The New New Mass

[Joshua G.]

Interesting. Western Rite Orthodox do the same. It's the only place I'd seen it. I actually thought it was in reverence for the Theotokos since Christ and the Holy Spirit are mentioned elsewhere without a bow.

 

[Joshua G.]

We bow, or genuflect, during the Creed from "came down from Heaven" and stand again just after "and was made man". There is also often a small bow - more of a head nod - at the name of Jesus at the beginning and also at "worshiped" in the section on the HG. Though individual responses vary considerably, some do all of these things, some none, and everything in between.

Cool. I wonder if that latter head nod is similar in development to how many Orthodox tend to cross themselves at "Who with the Father and the Son together is ...". I've never seen it written anywhere or taught by anyone that one should cross themselves. But it would seem that it just comes out of the tendency for Orthodox to cross themselves any time there is reference to the Trinity. Greeks (and maybe Antiochians) tend to cross themselves at "One holy, catholic and apostolic Church" but that seems more official in nature because I see the priest leading them in that whereas at many slavic Churches I go to the part I spoke of just kind of happens. Interesting.

 

[FullyMT]

Interesting. Western Rite Orthodox do the same. It's the only place I'd seen it. I actually thought it was in reverence for the Theotokos since Christ and the Holy Spirit are mentioned elsewhere without a bow.

I've always considered it an act of humility that God would take on human flesh -- same concept/reason as the Theotokos but more Christ centered than a consideration of the Holy Mother. We were just told one day at Mass that we should bow, so we do.

 

[AMDG]

"by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man" It's supposed to be a reverent bow, but not a profound one (about 20-40 degrees verses 45-90)

I would always make the bow--even before the recent translation and before Vatican II as well--and I noticed that some of the older people would too. And the our parish pastor said that he also would bow then *at every Mass* so it's nothing new. (But I guess that the only reason some of the younger people would know about it is if they picked up a missal or missalette and read the rubrics. The instructions for it were still there in the missals or missalettes that I encountered.)

 

[Joshua G.]

I've always considered it an act of humility that God would take on human flesh -- same concept/reason as the Theotokos but more Christ centered than a consideration of the Holy Mother. We were just told one day at Mass that we should bow, so we do.

makes sense to me!

 

[FullyMT]

I would always make the bow--even before the recent translation and before Vatican II as well--and I noticed that some of the older people would too. And the our parish pastor said that he also would bow then *at every Mass* so it's nothing new. (But I guess that the only reason some of the younger people would know about it is if they picked up a missal or missalette and read the rubrics. The instructions for it were still there in the missals or missalettes that I encountered.)

Or they can just look around -- assuming others are bowing in a way that doesn't just make it seem like they are just looking down.

 

[MKJ]

Cool. I wonder if that latter head nod is similar in development to how many Orthodox tend to cross themselves at "Who with the Father and the Son together is ...". I've never seen it written anywhere or taught by anyone that one should cross themselves. But it would seem that it just comes out of the tendency for Orthodox to cross themselves any time there is reference to the Trinity. Greeks (and maybe Antiochians) tend to cross themselves at "One holy, catholic and apostolic Church" but that seems more official in nature because I see the priest leading them in that whereas at many slavic Churches I go to the part I spoke of just kind of happens. Interesting.

I have no idea where it came from, or even how widespread it is. I've never seen it written about anywhere. I would say I see it done when the Creed is sung, but not when it is simply recited.

I agree with the pp who said that the longer bow is in homour of the Incarnation. When I was a server back in university, all the servers genuflected at that point in the liturgy, but not the celebrant, deacon, and sub-deacon. They may well have bowed though, I can't quite remember.

 

[Joshua G.]

I agree with the pp who said that the longer bow is in homour of the Incarnation. When I was a server back in university, all the servers genuflected at that point in the liturgy, but not the celebrant, deacon, and sub-deacon. They may well have bowed though, I can't quite remember.

I am sure you are right. I was just guessing when I saw this at the WR Orthodox Mass.

