t have much to do with masculinity, right? Wrong. It has a lot to do with it.

When the priest faces the same direction as the people (ad orientem), he is very clearly leading them before the throne of God. He is the representative of the people of God before an awesome and objective reality. He stands in the gap, offering sacrifices for us and for our sins—something we cannot do on our own. He is the captain, leading us toward heaven.

Furthermore, the entire congregation is oriented toward someone: Jesus Christ present in the tabernacle. Again, it is very clear who the real audience of the mass is (hint: it isn’t us). When the priest faces the people (versus populum), however, it turns the whole Mass inward, toward us, and toward our subjective feelings and experience of God. It turns an objective and transcendent reality into a self-referential act.

The priest, rather than courageously and humbly standing before God, becomes a performer for our observation. Our sense of participation is wholly dependent on whether or not we can see what is going on. The Mass is no longer a march toward heaven, it is solely about us and our feeling of community and belonging.

Turning the chief player in the Mass, the representative of Jesus Christ, toward the people is like having a battalion commander march into battle backwards. It makes no sense. It reorients the action toward an object it was never intended for.

5. The Sense of Ancientness is Lost

Men love tradition. While women find their sense of community through shared conversation, men find it through shared action. Men would much rather have a shared battle cry (Hooah!) than have a conversation over a cup of tea. That is why men love fraternal orders and the camaraderie of the military.

The Extraordinary Form is all about ancient actions. I have a missal at home that contains pages from ancient manuscripts of the Mass. In 900 a.d., the ordinary of the Mass was almost identical to what it is now. When you become a priest of the old rite, you are literally entering a centuries old club with its own secret signs and actions. The role of the people, too, is largely unchanged.

There is a sense of participation with the Church through the ages that men need (and I would argue women need as well). As men, we need to know that the we are making the same genuflections that the great soldier-saint, St. Ignatius of Loyola, made. We want to be drawn upward into a reality larger and older than ourselves, like being drawn into a secret society.

While there is debate about whether or not it is an inherent problem with the Novus Ordo, the fact is, it does not have this sense of ancientness about it. Rather, change is the name of the game. Even the words Novus Ordo mean “new” order.

If you study the texts of the Mass, you realize just how much has changed in the prayers. But even if the prayers were unchanged, the atmosphere of most parish Masses is something new and innovative. Again, you never know quite what to expect. There is no sense of ancient or shared action. Some people hold hands during the Our Father, others don’t. Some shake hands and socialize during the sign of peace, others don’t.

Men don’t like this unpredictability. We crave order, and the more ancient the venerable traditions that shape our actions are, the better.

6. No More Latin

Like it or not, Latin is the language of the Church. It isn’t something to be scorned, and it isn’t the domain of a few extreme traditionalists. It is essential to who we are as Catholics.

And guess what, Latin sounds incredibly masculine when you hear it. It is strong and concrete in its cadences. “Credo in unum Deum.” “Omnipotens Deus.” “Adveniat Regnum Tuum.” Abolishing Latin from the Mass was never the object of Vatican II. Read the documents. The Mass that Vatican II called for was a “Latin” Mass.

Besides that, it provides the ancientness I mentioned previously. It keeps the Mass from being constantly revised and retranslated to keep up with the changing fads of the vernacular.

While it may seem strange and foreign at first, I think most men are drawn to the power of the Latin language. In a way, we want Mass to feel foreign, like we are stepping into something special rather than commonplace. There is a healthy feeling of disorientation upon stepping into a sacred place, and Latin enhances that.

7. Sacrifice is Downplayed

The Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary, but sadly, that reality has been hidden from most Masses. Some parishes don’t even have a crucifix near the altar. Instead, the concept of a “community meal” has taken precedence.

This weakens the Mass, the central reality of which is always the sacrifice of Christ, and seeing His once-for-all sacrifice re-presented inspires us to make sacrifices of our own. Men love the concept of sacrifice. We desperately want to be called to it. We don’t want a community meal. We can get that at the local pub.

Removing, or at least downplaying, the sacrificial element has driven men away from the Mass.

Why it Matters

You may be reading this and thinking that I am just ranting away and criticizing everything about the Ordinary Form of the Mass and those who attend it. This simply isn’t true. I love the Mass, and that is why I want it to be the best it can be, an action worthy of its Divine audience.

I took the time to write this post because I believe that transcendent liturgy isn’t an option. It is everything, and as the health of the liturgy goes, so goes the health of the Church.

The Mass is literally the incarnation of the faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. It is where the faith meets reality in our lives, and where we encounter firsthand the creed. And because of this, there is no more urgent need in the Church than a dramatic return to sacredness in the liturgy. The reason that 50% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence is because the Mass they attend doesn’t tell them about the Real Presence—not just through words, but through reverent and sacred actions.

Specifically relating to men, we can try programs, clubs, books, prayer, etc., but if the liturgy is weak and trite, we won’t love this beautiful reality. We will muddle through it and be half-heartedly engaged at best. Of course, men should go to Mass anyway, but the point is, it won’t inspire us to holiness or great feats of sacrifice.

If we return to sacred and reverent liturgy, I guarantee we will see a new dynamism in the Church: increased conversions, more vocations, and men again taking the lead in matters of faith.

Mass Etiquette: 20 Things To Do And Not Do In Mass

See http://marysaggies.blogspot.ie/2012/03/20-tips-for-proper-etiquette-in-mass.html

10 Sins That Must Be Confessed Before Receiving the Most Holy Eucharist

Courageous Priest August 27, 2014:

You can’t receive the Eucharist if you’ve:

1) Missed a weekend or Holy Day Mass without a valid reason
2) Having sex outside of marriage, with yourself (masturbation) or someone else
3) Desecrated the Eucharist
4) Haven’t been to confession in a year
5) Use artificial birth control – condoms, pills, patches, IUD’s, etc
6) Sponsor or help in any way with an abortion or any destruction of an embryo
7) Murder
8) Hate/Anger
9) Lust after someone
10) Pride, Greed, Sloth, Envy

etc. etc. The list is not exhaustive, and any sin that we have meditated on before hand, understood its gravity and still chosen to do it can be a deadly sin.
Blogger Note:   Numbers 8 through 10 would depend mostly upon the gravity of the sin.

