World Youth Day

[Myles Domini]

[quote]maybe send this in letter form to the WYD organizers so 08 will be better???[/quote]

I've written to the Sydney Archdiocese chancery office already I'm sure they'll be able to have a hand in whats going down. But one letter is nothing, write as many as possible.

Yes, Oik my experience of the days in the diocese was much like yours and I was thoroughly flabbergasted.

Picchick I apologise if I offend but I do think some of the music was indeed objectionable. In the Holy Eucharist the sacrifice of calvary is re-presented to the congregation and they are united to it. Particlarly the parts of the Mass surrounding the Eucharistic liturgy and leading up to Communion are the moments where the invisible mystery encapsulates the passion.

When the priest says 'behold the lamb of God' and raises Him aloft Christ is there on the cross and as you approach Him to recieve Him you stand in the shoes of John beside the Blessed Mother. To have someone playing unduly fast music when the tones should be solemn and meditative is something I must object to in all types of music new and old.

Pope St Pius X had similar objections to the operatic compositions that had invaded the Church during the so-called enlightenment. Master pieces of art many of them may well be but they are not right for the mystery of the Mass hence the great St Pius X made the effort to revive and support the Solesomes reform of the Gregorian Chant. I am not against modern music, I am against modern music which makes no attempt to adapt itself to the nature of the Mass. Just as I will object to some of Mozart of even Haydn's masses when I think they've got a little too creative.

Arabising the creed was uneccessary, jazzing up the gloria was unneccessary. Music in the mass holds a hallowed place because music cannot be seen or touched or tasted thus it is an excellent portal into the unseen mystery. This is its purpose in the liturgy. It should allow the believer to reach a calm state of mind where he can meditate on the invisible reality that Our Blessed Lord brings into his life during His hour. If it fails in this task, if it merely arouses sensory feelings then it is vanity and worthless.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 27 2005, 04:37 PM']

In response to EENS, I would disagree.  I would suggest that anyone go.  It is such a witness to be a youth in the largest gathering of youth in the world.  This shows the world that "Hey!  We are here, we are religious and you can't stop us.  We are not afraid to show the world our faith."  .

[right][snapback]701745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But what 'faith' is being presented to the world with nonsense like that going on during the various litugical services? I would suggest that it is not the Catholic Faith.

[Brother Adam]

EENS,

I would suggest it is the Catholic Faith. Never have the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church, but through 2000 years of history the members of the Church, both laity and religious, both the poor average Joes, and the Popes themselves have gravely sinned, but that is the Church. We are human, sinful, and in need of grace. It's hard, it's gritty, and it is certianly not the faith of the Pharisees. We are one big family and there are wierdos, but it is a family none the less. Consider being a St. John the Cross or a St. Therese instead of a Martin Luther.

In the Catholic faith you will end up eating with tax collectors, and showing love to enemies that may never be reciprocated, but in the end the "well done, good and faithful servant" is worth it.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Brother Adam

[amdgboomer]

Sorry Myles, the Eucharist can't strictly be said to be re-presentation. Case in point, if at the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ is on the Cross, then we are receiving either the dead/dying flesh of Christ. Which the Church has rejected. We recieve the body of Christ, of which there is only one, and that is resurrected.

However re-presentation could be said to exist in a certain sense, in that they are one and the same sacrifice. In biblical sacrifice, there is offering and there is destruction of the thing being offered. According to many of the Church Fathers, at the Last Supper, Christ offered himself up and was then "destroyed" on the Cross. This in mind, the Last Supper and the Cross are but two aspects of Christ's one sacrifice. Trent seems to go on these lines too.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

Anyway, if the Last Supper and the Cross are two facets of one event, and the Last Supper is of course the first Mass, then the Mass is one and the same. In the Last Supper, Christ offers himself up to be destroyed, on the Cross he offers himself up as being destroyed, and in the Mass he offers himself as having been destroyed.

So yes, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross, but at the Mass, Christ is not crucified, he is not on the cross.

[amdgboomer]

And I like that my newborn status on here is known as "lurker".

[cappie]

This was published in the Sunday Telegraph today.......

[quote name='cappie' date='Aug 28 2005, 05:08 PM']Youth Day a celebration of reverence - Cardinal Pell

August 28, 2005
One million, one hundred thousand young people attended the final Mass at World Youth Day, Cologne with Pope Benedict last Sunday.