 

[whitetiger1]

After a good night sleep and thanksgiving leftovers (yum) I think I was over the top just a little. Still my years as a Catholic were nice but I never lost my Protestantism no matter how hard I wanted to. Thank you all for your response you can have the thread for a more fruitful discussion than what I started.

 

[Fantine]

Words are powerful. If the translators felt that the word changes did not make a difference, they wouldn't have bothered making the changes.

One of the changes in Vatican II was an emphasis on healing and wholeness. And so "Penance" or "Confession" became the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" (although I don't think I have ever heard a single person on OBOB mention it by its correct name.

Why? Because we are seeking healing and wholeness, we are looking forward, towards relationship, towards reconciliation.

We are not wallowing in "Catholic guilt" and self-flagellation.

Can we recognize that we aren't perfect even if we stop beating our breasts and intoning our guilt in progressive superlatives? Of course we can. We are on a journey. We take detours. Sometimes the lessons we learn from our failures bring us closer to God. Look at St. Augustine, for example.

Of course, if we are so focused on the guilt in the past, the mistakes we've made that we can't correct, then we are faced with a huge obstacle to healing.

I can understand that some purists believe that the sciences of psychology and psychiatry have erased our sense of sin. I tend to think that "sin" was never as cut-and-dried and cookie-cutter as earlier generations believed. Sin doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sin is an individual act that occurs in the context of genetic, environmental, and cultural factors, all of which can affect the degree of sinfulness and the degree of free will involved. (This is in the catechism--deal with it.)

And all this breast-beating and self-flagellation isn't going to put nails in the coffin of psychology and psychiatry so that only guilt remains. We are on a spiritual journey. We acknowledge our faults, we pray to grow in self-knowledge and self-forgetfulness. We know that we are complex individuals.

And no matter how much guilt the translators try to lay on us, for most of us, focusing on the past doesn't make us holier, or better, or more spiritual.

We are just annoyed at the luddite mentality of trying to pretend that Freud and Jung never lived. Perhaps they will forgive them 500 years from now, as they did Galileo.

 

[whitetiger1]

When I was in class (never did RCIA since it was just me) Father said that if something is a sin to me (those things that are not classified as sin) then it's sin. I agree sinning can have shades of gray.

I never called it Sacrament of Reconciliation because I learned of it as Confession and second Confession is shorter to type

 

[Azureknight 773]

Man! I cannot wait for my country to hit the road with the new missal. I am so excited about the updates and so, I think that I will be enjoying this with rest of my life.

 

[ChristianLayman]

I really think people are overreacting to what basically amounts to are a few word changes. And honestly, this is in no way comparable to the Tridentine Mass being replaced by the Novus Ordo (of course, this depends on whether certain churches conducted the Novus Ordo correctly to being with...) where major parts of the mass were being changed to something that barely reflected what had been the norm for several centuries.

 

[Joshua G.]

Words are powerful. If the translators felt that the word changes did not make a difference, they wouldn't have bothered making the changes.

One of the changes in Vatican II was an emphasis on healing and wholeness. And so "Penance" or "Confession" became the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" (although I don't think I have ever heard a single person on OBOB mention it by its correct name.

I' m not sure I understand what you mean by correct? Which is incorrect? Is it incorrect to call it Reconcilliation or Confession and Penance? Most Catholics I hear talk about the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I didn't even realize this was a relatively new phrase from V-II.

Why? Because we are seeking healing and wholeness, we are looking forward, towards relationship, towards reconciliation.

We are not wallowing in "Catholic guilt" and self-flagellation.

Can we recognize that we aren't perfect even if we stop beating our breasts and intoning our guilt in progressive superlatives? Of course we can. We are on a journey. We take detours. Sometimes the lessons we learn from our failures bring us closer to God. Look at St. Augustine, for example.

Of course, if we are so focused on the guilt in the past, the mistakes we've made that we can't correct, then we are faced with a huge obstacle to healing.

So, are you saying that if once calls it Penance or COnfession they are focusing too much on their guilt? I am really asking. If so, do not both names, Reconciliation AND Confession have their important emphases? Certainly we aren't to imagine that we aren't ever guilty of anything. Guilt is not a bad thing if it drives us to seek healing... which, it does. One of the first things I learned as an Orthodox is that Guilt is Good bc it is the HOly SPirit saying "wrong turn buddy". When I mentioned this to my old Lutheran Pastor he very much agreed. Are you saying this is bad? Maybe not.