Baltimire Catechism

66. What is mortal sin?

A: Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.
Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent; for if thou comest near them, they will take hold of thee. (Ecclesiasticus 21:2)

67. Why is this sin called mortal?

A: This sin is called mortal, or deadly, because it deprives the sinner of sanctifying grace, the supernatural life of the soul.
Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him. (Ecclesiasticus 15:18)
1 Corinthians 11:27   Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Don’t step out of bounds…and by all means…if you do…get back in bounds through confession! Don’t desecrate the Eucharist and receive it as some sort of prize you’ve earned simply by showing up for Mass!

7 Things To Restore the Sense of the Sacred

Catholicism Pure & Simple August 13, 2014 :

When it comes to the liturgy of the Roman rite, some would have you believe that you have two choices, the progressive Novus Ordo mass at St. Banal of Boringham parish or the Traditional Latin Mass at the Parish of Quo Primum on the corner of Lunatic and Fringe.

They would also have you believe that never the twain shall meet, that until the Pope of Future Past arrives to reform the Novus Ordo, that any chance of recovering what was traditionally considered sacred and reverential in the Novus Ordo is impossible, regardless of whether you consider that a feature or a bug.

But this is simply not true. There are many things that Pastors and Priests could do tomorrow to help restore a sense of the sacred and proper reverence to the liturgy, things that are perfectly in line with Vatican II. Further, this is no theoretical exercise, there are pastors all around that have done some or even all of these things.

1.) Ad Orientem. The mass being said ad orientem means that the priest and the faithful face the same direction, (liturgical) east. Many people think that Vatican II or the Novus Ordo requires the priest to face the people. This is simply not true. In fact, the rubrics of the new mass anticipates that the mass be said ad orientem and instructs the priest when he should face the people.

I can think of no one single thing that could do more to properly orient the minds and hearts of the faithful (not to mention the priest) than restoring ad orientem worship. I commend to you the letter that Fr. Richard Heilman wrote to a priest about the fruits of this change one year after its implementation. No permission or indult is required to make this change as it is just as the mass was originally intended. All that is needed is a willing priest and time to properly educate the faithful.

2.) Restore chant and polyphony. Ditch the lame hymnal and its happy-clappy anthropocentrism and bring back chant and polyphony. Again, this is exactly for what Vatican II called, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.” Moreover, the priest should chant the mass with the faithful providing chanted responses. A priest could even chant the propers. All this can take time and a concerted effort at education, the payoff could be immense.

3.) Latin, yes Latin!! Again, Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” What Vatican II envisioned was the use of the vernacular for the variable parts of the mass, “This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants.” But the parts of the mass that are the same every week could be in Latin, the people could be educated on this, education, translation cheat sheets, and time could restore that which was always to be preserved. At the very least, prayers like the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei should be in Latin and the Kyrie in Greek as many people are already familiar with them.

4.) Proper Reception of Communion, Kneeling and On The Tongue. In his article at New Liturgical Movement, Fr. Richard Heilman does all the heavy lifting on this topic.

Why Kneel?

Pope Benedict XVI, has noted that kneeling is “an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God.” He reminds us that “the word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own liturgy.”

In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict speaks of a “story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frightening thin limbs, but, most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.”

Why Receive on the tongue?

Despite the widespread practice of Communion in the hand, the universal discipline of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has not changed. A bishop, for example, may forbid the practice of Communion in the hand but not the practice of Communion on the tongue. The Church strongly encourages the latter but not the former. With respect to Communion in the hand, the Church speaks only in a cautionary tone because of the many abuses that often accompany this practice.

Kneeling and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue encourages you to really think about what it is you are doing while at the same time showing proper respect for the Eucharist.  Adding or using a communion rail is the best way to encourage proper reception.

Speaking of respect for the Eucharist

5.) No More Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.  The use of of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is supposed to be just that, extraordinary.  The use of EMHC’s for the regular distribution of communion at ordinary masses is an abuse, pure and simple.

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon.[96] Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.[97]

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.[99] They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion.

The ordinary ministers are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  When every Tom, Dick, and Jane runs up to the sanctuary and hands out communion, the sacredness of the Eucharist is diminished.

6.) Appropriate Attire.  This is all about education, education, and more education.  Priests and pastors should repeatedly preach and educate the faithful about proper attire for mass.  Nobody would dress in flip flops and tank top to a job interview,  or to meet the President or the Pope, but meeting our Lord and Savior in the Eucharist?  Other things Priest can do is ditch the altar server’s potato sack robes and replace them with cassocks and surplices.  Priest’s could teach about the sacredness of women and encourage use of the veil.  Everybody knows that what we wear changes how we behave and how we behave changes how we think.

7.) General Reverence and Sacredness.  This is all about eliminating disruption and restoring a sense of the sacred.  Some things to consider here are:

• Eliminating the Sign of Peace by the Faithful.  It is only an option and not mandatory and often very disruptive.
• More Incense.
• Great attention to reverence and precision by the Priests and servers.
• Priestly ad libs banished!
• The priest avoid wandering around during the homily.

I don’t pretend that any of these things are easy for the priests or the faithful, but they are all doable and many priests and pastors have implemented many or all of these things. Some of these things may be particularly difficult for some older parishioners, boomers and beyond, no doubt. But to avoid restoring the sacred for the sake of these is simply to make the dying patient comfortable rather than trying to cure the disease.

In all these things, the priest must be committed to education and some may take time.  Parishes that have implemented many of these changes have seen tremendous blessings.