Two-and-a-half thousand were from Australia, 100,000 came from Italy along with 9000 priests, 650 bishops and 60 cardinals.

The event was significant for Germany, where pressures against religion are strong. In ex-communist East Germany, 70 per cent or even 90 per cent are not baptised, and the culture of death flourishes there.

Because of abortion and unemployment in the East, houses are unoccupied and suburbs are being turned into parkland.

Cologne is a smaller city of one million people, so there were three opening ceremonies in Bonn, Dusseldorf and Cologne. Numbers were bigger than expected and tens of thousands could not gain entry.

As always, the pilgrims were well behaved, patient and friendly, marching across the cities, singing hymns, smiling.

They were clear evidence faith makes a difference, that goodness is life-giving, that clear consciences and community bring joyfulness.

It is encouraging to see young people full of hope. Christianity at its best.

About 600,000 people turned out to welcome Pope Benedict last Thursday night from the banks of the Rhine as he sailed past accompanied by five boats with representatives from the five continents.

The Holy Father also lunched with some young pilgrims, including one Aussie.

Cologne Cathedral is stunning. Gothic in style, it took 600 years to complete and is higher and slimmer than St Mary's, with fantastic modern stained glass. The centrepiece is a magnificent golden casket for the relics of the Three Wise Men, actually stolen from Milan in 1162.

Nearly all the pilgrims visited the cathedral, passing under the casket in a constant stream.

About 405,000 pilgrims registered for the three days of teaching by bishops, testimony from pilgrims and then Mass in the local parishes. I gave two of these and the piety and faith of the pilgrims (they were mainly from the US and Canada) were impressive and powerful.

The pilgrims always camp out on the Saturday night after the Vigil.

Rain meant that Marienfeldt was muddy and brought out the small mice, while the Vigil service was subdued, with traditional music (Ave Maria) and concluded with adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Thousands of candles, lifted high, twinkled in the darkness as we sang Alleluia.

The final Mass was also beautiful and a small miracle. There were plenty of small difficulties: some couldn't see much, some were distracted.

But it was awe-inspiring looking down on this immense gathering, like an army prepared for battle – not for destruction, but for the future, for faith and for goodness. Above all, it was the silence that provoked the awe.

Reverence and prayer during the whole Mass and especially after Communion.

I would not have believed a million young people could be so still, and I thanked God for it.
[right][snapback]702504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='amdgboomer' date='Aug 28 2005, 04:53 AM']Sorry Myles, the Eucharist can't strictly be said to be re-presentation.  Case in point, if at the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ is on the Cross, then we are receiving either the dead/dying flesh of Christ.  Which the Church has rejected.  We recieve the body of Christ, of which there is only one, and that is resurrected. 

However re-presentation could be said to exist in a certain sense, in that they are one and the same sacrifice.  In biblical sacrifice, there is offering and there is destruction of the thing being offered.  According to many of the Church Fathers, at the Last Supper, Christ offered himself up and was then "destroyed" on the Cross.  This in mind, the Last Supper and the Cross are but two aspects of Christ's one sacrifice.  Trent seems to go on these lines too. 

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

Anyway, if the Last Supper and the Cross are two facets of one event, and the Last Supper is of course the first Mass, then the Mass is one and the same.  In the Last Supper, Christ offers himself up to be destroyed, on the Cross he offers himself up as being destroyed, and in the Mass he offers himself as having been destroyed. 

So yes, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross, but at the Mass, Christ is not crucified, he is not on the cross.
[right][snapback]702216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My apologies if I said anything wrong. I was just looking at the Mass as St Francis de Sales instructs philothea to in the Introduction to the Devout life. I was not saying that Christ is re-crucified, which of course would be heretical, but viewing the new covenant of Christ as having been completed when he drunk the fourth and final cup of the Seder on the cross (ya know the sour wine/vinegar) I interpreted the doctrine of re-presentation as meaning that Christ draws us back to those final moments of his through a mysterious power all his own. I didnt see anything in the Catechism that made this idea erraneous however it seems I stand corrected.