I can understand that some purists believe that the sciences of psychology and psychiatry have erased our sense of sin. I tend to think that "sin" was never as cut-and-dried and cookie-cutter as earlier generations believed. Sin doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sin is an individual act that occurs in the context of genetic, environmental, and cultural factors, all of which can affect the degree of sinfulness and the degree of free will involved. (This is in the catechism--deal with it.)

True, but in the end it is something we need to take responsibility for before we can be healed. We can't say "sorry" for something that wasn't our fault and we can't move on in Roconciliation without saying "sorry". I'm sure you don't disagree with this, but it almost seems as if you are saying that it can be healthy to avoid ideas of fault in sin and I don't think that such is a Christian perspective but rather modern. I may be misunderstanding you, though.

And all this breast-beating and self-flagellation isn't going to put nails in the coffin of psychology and psychiatry so that only guilt remains. We are on a spiritual journey. We acknowledge our faults, we pray to grow in self-knowledge and self-forgetfulness. We know that we are complex individuals.

Defintely. Recognizing fault is only a small but very necessary part of that journey. We can't hold on to it. TO do so would get in the way of healing. But healing can't begin until we realize what we've done to ourselves.

And no matter how much guilt the translators try to lay on us, for most of us, focusing on the past doesn't make us holier, or better, or more spiritual.

Do you honestly believe they were intending to simply lay guilt on you and then they felt their job was done? Is it not possible they were simply saying "sin is real. Mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa iexpresses something true in the journey of reconciliation and it needs to play a PART in that process."

We are just annoyed at the luddite mentality of trying to pretend that Freud and Jung never lived. Perhaps they will forgive them 500 years from now, as they did Galileo.

Comparing Freud (an agnostic egotistical sexist voyeur) to Galileo who was a devout Catholic and merely reported what he observed in the sky does no justice to the latter. But either way, do you honestly believe the Catholic Church is reverting back to a time when they laid guilt on thick and forgot the other half of the reconciliation equation? This seems over the top. It almost seems as if you believe that all of a sudden in the span of one Council the corrected all of the wrongs of the past and had no need to clean up anything afterward. Is it not possible that with Vatican II they let the pendulum swing just a little to far the other way and that it would only be natural that they would need to tweek it back a bit? I could be wrong but I had heard from many Catholics that the fathers of Vatican II said that there would need to be systematic REview of the changes instituted over the years to do just this.

I know I am not Catholic so my opinion regarding the changes are truly truly truly unimportant as we all know. I have no idea if the changes are overall good or not, but you right as if the Catholic Church just wants everyone to hold on to guilt, period and that just doesn't seem like a rational claim that can be substantiated. Certainly there are plenty of well-balanced reasons not to be in favor of the changes (many of which I've read and I couldn't tell yo if I agree with them or not, only that while I think the changes sound good on the surface, I think many objections are understandable).

Josh

 

[Fantine]

"Penance" was never called "Reconciliation" until after Vatican II. That's when the confessional booths fell out of favor (except in mystery TV shows, it seems.)

I think that that was when the idea of a laundry list confession (I told ten lies, I took the name of God in vain 5 times) fell out of favor. But it happened at a time when I wasn't attending church, so I'm not sure. I only know that when I went back to church I stopped looking at the purpose of reconciliation was to rattle off a list, but rather a time to talk about my overall struggles, and no one ever asked me to go back to the laundry list.

I think that almost everyone knows that they aren't perfect. I think almost everyone wants to conquer his demons.

But I also believe that God lives in each of us, and I believe that humans are basically good. And so, "saved a wretch like me" is sort of a meaningless statement. When I hear people sing that, I think, "Not only do you need forgiveness, you need a crash course in self-esteem."

We all need to have a sense of balance in life. In the midst of all this chest-thumping and mea culpas, are we supposed to forget that God never gives us more than we can handle?