Oklahoma City Catholic archbishop calls for prayer to counteract 'Black Mass'

See http://newsok.com/in-an-open-letter-the-oklahoma-city-catholic-archbishop-calls-for-prayer-to-counteract-black-mass/article/5130824

10 Advantages of Celebrating the Mass Ad Orientem

St. Peter's List March 1, 2014:

Fr. Mark Kirby offers an excellent reflection on ad orientem.1 On his blog, Vultus Christi, Father Kirby reflects on five years of saying the Holy Mass ad orientem. He states, “after five years of offering Holy Mass ad orientem, I can say that I never want to have to return to the versus populum position.”

Ad Orientem is Latin for to the east and refers to the direction the priest faces during the mass. Catholic churches are traditionally built facing the East, because, as Cardinal Ratzinger taught, this direction reflects the “cosmic sign of the rising sun which symbolizes the universality of God.”2 The priest facing the altar is also referred to as Ad Deum, which is Latin for to God. First, this phrase sidesteps so-called problems that arise if the priest is facing the altar in a Church that has not been built facing the East. Second, it provides a strong contrast to the phrase Versus Populum, which is Latin for facing the people. While the ancient liturgies did speak of the priest turning and “facing the people” during certain parts of the mass, the concept of celebrating the entire mass versus populum is arguably an invention of the 1970′s, an invention that stands in direct contradistinction to the Church’s ancient traditions.

In celebrating five years of switching to ad orientem/ad deum from versus populum, Father Kirby submits “10 Advantages” to celebrating the mass facing the East.

10 Advantages of Ad Orientem

1. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is experienced as having a theocentric direction and focus.

2. The faithful are spared the tiresome clerocentrism that has so overtaken the celebration of Holy Mass in the past forty years.

3. It has once again become evident that the Canon of the Mass (Prex Eucharistica) is addressed to the Father, by the priest, in the name of all.

4. The sacrificial character of the Mass is wonderfully expressed and affirmed.

5. Almost imperceptibly one discovers the rightness of praying silently at certain moments, of reciting certain parts of the Mass softly, and of cantillating others.

6. It affords the priest celebrant the boon of a holy modesty.

7. I find myself more and more identified with Christ, Eternal High Priest and Hostia perpetua, in the liturgy of the heavenly sanctuary, beyond the veil, before the Face of the Father.

8. During the Canon of the Mass I am graced with a profound recollection.

9. The people have become more reverent in their demeanour.

10. The entire celebration of Holy Mass has gained in reverence, attention, and devotion.

In contrast, he also speaks of the disadvantage of occasionally having to celebrate versus populum. He laments, “I suffer from what I can only describe as a lack of sacred pudeur, or modesty in the face of the Holy Mysteries. When obliged to celebrate versus populum, I feel viscerally, as it were, that there is something very wrong — theologically, spiritually, and anthropologically — with offering the Holy Sacrifice turned toward the congregation.”3 Father Kirby is not the only advocate of ad orientem in the Tulsa Diocese. His Excellency Bishop Slattery celebrates mass ad Deum and has been a vocal critic of versus populum. In his own words, he states, “it was a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage.”4

**************

1. Fr. Kirby: At the time of his blog post, Fr. Kirby was the Prior of the Diocesan Benedictine Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is now at the Silverstream Priory.
2. Cardinal Ratzinger on the East: The Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Ad Solem, 2006 p. 64
3. Father Kirby: The good priest wrote this reflection in 2010 in a blog entitled, Five Years of Ad Orientem, h/t to the Rorate Caeli post Fr. Mark Kirby on Ad Orientem and the TLM for pointing us toward Father Kirby’s reflection.
4. Bishop Slattery: The quote is taken from Oklahoma bishop explains return to ad orientem worshipCatholic Culture, August 18, 2009. His Excellency has also penned an article for his diocesan news paper on Ad Orientem – PDF. He also written an article for the National Catholic Register on the liturgy, in which he proclaims “nothing was broken” in the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

ST. JOSEPH’s name NOW in Eucharistic Prayers II, III, IV

See http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/action-item-st-josephs-name-now-in-eucharistic-prayers-ii-iii-iv/

Altar Rails and the Holy Mass – the significance of.

From http://praythemass.org/2011/12/altar-rails-in-the-holy-mass-the-significance-of/

295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. – General Instruction of the Roman Missal

Here the Church requires that the sanctuary be marked off, calling for, yes, even now, a particular structure; in other words, an altar rail. The altar rail serves beautiful symbolic and considerately practical purposes within the Mass. Further, it makes basic psychological sense as well. Let me explain.

Firstly, we call it an altar rail; the name has reference to the altar. This rail can be seen as an extension of the altar. Christ becomes present on the altar and invites us to be fed at His altar via the rail. Very often the appearance of the rail matches the appearance or imitates the appearance of the altar. In churches where there is no rail, this symbolism is very diminished or completely destroyed. There is a beautiful parallel in the series of events that lead to the distribution of Holy Communion. Just as the priest goes to the altar, offers the sacrifice, and brings that Sacrament to the altar rail for the faithful, so every Christian is called to Sunday Mass, called to the altar, and, nourished by that Sacrament, is sent out to bring Christ and His gospel to the world through daily life.
Practically, the rail is a help to people, both physically and spiritually. The use of rail and the way Holy Communion is distributed with it sets a solemn pace for the reception of Holy Communion. On the part of the priest, more of his time is spent actually distributing the Blessed Sacrament and less time waiting. On the part of the person receiving, the hurried tone is removed; there is a great opportunity for quiet and prayer both a few moments before and after receiving our Lord. The rail also is a help to people in kneeling and standing back up.