Sorry

[Cam42]

[quote name='amdgboomer' date='Aug 27 2005, 11:53 PM']Sorry Myles, the Eucharist can't strictly be said to be re-presentation.  Case in point, if at the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ is on the Cross, then we are receiving either the dead/dying flesh of Christ.  Which the Church has rejected.  We recieve the body of Christ, of which there is only one, and that is resurrected. 

However re-presentation could be said to exist in a certain sense, in that they are one and the same sacrifice.  In biblical sacrifice, there is offering and there is destruction of the thing being offered.  According to many of the Church Fathers, at the Last Supper, Christ offered himself up and was then "destroyed" on the Cross.  This in mind, the Last Supper and the Cross are but two aspects of Christ's one sacrifice.  Trent seems to go on these lines too. 

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

Anyway, if the Last Supper and the Cross are two facets of one event, and the Last Supper is of course the first Mass, then the Mass is one and the same.  In the Last Supper, Christ offers himself up to be destroyed, on the Cross he offers himself up as being destroyed, and in the Mass he offers himself as having been destroyed. 

So yes, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross, but at the Mass, Christ is not crucified, he is not on the cross.
[right][snapback]702216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, it can be said to be a representation. It is tradtional teaching to believe that the the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Lord on Calvary. EVERY SINGLE MASS, FROM ALL TIME. Your understanding of receiving a dead/dying Christ is erroneous. That is not how the Church has viewed the sacrifice of the Mass, ever.

You make an attempt to rectify yourself in the second paragraph, but your first paragraph is totally and completely wrong. To assert that is to mis-represent the position of the Mass.

You are also not defining your terms with your philosophical argument. You are simply throwing out the letters which may or may not be a fallacious statement. If you take it one way, it can be valid, but if you take it the way it seems that you are taking it, it is a deductive fallacy. And the Church cannot teach a fallacious argument.

What we can say is this, and we can say this with all certainty.....the Mass is the representation of Christ crucified. It is not the ACTUAL sacrifice, but the representation in an unbloody manner. The move that is being made in the first paragraph is to say that the Mass is a meal first and a sacrifice second. WRONG. It is a sacrifice first, and a meal second. The Sacrfice of the Mass, leads to spritual nourishment.

How can I say this, because if Christ were not aware of what his role was, the Last Supper would not be the last supper. And there would be no institution of the Mass.

There is no Church Father that will deny the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, not one. When you talk about Christ destroyed, you are only dealing with his human nature, you are not dealing with the divine nature and thus not dealing with hypostasis. Don't forget, the human will was at all times illumined by the divine will.

Your post is manic. It goes one way (heterodox), contradicts itself (orthodox), contradicts itself again (heterodox), then makes an orthodox statement to end it all. While you may arrive at the proper answer, your means to get there are all muddled.

There is a representation of Christ crucified, EVERY SINGLE time the Mass is offered. It is the unbloody sacrifice. This cannot be denied. To do so denies the whole purpose of the bloody sacrifice at Calvary.

It can be said that the Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing:

1. that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
2. that it was a true and real sacrifice;
3. that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, a Church father, was a huge proponent of what I have been explaining.

[quote name='Ep. clxxi' date=' ad Amphil." in P. G., XXXVII, 282']"Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [anaimakto tome] thou separatest [temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [phonen echon to Xiphos]."[/quote]

The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance.

So, when we look at all of this, we must accept the sacrifical nature, otherwise, we are denying the causality of the Mass, as I said above.

Hopefully this helps clear up your position.

[Myles Domini]

Thanks for the clarification Cam. I was worried for awhile there that what I'd been saying to my friends (particularly the younger ones) was errenous. I live in mortal fear of ever being an organ of heretical teaching.

Thank heavens for the Lord and Master of Orthodoxy

[amdgboomer]

Umm, pretty sure if you read what I said, I never denied that the Mass is a sacrifice, or even the sacrifice of the cross. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure if you actually read what I said, you'd see that I was saying that it is the identical sacrifice in a different form. May not have said it in a way that sounds like the Baltimore Catechism, but I said it.