Guilt is very ego-focused....is self-absorption, even in the guise of self-hate, what God really wants of us?

 

[MKJ]

Words are powerful. If the translators felt that the word changes did not make a difference, they wouldn't have bothered making the changes.

One of the changes in Vatican II was an emphasis on healing and wholeness. And so "Penance" or "Confession" became the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" (although I don't think I have ever heard a single person on OBOB mention it by its correct name.

Why? Because we are seeking healing and wholeness, we are looking forward, towards relationship, towards reconciliation.

We are not wallowing in "Catholic guilt" and self-flagellation.

Can we recognize that we aren't perfect even if we stop beating our breasts and intoning our guilt in progressive superlatives? Of course we can. We are on a journey. We take detours. Sometimes the lessons we learn from our failures bring us closer to God. Look at St. Augustine, for example.

Of course, if we are so focused on the guilt in the past, the mistakes we've made that we can't correct, then we are faced with a huge obstacle to healing.

I can understand that some purists believe that the sciences of psychology and psychiatry have erased our sense of sin. I tend to think that "sin" was never as cut-and-dried and cookie-cutter as earlier generations believed. Sin doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sin is an individual act that occurs in the context of genetic, environmental, and cultural factors, all of which can affect the degree of sinfulness and the degree of free will involved. (This is in the catechism--deal with it.)

And all this breast-beating and self-flagellation isn't going to put nails in the coffin of psychology and psychiatry so that only guilt remains. We are on a spiritual journey. We acknowledge our faults, we pray to grow in self-knowledge and self-forgetfulness. We know that we are complex individuals.

And no matter how much guilt the translators try to lay on us, for most of us, focusing on the past doesn't make us holier, or better, or more spiritual.

We are just annoyed at the luddite mentality of trying to pretend that Freud and Jung never lived. Perhaps they will forgive them 500 years from now, as they did Galileo.

THis doesn't make sense to me. The new form of the liturgy was written in Latin. It was, presumably, written they way they meant it to be - that is the new emphasis they were looking to create.

That is what it said in Latin, and that's pretty much what it says in other languages too.

Are you suggesting that the English translators somehow had the authority to try and create a different emphasis than the people who actually developed the new liturgy intended?

 

[whitetiger1]

"Penance" was never called "Reconciliation" until after Vatican II. That's when the confessional booths fell out of favor (except in mystery TV shows, it seems.)

I think that that was when the idea of a laundry list confession (I told ten lies, I took the name of God in vain 5 times) fell out of favor. But it happened at a time when I wasn't attending church, so I'm not sure. I only know that when I went back to church I stopped looking at the purpose of reconciliation was to rattle off a list, but rather a time to talk about my overall struggles, and no one ever asked me to go back to the laundry list.

I think that almost everyone knows that they aren't perfect. I think almost everyone wants to conquer his demons.

But I also believe that God lives in each of us, and I believe that humans are basically good. And so, "saved a wretch like me" is sort of a meaningless statement. When I hear people sing that, I think, "Not only do you need forgiveness, you need a crash course in self-esteem."

We all need to have a sense of balance in life. In the midst of all this chest-thumping and mea culpas, are we supposed to forget that God never gives us more than we can handle?

Guilt is very ego-focused....is self-absorption, even in the guise of self-hate, what God really wants of us?

I think since the Fall we are not good from the get go but we are made good when we turn to Christ.

 

[Joshua G.]

"Penance" was never called "Reconciliation" until after Vatican II. That's when the confessional booths fell out of favor (except in mystery TV shows, it seems.)

I think that that was when the idea of a laundry list confession (I told ten lies, I took the name of God in vain 5 times) fell out of favor. But it happened at a time when I wasn't attending church, so I'm not sure. I only know that when I went back to church I stopped looking at the purpose of reconciliation was to rattle off a list, but rather a time to talk about my overall struggles, and no one ever asked me to go back to the laundry list.