On the psychological level, we all have a desire, built into us by God, to offer Him our love and worship, but all of our efforts will be imperfect. This is a truth we cannot escape. If we deny our short-comings and wrong-doings on our conscious level, we will feel it and suffer on a more subconscious level. Because we know that the ‘sanctuary‘ exists — we know that there is a realm that we are unworthy and unable to enter on our own. We know that our knowledge and power are limited. God, of course, knows this too and created a solution. God sent His Son — His Christ — as the perfect high priest, who in turn instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by which He allows and commands men to enter His sanctuary and offer His perfect sacrifice, so that we, the entire Church, may join our imperfect sacrifices to His.  Having a sanctuary that is marked off by an altar rail is not a way of keeping people out of where they have a right to go, but it is more than anything a visible reminder to us of the reality of our situation — we need God to do what we cannot. Our worship of God is not something that we get together and decide to do; it is something that God enables us to do. We cannot worship perfectly, so Christ enables us to join in His perfect act of worship.
The distinct sanctuary and the altar rail are, far from being something restricting, a symbol of a truth that is truly liberating — we need God. With reception of Holy Communion at the rail, we see the second part of that truth — God comes to us. We cannot reach God by our own powers, so He comes to us. Deep within us, we know the first part; we know we need God. If we deny this consciously, we will become a people of sadness, anger, and despair. Is it any wonder that a society that has rejected its need for God is full of people weighed down with despair, depression, and struggles of self-worth? It is precisely by acknowledging that we need God, as the sanctuary and rail remind us, that we are able to acknowledge the joyful truth that God comes to us and thus become people of light, peace, and hope.
– Father Evan Harkins

When Attending Mass Becomes an Occasion of Sin

Renew America  August 20, 2011:

'This post consists of excerpts from a letter I wrote to the pastor of a Catholic parish about a certain incident that occurred at his church. I have omitted all references as to the church's location. The church is semi-circular in design, and we were sitting in the last pew near the center isle, which afforded us a clear view of almost the entire congregation. I started my letter with a compliment as to how nice the newly-remodeled church looked. I then ask the pastor to please consider the following hypothetical situation.
'A priest enters the confessional for the usual Saturday morning or afternoon confession time. During this time a young man enters the confessional. 'Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.' From the sound of the voice on the other side of the screen, the priest surmises that the person is a teenager or young adult. The confession continues: 'It was a week since my last confession. I'm guilty of many lustful thoughts, and I looked at some very immodestly dressed women more times than I should have.'
'The priest asks, 'Were these impure thoughts related to these women you looked at'?
''Yes,' replies the young man.
'The priest: 'Why did you continue to look at them? Why didn't you go someplace else, away from them?'
''I couldn't,' said the young man. 'They were in front of me and I was kind of hemmed in by the crowd.'
'The priest: 'Why were you in such a place to begin with? Do you remember that we are to avoid places that may be an occasion of sin?'
'The young man answers, "Yes, Father, I know that, but I had to be there.'
'The priest, somewhat puzzled, then asks: 'Why did you have to be there, and where were you: at the beach; at a sporting event?'
''No, Father,' said the young man, 'I was at your noon Mass last Sunday, and two scantily-dressed girls were sitting in the pew right in front of me, along with their parents. I couldn't move because my parents were on either side of me.'
'While I said that the above story was hypothetical, in reality it is not. The Mass in question took place this past July at a prominent Catholic parish in a town my wife and I were visiting. It was the main Mass of the day and the church was quite full.
'The young man in the confessional could have been any one of the many young men in the church. The two 'scantily clad' girls were real and were sitting about six pews in front of us with their parents.
'From the area where we were sitting, we observed, in addition to the two girls mentioned above, approximately a dozen very immodestly dressed women, with the majority of these being young girls in their teens and early twenties. Bare backs and shoulders, low-cut tops, strapless sun suits, short shorts, mini-skirts and tight-fitting tops were plainly visible.
'Two years ago, at a parish in northern Virginia, we experienced an almost identical incident at Sunday Mass. We were sitting in our pew when a home-schooling family came in and took a place several pews ahead of us. They had two sons around age 10 and three younger daughters. A few minutes later, two young girls, of about the same age and manner of dress as the two described above, came in and sat in the pew directly in front of this family. However, in this case, the parents quickly recognized the spiritual danger these two improperly dressed girls posed for their children, and they immediately got up and moved to another part of the church.
'It is a sad state of affairs when going to Sunday Mass becomes an occasion of sin. I could go on with more such examples, but I think what I have said is sufficient. What we find more lamentable is the fact that, in many cases, such young girls are in the company of their parents. What does this tell us? Simply this: When it comes to modesty in dress, most parents don't have a clue as to what is right.
'Coincidentally, several days later, as I was about half-way through the composition of my letter to the pastor, my wife saw a notice in the bulletin about appropriate dress in church. The notice was good, especially the part about adults giving good example for young children. It did, however, have two shortcomings which are common to such notices. Many times a bulletin notice can be overlooked, and secondly, the notice called for wearing 'appropriate attire.'
'The problem, as I pointed out above, is that most Catholics have a very poor understanding of what 'appropriate attire' means. When it comes to knowing what is or isn't modest, they have no idea. This is because the Church has been silent on this subject for over 40 years.
'At the beginning of summer there should be a strong sermon on this issue with a clear explanation as to what constitutes 'appropriate attire.' This should be followed up with at least a verbal reminder given once a month from the pulpit. Putting an occasional notice in the bulletin just doesn't do it. It should also be emphasized that the standards for modesty apply to everyday dress, not just in church on Sunday. Mention should also be made about the way many parents dress their little girls in skimpy outfits, thus accustoming them to immodesty at a very early age.
'In regard to this particular topic, I feel I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the disgraceful display of immodesty exhibited by brides and their bridal parties at most Catholic weddings today. At a wedding we recently attended, the comment was made that the bride and bridal party looked more like the Playboy Review than an occasion of Holy Matrimony.
'Let me close with the following thought. Someone once asked the mother of St. Maria Goretti how she was able to raise such a [holy] child. She replied, 'By teaching her the virtue of modesty.' How many Maria Goretti's are parishes and Catholic schools producing today?'

Five Myths About Worship in the Early Church

From http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/five-myths-about-worship-in-the-early-church

As the forthcoming new translation of the Roman Missal debunks the myth that liturgical language must be so banal that even the muppets on Sesame Street can understand it, it’s a good time to examine five other untruths that have been wreaking havoc on the Church’s worship in recent decades.