Speaking of not defining terms, take a closer look at the ones I used. I used re-presentation as opposed to representation. Theologically, there's a big difference there. If you've studied theology, you should know that, but I'll explain. A statue of George Washington represents him. George Washington himself coming into the room right now would be a re-presentation of him. Of course, in the Eucharist Christ is actually present to us in the flesh, but that does not mean the cross is. Yes, it is the very flesh that was crucified, but it is not at present being crucified. The actual event of the crucifixion is represented, in that that body once crucified is being offered up, and even offered up in the very same sacrifice (though in a different form; unbloody), and indeed, the "Beatific Will" that St. Augustine speaks of would in a sense make the event present, but not in a literal sense. The crucifixion is not re-presented as in literally putting us at the foot of the cross. You can argue against this point all you want, but you'll be arguing with the council of Trent. Have fun.

St. Cyprian wrote, "For the Passion of the Lord is the
sacrifice which we offer" clearly indicating that he believed the
Passion of the Lord is offered in the Mass, just as in the Supper.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem said of the liturgy, "we offer Christ slain for
our sins." Other ancient writers such as Gaudens of Brescia said that
the sufferings of the Passion are set before God in the Eucharist,
perhaps suggesting this as the reason for the effectiveness of the
Mass for propitiation.
St. John Chrysostom, while importantly pointing out that we do nothing
to repeat Christ's death or make Him victim, and showing that because
it is a representation, we do not stand literally beneath the Cross,
still maintained, "not only do we offer the same victim, but we also
offer the one and the same sacrifice. …not only do we offer the same
Christ, but we also offer Him as the subject of the same sacrificial
action…."
Cardinal Cajetan, in the year 1525, said in response to the errors of
Lutheranism on the Eucharist:
"Take note of the error… where it judges that the sacrifice of the
altar is a different sacrifice from the sacrifice Christ offered on
the Cross. In matter of fact, it is the same sacrifice, just as it is
the same body of Christ and the same blood of Christ – on the altar,
on the cross, and now in heaven. The difference is in the manner of
offering, since then it was offered corporeally, but now it is offered
spiritually. Then it was offered in actual death, now in a mystery of
death."

[b][i]Later in that same work he would reemphasize that this does not by any
means mean that the death of the Lord is actually contained in the
sacrifice of the Mass. "Two things must be rightly understood: Christ
Himself is both signified and contained, while his death is signified
but not contained."[/i][/b]


I switch between orthodox and heterodox, huh? Tell me, where? You can't go and throw around those terms with nothing to back it up.

I was not accusing Myles of heresy (don't worry Myles), merely explaining that at the sacrifice of the Mass, we are not directly present to the crucifixion, or literally at the foot of the cross or something. You yourself agreed with this, before going off on a huge tangent defending the fact that it is the sacrifice of the cross, which again, if you'd actually read my post, you would see I was saying the same thing.

Next time before you get all angry and write out a huge response, read what you're responding to.

[Myles Domini]

Well boomer you seem quite well versed in this stuff too Intensely well versed actually so if you dont mind would you sort of detail how you approach the invisible mystery of the Mass? That is, in your heart and mind what do you see happening in the Heavenly Sanctuary during the various 'parts' of the Mass e.g. the Penetential rite? What would you advise a person to meditate upon and lift up his heart to when called upon by the common prayer of the Church (according to the current Missal of the Roman Catholic Church).

Thanks
Myles

[amdgboomer]

Wow, quite a question, Myles. Well, the Eucharist has always been extremely important to me, it was the basis of my conversion. What do I focus/meditate on, that is when I'm not pathetically distracted...

I can't prescribe a certain style of prayer to anyone, but for me, a young guy who studied theology and who's spent a good bit of time in the Holy Land, my focus tends to revolve around those things: imagery from the places these events took place, and the theological mystery and reality of it.

My theology thesis back at Franciscan was on this precise topic of the Mass' sacrificial nature, and the part that always moved me is that, as one single sacrifice now in a perpetual form, it is as though, when the priest speaks the words of institution, Christ's words are echoing through the centuries.

Another aspect that is quite moving is the eschatalogical nature of the Liturgy (eschatological meaning referring to the "end times"). Catholic teaching implies that at the Liturgy we actually participate in the Heavenly Liturgy... it's far too big a topic to write about here, so I won't go too much father.

Anyway, as I said, I can't really advise someone on how to pray at Mass, different people are moved to devotion in different ways. But if you'd like some really great reading on the topic of the Liturgy (including in its sacrificial aspect), I could recommend a lot of books, but I'll limit it to two authors for now:

Maurice de la Taille, "The Mystery of Faith". This one's actually a two volume, one called The Sacrifice of Christ, the other The Sacrifice of the Church. It's intense reading, but you'll come away from it having gained substantial knowledge on the topic.