But from this, I gather that you imagine most people who call it Penance or Confession (both of which are stlill correct names if I am not mistaken) might do more of this? I agree that words are powerful but is it not more reasonable to consider that perhaps Vatican II set forth instruction that revealed a more thearpeutic aspect that had been left a bit neglected and the title Reconciliation was rather a consequence of that? My point is that I have hard time imaging that someone who calls it confession views it as any less thearpeutic than one who calls it reconcilation if they grew up in the same post-Vatican world.

Also, just as a curiosity: Do you honestly never say to yourself "I think I'll go to confession tomorrow". And, do you negate that Penance is an improper word for it or just not as helpful for you and your personality? I can see the latter and respect that but I don't understand the former.

I think that almost everyone knows that they aren't perfect. I think almost everyone wants to conquer his demons.

good, I don't think I said otherwise. I didn't mean imply otherwise. But what is very very very common nowdays is to believe and lead others to believe that God doesn't care about your sins. Just forget about them. Repentance has two aspects to it. One is feeling sorry for what you did or did not do. Recognizing it as a mistake that was better left undone. Then moving forward. You are rightly stating that to forget the latter is not Christian. It just heaps guilt on top of guilt and does nothing with it. It's actually quite demonic and any traditionalist SHOULD agree with you. I've never read or heard otherwise. But to forget the latter is just as bad because it gives way to a mentality that is very releticistic. "I want to let go of these habits, not because they are right or wrong, but because my life will be better for it" But that's just non-sense. We are so afraid nowdays to say "I was wrong for doing that. Please forgive me. I regret that." Anyway, both need to be practiced. To acknowledge only the former is just godless stoicism and to acknowledge only the latter is just confused and pointless unitarianism.

But I also believe that God lives in each of us, and I believe that humans are basically good.

I agree with you. I am not sure if this is where I am being unCatholic, but as an Orthodox we believe that all are born with God's image. It's distorted, but not lost as Luther would have us believe. I think that agrees with Catholic theology... right?

And so, "saved a wretch like me" is sort of a meaningless statement.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the wording becuase it has a very once-saveD-always-saved feel to it. And that's a great example, by the way, of why we should not use protestant hymns because there is a LOT of protestantism implied in that statement. However, to recognize that we can become wretched when we purposely deny Christ in our actions is important.

When I hear people sing that, I think, "Not only do you need forgiveness, you need a crash course in self-esteem."

never heard that song but I do like the "not only" part as well. As you "you need forgiveness because what you did was wrong". Self-esteem is not found in ignoring that we did something wrong. It's found in standing up to the hard truth but then realizing that we have the duty and right to move beyond it.

We all need to have a sense of balance in life. In the midst of all this chest-thumping and mea culpas, are we supposed to forget that God never gives us more than we can handle?

No, we aren't. But why do we have to get rid of mea culpas (as an example) in order to find balance? Why not just say "Mea culpa, I'm sorry, help me to move on... thank you for your forgiveness" It's a process.

Guilt is very ego-focused

That sounds bad because ego has a bad connotation. But as we both know "ego" means "I" not egotistical or anything intrinsically bad. Yes, this first step of MANY steps is focused on what I did. It is wholly focused on what I did. It's not about what THE OTHER person did to make ME flick them off the other day. It's what I did. "I flicked someone off" Not "I flicked someone off, but they did it first". So yes, guilt is very ego-focused... it is a first step. It is a step I am sure Paul went through when he realized "I did all of that to these Christians" I would bet that he probably wept to. Then he moved on Just one step.

....is self-absorption

whild guilt is ego-focused as it needs to be, it is not ego-absorbed because as I said "I flicked SOMEONE ELSE of" There is almost always a victim (direct or indirect) and that fact should be focused on when there is a victim. But the focus of the guilt is certainly on t he ego.

even in the guise of self-hate, what God really wants of us?

This happens when people don't move on to the next steps of reconciliation (a word I do like a lot, btw).

I hear ppl talk about that "Catholic guilt" and so that leads me to believe that this was once a problem. But the only people I ever hear it attributed to are virtually non-practicing Catholics (unless it is said 100% in jest... often, though it is said mostly in jest but speaks the truth a little for the individual). I have known and still know personally as good friends in the faith many Catholics and the vast majority of them are quite conservative bordering on traditionalist. I sincerely do not see them holding on to guilt or having a skewed view of their forgiveness or ability to move on.