1. Mass facing the people. After studying free-standing altars in early churches, liturgists in the 1930s concluded that priests once celebrated Mass “facing the people,” and that it was only under the influence of decadent medieval clericalism that they “turned their backs” to them. This myth was much in the drinking water at the time of Vatican II (1962-1965). Later, some scholars began to reexamine the evidence and found that it did not support their thesis at all, and that in fact there had been an unbroken tradition — both East and West — of priest and congregation celebrating the Eucharist in the same direction: eastward.

Pope Benedict XVI, who endorsed the most recent book refuting the versus populum error, has been trying to make the facts of the case better known. But in the past generation, millions of dollars have been spent destroying exquisite high altars and replacing them with altar-tables, all in conformity to “the practice of the early Church.” Would that this myth were busted earlier.

2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds. Myths about Holy Communion follow a similar pattern. Fifty years ago, the claim that “Communion in the hand” was the universal practice of the early Church was believed by everyone, even by those who didn’t wish to see the practice resuscitated. Now we’re not so sure. What we can say is that some early Christian communities practiced Communion in the hand, but Communion on the tongue may be just as ancient. And when Communion in the hand was practiced, the communicant received from a priest (and only a priest), most likely by putting It in his mouth without his other hand touching it. And in some places, a woman’s hand had to be covered with a white cloth!

We are more certain that the Roman Church once administered Holy Communion under both species (just as the Eastern churches have always done), but we don’t know exactly how. One interesting practice, which was in use by the seventh century, had the deacon distributing the Precious Blood with the use of a golden straw. Some think he dipped the straw in the chalice (which only he or a priest or bishop could touch), closed one end with his finger, put it over the communicant’s open mouth, and then lifted his finger to release the contents.

In other words, Holy Communion was probably not administered in the fast-food manner we have today, with a “grab-and-go” system of multiple efficient lines that move from one station to the other, and the communicant touching the Host or Precious Cup with his own hands. Our current arrangement may have more in common with the Protestant than the patristic. Significantly, Benedict XVI, a careful student of the Church Fathers, no longer administers Communion in the hand.

3. The vernacular. Another widespread myth is that the early Church had Mass “in the vernacular.” But when Jesus worshipped in the synagogue, the language used was Hebrew, which had already been dead for 300 years. And for the first three centuries in Rome, the Mass was mostly celebrated in Greek, not Latin, which was only understood by a minority of the congregation.

When the Mass was eventually translated into Latin, it retained foreign elements such as the Hebrew amen and alleluia, and even added some, such as the Greek Kyrie eleison. Moreover, the Latin used in translating was deliberately different from what was being spoken at the time: It had curious grammatical usages and was peppered with archaisms. In other words, even when the Mass was celebrated in a language people could understand, it was never celebrated in the “vernacular” — if by that term we mean the common street language of the day.

The reason for this is simple: Every apostolic Church — to say nothing of every major world religion — has always had a sacred or hieratic language, a linguistic toolbox different from daily speech specially designed to communicate the transcendence and distinctiveness of the gospel.

4. Lay ministry. Another perduring myth is the idea that the laity were “more involved” in the Mass than they were in later ages. In our own day, this has spawned a multiplication of liturgical ministries for lay folk, such as lector, etc. The reality is that in the early Church, all of these roles were administered by the clergy. In fact, the early Church had more ordained clerical offices (the former minor orders) than it does today. The Council of Nicea in 325, for instance, talked about fine-tuning the office of “subdeacon.” This tells us one thing: that subdeacons were already a fixture in the landscape before the council was convoked. Lay Eucharistic ministers were not.

5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church. Lurking behind all of these myths is a powerful “meta-myth,” the claim that there was a rupture in the life of the Church after the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century. The Church before Constantine, the meta-myth goes, was simple and pristine, a Church “of the people.” After Constantine, however, the Church became clericalist, hierarchical, and corrupted by the desire for grand buildings and highfalutin’ ceremonies.

The truth is that although the Church did indeed change — in some ways for the better and some for the worse — there was far more continuity than rupture. The Church before Constantine already had firm distinctions between clergy and laity, and she already recognized the importance of beautiful art, architecture, symbolism, and solemnity. After all, the Last Supper took place during the Passover, which was itself highly ritualized, and every Mass is a consummation of the ornate liturgies of synagogue and Temple. Indeed, a Eucharistic liturgy in the second or third century was longer, more hierarchical, and more symbolically brocaded than a Sunday Mass today. And since pews are a Protestant invention to accommodate long sermons, you either stood or knelt on the floor the entire time.

Like a bad virus, the myth of a utopian, pre-Constantinian, kumbaya-singing Church continues to impair. A typical example is the 2001 video A History of the Mass, produced by Liturgy Training Publications, one of the more influential purveyors of information about Catholic worship in the United States. After describing an idyllic, egalitarian community in which bishops gave up their seats for poor widows at the Eucharistic table, the narration shifts with the ominous words: “But then… the Emperor Constantine became a Christian.” You can imagine what follows (see here and here).

Moreover, even if every one of these myths were shown to be true, it would still not justify returning to the patristic era. In 1947, Pope Pius XII prophetically warned against archeologism, an “exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism” which presumes that the older is better than that which has developed organically over time and with the approval of the Church (Mediator Dei 64). The pope was worried about liturgical innovators who would leapfrog over 1,900 years of sacred tradition and divine inspiration. He was right to worry, but not even he foresaw the extent to which that targeted Golden Past would be a reconstruction of dubious accuracy.