The other's a much easier read, but it can really help you get started with a good foundational understanding of the "eschatological" nature of the Mass. It's by Scott Hahn, called "The Lamb's Supper". Again, the de la Taille one is far superior, but the Hahn one's a good start.

Hope you enjoy them!

[Myles Domini]

Thanks

[argent_paladin]

I was the group leader on the trip that Oik went on and I have a couple of comments.
1. For those of you who ask "Why not stay home?", how about the chance to have a live catechisis session with Cardinals Arinze and George? Our group even got to ask Arinze two questions about liturgy. That type of personal access is hard to come by if you stay home.
Or how about getting to see the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, the Pope three times in a week and a half, once in Vatican City and twice in Germany? Or the chance to meet faithful Catholics from all over the world and to be a witness, a leaven, salt and light of orthodoxy to those who may not be firm in the faith? Or a witness to those misled liturgists and youth leaders who think that all youth are interested in is having fun and not growing in faith?
I think that it would be a terrible tragedy if all orthodox youth stayed home and WYD was dominated by heterodoxy. We are called to be in the world but not of the world. We should be in World Youth Day. Our reverence, our prayers, our faith can act as a powerful witness to those Germans we met and to other pilgrims. Imagine the witness if the concert venues were mostly empty but the organ concerts, adoration chapels and rosary groups were standing-room-only. That would get the message across that young people are craving tradition and substance more than 1000 letters to Sydney.
Oh, and finally, why go to WYD? Plenary indulgence, baby!!

2. If you look only at the papal closing mass (not at the many heterodox events planned by the very left-wing German parishes) I think the picture is not at all bleak. The opening hymn was written 300 years before Vatican II. The Kyrie was chanted, in Greek. The Gloria was sung in Latin (yes, it had a chorus, I'll get back to that). The Haleluja did not have any extra words or phrases. As someone mentioned, the Credo was Asian, but still in Latin. I admit, the Sanctus was a bit weird but also in Latin. The Agnus Dei was in Latin. I must admit that I have a pet peeve about the first communion hymn "Let us break bread together on our knees". It's good because it is on our knees, but it is bad because the priest doesn't break bread during the fraction rite, but the Body of Christ and wine is not drunk on our knees but the Blood of Christ. I hate that reinforcement of false doctrine at such an important mass, especially since so many have false understandings of the Eucharist.
I love the second communion hymn, "Nun Danket alle Gott", written 350 years before Vatican II.
As others pointed out, most of the appalling liturgies were carried out by the parishes or Diocese away from Cologne. I was so disappointed with the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, but I guess I shouldn't have been. I just thought that Bavarians were more conservative and smarter than to sing "Imagine" at a liturgical function and toss around an inflatable globe while singing "He's got the whole world in his hands."
But again, I thought the final mass itself was very good, considering the circumstances. You have 1.2 million people, requiring very loud sound systems, large tv screens, and extra long mass parts (or how about silence?). You also needed to be sensitive to the fact that most people don't know Latin or German, but you want people to be able to sing along, so the songs have to be simple and repetitious.
I am definitely going to Sydney in 2008 with a choir. If any of you are interested in bringing sacred music to Sydney and can reherse in the DC area, let me know.

[argent_paladin]

[img]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20050823/mdf38786.jpg[/img]

Nun's wild dancing earns her a reprimand

Tue Aug 23,12:26 PM ET

A Belgian nun's acrobatic and indecorous dancing with a missionary during the Catholic World Youth Day in Germany over the weekend earned her a reprimand from her mother superior, a Belgian paper said Tuesday.

Daily Het Laatste Nieuws showed pictures of a dancing Johanne Vertommen being held up in the air by the missionary, and then clinging to him with her legs wrapped around his body.

"I wouldn't do this at home but at such occasions I get carried away by the enthusiasm of the group," the 29-year-old told the paper later.

"My mother superior raised the issue today: she thinks I should watch out a bit and bear in mind that I represent our community," Vertommen said.

Pope Benedict attended the celebration at the Marienfeld, outside Cologne, in the presence of some 700,000 people.