Now, there are always going to be people who are struggling with particular psychological issues because of chemical imbalance, upbringing, tragic events or poor catechesis. But you don't respond to the minority throuhg general praxis. that's where pastoral counseling comes in which, at the very least, they should be getting through 'confession'.

I have no doubt that in pre-Vatican II days there was an over-emphasis on guilt and not moving beyond it, at least in practice. But, I just don't see or hear that when I speak to my friends. I just hear that from lapsed Catholics and we can blame the pre-V days but we aren't there now. Now, we are in a time where, if we are not careful, we will give into relativism and I see that throughout the Catholic Church. it is a recoginzed problem so I don't say that to point fingers. But that's what the Church is battling now. It seems She is saying "hey, guys, sin does matter and it is your fault so you need to say sorry and then let's talk about how you move on from that."

Josh

 

[whitetiger1]

I like the conversation so far. I wonder if I can re title the thread. I am sorry to all again sometimes I react without thinking.

 

[Fantine]

I agree that words are powerful but is it not more reasonable to consider that perhaps Vatican II set forth instruction that revealed a more thearpeutic aspect that had been left a bit neglected and the title Reconciliation was rather a consequence of that? My point is that I have hard time imaging that someone who calls it confession views it as any less thearpeutic than one who calls it reconcilation if they grew up in the same post-Vatican world.

good, I don't think I said otherwise. I didn't mean imply otherwise. But what is very very very common nowdays is to believe and lead others to believe that God doesn't care about your sins. Just forget about them. Repentance has two aspects to it. One is feeling sorry for what you did or did not do. Recognizing it as a mistake that was better left undone. Then moving forward. You are rightly stating that to forget the latter is not Christian. It just heaps guilt on top of guilt and does nothing with it. It's actually quite demonic and any traditionalist SHOULD agree with you. I've never read or heard otherwise.

That sounds bad because ego has a bad connotation. But as we both know "ego" means "I" not egotistical or anything intrinsically bad. Yes, this first step of MANY steps is focused on what I did. It is wholly focused on what I did. It's not about what THE OTHER person did to make ME flick them off the other day. It's what I did. "I flicked someone off" Not "I flicked someone off, but they did it first". So yes, guilt is very ego-focused... it is a first step

This happens when people don't move on to the next steps of reconciliation (a word I do like a lot, btw).

I hear ppl talk about that "Catholic guilt" and so that leads me to believe that this was once a problem. But the only people I ever hear it attributed to are virtually non-practicing Catholics (unless it is said 100% in jest... often, though it is said mostly in jest but speaks the truth a little for the individual). I have known and still know personally as good friends in the faith many Catholics and the vast majority of them are quite conservative bordering on traditionalist. I sincerely do not see them holding on to guilt or having a skewed view of their forgiveness or ability to move on.


I have no doubt that in pre-Vatican II days there was an over-emphasis on guilt and not moving beyond it, at least in practice. But, I just don't see or hear that when I speak to my friends. I just hear that from lapsed Catholics and we can blame the pre-V days but we aren't there now. Now, we are in a time where, if we are not careful, we will give into relativism and I see that throughout the Catholic Church."

Josh

Have you ever heard the adage, "A burned man fears the fire?" Those who grew up with heavy doses of "Catholic guilt" are naturally more sensitive to translators trying to reinvent it then those who never experienced pre-Vatican II, looking at pre Vatican II days and things like the Latin Mass through some sort of rosy, lacey, romantic fog rather than as it really was.

What happens after the "mea maxima culpa" and the breast beating? Do we "move on?"

No! We are so guilty that we don't repent to God. We don't ask God's forgiveness. No! We are so allegedly guilty that we can't even approach God.

We ask blessed Mary ever virgin and all the angels and saints to pray for us to the Lord our God.

Really, is that "moving on?" Instead of "amending our lives" (something I heartily approve of) asking angels and saints to put in a good word for us?

One giant step backwards (unless the prayer you are saying in your heart is different from the rote language you are parroting.)