Send Your Angel to Mass

O’ Holy angel at my side
Go to church for me Kneel in my place at Holy Mass Where I desire to be.
At offertory in my stead Take all I am and own And place it as a sacrifice Upon the Altar throne.
At Holy Consecration bell, Adore with Seraph’s love My Jesus hidden in the Host Come down from Heaven above.
There pray for those I dearly love And those that cause me grief That Jesus’ blood may cleanse all hearts Give suffering souls relief.
That when the priest Communion takes Then bring my Lord to me That His sweet heart may rest in mine And I His temple be.
Pray that the sacrifice divine May all man’s sin efface Then bring me Jesus’ blessing home The pledge of every grace.
Amen

Vatican officials say bad Masses lead to weak faith

From http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100868.htm

By Cindy Wooden
ROME (Catholic News Service)
A weakening of faith in God, a rise in selfishness and a drop in the number of people going to Mass in many parts of the world can be traced to Masses that are not reverent and don't follow church rules, said two Vatican officials and a consultant.
"If we err by thinking we are the center of the liturgy, the Mass will lead to a loss of faith," said U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, head of the Vatican's supreme court.
Cardinal Burke and Spanish Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, spoke March 2 at a book launch in Rome.
The book, published only in Italian, was written by Father Nicola Bux, who serves as a consultant to the congregations for the doctrine of the faith and for saints' causes and to the office in charge of papal liturgies.
The English translation of Father Bux's book title would be, "How to Go to Mass and Not Lose Your Faith."
Cardinal Burke told those gathered for the book presentation that he agreed with Father Bux that "liturgical abuses lead to serious damage to the faith of Catholics."
Unfortunately, he said, too many priests and bishops treat violations of liturgical norms as something that is unimportant when, in fact, they are "serious abuses."
Cardinal Canizares said that while the book's title is provocative, it demonstrates a belief he shares: "Participating in the Eucharist can make us weaken or lose our faith if we do not enter into it properly" and if the liturgy is not celebrated according to the church's norms.
"This is true whether one is speaking of the ordinary or extraordinary form of the one Roman rite," the cardinal said, referring to Masses in the form established after the Second Vatican Council as well as the Mass often referred to as the Tridentine rite.
Cardinal Canizares said that at a time when so many people are living as if God did not exist, they need a true eucharistic celebration to remind them that only God is to be adored and that true meaning in human life comes only from the fact that Jesus gave his life to save the world.
Father Bux said that too many modern Catholics think the Mass is something that the priest and the congregation do together when, in fact, it is something that Jesus does.
"If you go to a Mass in one place and then go to Mass in another, you will not find the same Mass. This means that it is not the Mass of the Catholic Church, which people have a right to, but it is just the Mass of this parish or that priest," he said.

The Dangers of Too Much Participation at Mass

By Denise Caffrey

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass recalls and re-enacts the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. It is the greatest and most important form of prayer, adoration, reparation and thanksgiving which we can offer to God, Our Almighty Father. At Mass the priest takes the place of Christ on Calvary and offers up Christ’s Supreme Sacrifice for man. The Church has always encouraged and promoted the participation of laypeople and persons other than the priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Whilst the priest alone can perform the most important aspects of the Mass, others are given the authority to assist and enhance the celebration to make it more pleasing and more spiritual. Canon law and Sacred Tradition gives us rules as to the length and extent of participation by others in the Mass. Thus we have rules for deacons, altar servers, choirs, etc. There are also rules governing the actions and responses of the laity in the pews. These are done to ensure that the Sacrifice of the Mass is valid and suitable as sacrifice for Almighty God. The whole Church is to celebrate the same form of Mass in union with one another regardless of language or nationality.
During the Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest alone can offer up the prayers of the Mass especially those of Consecration. He is assisted in his prayers by those around him. The Church has always regulated the level of participation by others at Mass and these rules have been kept for many centuries ensuring the continuity and transcendence of the Mass. However, in the last two generations, levels of participation by laity have greatly increased and now pose numerous threats towards the sanctity of the Mass and have increased the potential for abuse. This has been aided by the change in the ordinary form of the Mass from the Tridentine Rite to the Novus Ordo Rite, which is said in the vernacular. With the language of the Mass now in the spoken language of the people, laypeople are being offered more opportunity to participate in the new form of the Mass, and while many see advantages to this, there are inherent dangers towards these levels of participation by the laity.
There is a danger for the priest, when he is assisted far more by the laity than what he would have been previously. This begins in his teaching and his ministry. He is encouraged to view the Mass as a meal rather than a Sacrifice. This makes both him and others see the Mass as a meal to be shared, rather than a re-enactment of Calvary and a Sacrifice. This view is quite detrimental to his Catholic faith. It leads to a loss of faith and lack of belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. He loses belief in power of transubstantiation at the Consecration. He begins to take the Protestant view that the Bread and Wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ at Consecration. Even if he does retain this belief, he can lose reverence and awe in the presence of the Eucharist. He handles and treats the Body and Blood of Christ in a casual manner, as he would any other object. It is no longer treated as a sacred object. From these, stem great abuses of the Blessed Sacrament and Holy Communion at Mass.
The priest is also encouraged to delegate his duties to laypeople. Duties which he would previously carry out are now being handled by laypeople. While this can be useful and often necessary in the absence of a priest, this is increasingly being used in every parish even when there is a priest close by and available. Masses have begun to be replaced at times by Eucharistic Services, which have no priest in attendance and operated completely by laypeople. This takes away from the faith of the laity and encourages in them the belief that one is as good as the other. These are in no way equal for nothing can replace the importance of the Sacrifice of the Mass, not even the Eucharist.
In a similar way, the priest is being encouraged to delegate the giving of Communion to laypeople. The Eucharist can only be consecrated by the consecrated hands of a priest, so it is only right that consecrated hands be the ones to handle the Blessed Sacrament and give the Eucharist to faithful Catholics. The Church does allow for circumstances which permit the use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. But these circumstances are very limited and the extraordinary ministers must be specially blessed and adhere to a number of conditions. One of the main circumstances in which they are allowed, is when a very large number of laypeople (in the hundreds or thousands) attend a Mass and there is a great shortage of priests. They should be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, this allowance by the Church is being greatly abused by parishes everywhere in order to encourage participation in the Mass.
In every parish, they have put together a list of Eucharistic Ministers, which is used every week. It completely disregards the conditions laid down by the Church as to the use of Extraordinary Ministers and the times when these can be used. Eucharistic Ministers are used at every single Mass, even when the number attending in no way requires another helper at Communion. It is frequent to see more than one Eucharistic Minister giving Communion and sometimes the priest will even sit aside and allow Communion to be given solely by the Ministers at the altar. Eucharistic Ministers often proceed to the Tabernacle to retrieve a ciborium and give out Communion, even when they were not asked or originally required to before Communion. Eucharistic Ministers are given little or no teaching on the Blessed Sacrament or on the proper way to handle or give out Holy Communion. Thus, they have little or no true respect for the Eucharist and can even be lacking in the belief of the Real Presence.
These attitudes are damaging to both the priest and the laity involved. The Eucharist starts to lose a special place to the priest when others take over his duties at Communion. He starts to lose belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Eucharist can start to become seen as a casual item or simply a piece of bread. Likewise, a similar effect happens to the laity who becomes Eucharistic Ministers. The Eucharist is seen as an item to be handled as one likes in any manner which they think suitable. This handling makes them lose reverence in the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, and some even begin to see themselves to be on equal standing with the priest. Many priests and Eucharistic Ministers do not see or realise the subtle effects of their actions and the consequences from them which build up slowly over time.
The constant use of Eucharistic Ministers and the encouragement of the belief that the Mass is a meal rather than a Sacrifice are some of the reasons behind the recent trend for Communion to be received in the hand. This practice is widespread across the entire Church, and is used to get the laity attending the Mass to participate in it. The belief that the Eucharist can be handled by un-consecrated hands such as those of the Ministers encourages the laypeople to receive Communion in their hands. This has led to a loss of belief in the Real Presence and loss of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist can be handled by anyone, then it ceases to be a Sacred Object in the eyes of man. All laypeople are being encouraged to receive Communion at Mass and they have begun to see this as a right. Even those who are not baptised Catholics, those who are in a state of grievous sin or those who are completely unprepared are given Communion and this can damage their souls instead of helping them spiritually. The priest has lost most of his control over the Eucharist at Communion; he is no longer able to prevent those who are unworthy to receive from receiving Communion.
This widespread participation of Communion in the hand has led to much abuse of the Blessed Sacrament, both in obvious ways and in unseen ways. Abuse and disregard for the Host is often practised and is usually visible to those around. But further abuse occurs in unseen ways. The Real Presence is in every particle of the Host, no matter how minuscule. These particles, unseen to the naked eye, fall or transfer from the Host with each usage. These end up on the hands and clothes of laypeople when Communion is given on the hand. Abuse to the Eucharist occurs from this, in the actions of these people afterwards.
The practice of standing for Communion is often done for expediency during Communion. Communion can be delivered in a faster manner and this attitude is encouraged by a fast-paced modern world. It encourages the laity in the belief that the Mass is a meal rather than a Sacrifice. Approaching the altar at Communion, standing with hands outstretched, gives the notion that what one is about to receive is only physical food. The Host is treated as bread alone and the Real Presence is begun to be ignored. The act of standing to receive Communion indicates that the person views themselves to be on an equal standing with the Lord. Receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling is not only a humble, penitential act but it is an act of adoration towards the Eucharist. The layperson acknowledges their state as a sinner by receiving on the tongue and they kneel to show their humbleness before God. They do not touch the Blessed Sacrament with unworthy, sinful hands. But they also adore God in the Real Presence in the Eucharist by these same actions. They show their understanding and belief in the Real Presence and they act with awe and reverence before the Eucharist. Many little acts of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament are lost by those who do not kneel to receive Communion.
While much abuse occurs from too much participation by the laity at Communion, there are other instances in which participation by the laity becomes excessive. Before the Canon of the Mass, and the Consecration, comes the teaching that is given through Holy Scripture and sermons. In previous times, these were delivered by the priest or by the deacon after receiving a blessing from the priest. The sermons were mainly based on the interpretation and application of the teachings involved in the Scripture readings and Gospels for the Mass on the day. But now, the laity is being actively encouraged to take part in this aspect of the Mass. In this way, the priest begins to lose his place as teacher to the people. He is no longer seen as the one giving the Scripture reading to the laypeople. The Scripture reading begins to lose its aspect for teaching. The lay reader is often seen to be just reading a story or passage. The priest begins to lose his awareness of the Scripture readings used during Mass and the applications that can be taken from them for sermons. Sometimes the sermons themselves are delivered by laypeople. These usually are on subjects that have no relevance to the Scriptures used during the Mass or have no teachings of the Catholic Church. The loss of instruction at these times is great. The Scriptures used are given no application and teaching, and the laypeople attending will often disregard what they contain if they are not expanded on.
Laypeople have always been encouraged to participate at Mass through music, song and chant. When these are suitable, respectful and spiritual, they can greatly enhance the spiritual aspect of the Mass and the Sacrifice becomes more pleasing. But the current effort to get more participation by the laity has led to use of unsuitable music and lyrics. Laypeople are encouraged to participate by playing musical instruments which they are proficient at, but not all these are suitable for Mass. The use of modern, electrical instruments and the combination of some of these instruments often becomes loud, noisy and distracting. The Church seems more like a concert hall than a place of sacrifice and prayer. The music from these instruments becomes displeasing and unspiritual during the Mass. The lyrics from hymns that are used are often unsuitable for the occasion for which they are used or contain erroneous teaching about the Mass or the Catholic Faith. Protestant hymns are being used increasingly and are replacing the more suitable traditional Catholic hymns. There is little regulation over the content of hymns used. However, even the use of traditional hymns can be done wrongly. Hymns are being used for something which they are unsuitable for. This often happens with old Latin hymns being used in the wrong context.
Laypeople are encouraged to become more involved in the Mass through the responses that are assigned for them during the Liturgy. Through these responses, they can be attentive to what is happening during the Mass and they combine their prayers with the prayers of the priest, to make the Mass a united prayer by all who attend. But apart from these responses, the prayers of the Mass are those which should only be spoken by the priest. The priest takes the place of Christ and becomes our intercessor to God. The prayers he says are for him to say in this role. However, laypeople are taking some of these prayers and using them for themselves also. They speak aloud prayers which the priest should say alone. Usually they do this for certain prayers, such as those immediately before or after the Our Father. But in some places, the laypeople are encouraged to say aloud the Canon of the Mass and the prayers of Consecration. This practice takes away from the spirituality of the Mass and the understanding that it is a Sacrifice and a re-enactment of Calvary.
When the Mass is viewed as a Sacrifice and a re-enactment of Calvary, then the altar and the area surrounding it is seen as a sanctuary, a holy ground. Only those directly involved in the Mass are allowed on this holy ground during the celebration. The priests and deacons are consecrated and blessed to perform the rituals and prayers of the Mass, and they have a rightful place there. Altar boys are also permitted for numerous reasons. They perform tasks that would otherwise take the priest away from the altar and the celebration of the Mass. The altar boys also take the place of the laity at the altar. They represent the laypeople present and provide a direct connection between the priest at the altar and the laypeople in the pews. They are also present in order to prepare and inspire them towards the priesthood. This is why altar boys must always be preferable to altar girls. Because of these assigned roles, there is no need for additional laypeople to be around the altar during Mass. The presence of other laypeople on the altar at various times during the Mass, taking duties from the priest or deacon, instils the notion that the Mass is a meal to be shared around a table. It instils the idea that all are worthy to approach the altar no matter what the individual states of their souls are or what their standing with the Church is.
Christ ordained twelve men to the priesthood on Holy Thursday and instituted the Mass on that same eve and on Good Friday. Over the centuries, the Church, through divine inspiration, has refined the Liturgy of the Mass to augment that which Christ gave us at the Last Supper and at His Glorious Passion. He reserved the priesthood for men alone, so it is only right that these consecrated men and their male assistants be those present at the altar. For women, there has been reserved other roles, which while not actively involved in the celebration of the Sacraments, are still important and valuable for the running of the Church and the proclamation of the Faith. Returning the levels of lay participation at Mass to what they have been in previous centuries, will not only ensure the sanctity and spirituality of the Mass, it will promote and encourage belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the tenets of the Catholic Faith.

The New Translation of the Mass

Arlington Catholic Herald October 6, 2010:
The following was written by the Most Rev, Paul Steven Loverde, Bishop of the Diocese of Arlington, West Virginia.
Some of you may recall, as I do, learning certain tenets of our faith from the Baltimore Catechism. The concise, memorable question-and-answer format assisted me as a boy in learning theological truths upon which I still reflect today. In light of the announcement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that, after years of work, the new translation of the Roman Missal will be implemented in Advent 2011, the Catechism question “What is Prayer?” particularly resounds with me. The response, “Prayer is the lifting up of our minds and hearts to God,” highlights the opportunity for spiritual growth that the new translation will afford each of us (Baltimore Catechism, no. 1099).
This new translation of the Mass is the result of years of labor by skilled translators and the national conferences of bishops in English-speaking nations. The result is a translation of the Mass that will contribute to the ongoing renewal of sacred liturgy in our parishes and is a more accurate translation of the official Latin edition of the Roman Missal, first promulgated in 1970, updated again in 1975 and published in its third edition in 2000. Our Holy Father prayed that the new translation would be “a springboard for a renewal and a deepening of Eucharistic devotion all over the English-speaking world” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Vox Clara Committee, 28 April 2010). Yes, this translation means more than merely learning new responses to say during Mass, although the words have a particular purpose and are important. It is, ultimately, a call to strengthen our prayer to God during the liturgy and to more actively and authentically participate: to truly “lift our minds and hearts to God.”
It is my prayer that each of us will take time to reflect upon the changes being made and the true meaning of the words that the priest and the congregation pray at Mass. Consider, for example, the occasions in the Mass when the celebrant says, “The Lord be with you.” Instead of, “And also with you,” under the new translation the congregation will reply, “And with your spirit.” Far from being a reduction in meaning, this response, which is more true to the official Latin text from which all translations have been made, increases our understanding that we are asking the Lord to dwell in the souls of those gathered for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In addition, since the priest (or deacon before the proclamation of the Gospel) greets the faithful with the words, “The Lord be with you,” the response, “And with your spirit” serves to mark those moments of truly priestly (or diaconal) ministry, that is, when the priest (or deacon) is about to do what he is ordained to do. These moments include: presiding over the entire prayer of the community at the beginning of the Mass; proclaiming God’s holy Word in His Gospel; offering the Eucharistic Prayer, which begins with the Preface; and imparting the final blessing. Our new response indicates that the priest (or deacon) is not acting on his own but only in the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The new translation of the Roman Missal will also include Masses for recently canonized saints, additional prefaces for the Eucharistic Prayers, other Masses for Various Needs and Intentions, and updated and revised rubrics (instructions) for celebrating the Mass. The richness of these seemingly subtle changes not only brings our prayer closer in line with our brothers and sisters who speak other languages, but also invites us to enter more fully into the mystery of the Mass.
Our participation in the liturgy is an essential part of our worship. Discussing the Mass, Pope Pius X taught that “the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church” (Pope Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudini, 22 November 1903). This liturgical theme was further developed by the Servant of God, Pope Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council when he wrote that the “Church consists in the full active participation of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers” (Pope Paul VI, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963, no. 41). The new translation provides us with the opportunity, once again, to participate in the Mass in a deeper way.
In the upcoming year, you will learn more details on the new translation and be given the grace-filled opportunity to deepen your life of prayer during the liturgy through additional catechesis. In the next year, in our diocesan Church and throughout English-speaking nations, we will prepare for the implementation of the new translation. During this time of fruitful transition, I ask you to dedicate yourself to active participation in the celebration of the Mass. As this new translation so beautifully emphasizes, Our Lord Jesus Christ died so that we may have life, a mystery which we celebrate at each and every Liturgy. He sacrificed Himself for us; let our response be one of prayerful participation in the celebration of the Eucharist, which He instituted in His Church.