A couple of EF questions

[14er]

I have a couple of questions pertaining to the extraordinary form of the mass.

First question: Why is the first part of the mass called “mass of the catechumens” and then starting with the offertory it’s called “mass of the faithful”?

Secon question: What is the meaning of moving the missal from the epistle side of the altar, to the gospel side, then back to the epistle side? I heard an explanation of this, but I wanted to verify it here.

I have a couple more but I will post them later so you don’t get overwhelmed

Thanks for any help…

 

[rapunzel77]

I have a couple of questions pertaining to the extraordinary form of the mass.

First question: Why is the first part of the mass called “mass of the catechumens” and then starting with the offertory it’s called “mass of the faithful”?

The reason why is because in the early Church the catechumens were sent away after the Gospel. The name continued to be there after they no longer sent them away.

Secon question: What is the meaning of moving the missal from the epistle side of the altar, to the gospel side, then back to the epistle side? I heard an explanation of this, but I wanted to verify it here.

The Epistle side is where the Epistle is read as well as the collect, gradual, and communion. The Gospel side is where the Gospel is read. This is why they go back and forth. There is some other symbolism involved as well but I can’t remember what it is right now.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The ‘Gospel side’ is Christ’s right hand side (place of honor) as seen from Him on the crucifix on the altar - which means it’s our left when facing the altar. Since the Gospels hold a special place, being the very words and actions of Christ Himself, we stand for them and the Missal is moved to the prominent location of honor out of respect.

I could be wrong but I think the moving of the missal from one side to the other also signifies Christ being dragged from Pilate to Herod & back again…

 

[palmas855]

I have a couple of questions pertaining to the extraordinary form of the mass.

First question: Why is the first part of the mass called “mass of the catechumens” and then starting with the offertory it’s called “mass of the faithful”?

Secon question: What is the meaning of moving the missal from the epistle side of the altar, to the gospel side, then back to the epistle side? I heard an explanation of this, but I wanted to verify it here.

I have a couple more but I will post them later so you don’t get overwhelmed

Thanks for any help…

The early Church, unlike today, actually believed that only those who were baptized members of the Church could participate in the entire Mass.

Therefore anybody could attend the Mass until after the sermon if there was one. After the sermon however, the Deacons would announce that all those not of the Church must leave. They would actually ensure that these people left. No unbaptized could remain for the Sacrifice itself. The catechumans were those who had not yet been baptized. The Faithful had been baptized.

Imagine that. The early Church actually thought that there was a difference in the two groups and that the difference was significant. Significant enough to exclude those not baptized from the Mass of the Faithful.

The early Church was much less concerned with being politically correct than we are today and didn’t feel that not hurting any ones feelings was being the primary motivating factor in how religious rituals are conducted.

 

[MarkThompson]

Imagine that. The early Church actually thought that there was a difference in the two groups and that the difference was significant. Significant enough to exclude those not baptized from the Mass of the Faithful.

The early Church was much less concerned with being politically correct than we are today and didn’t feel that not hurting any ones feelings was being the primary motivating factor in how religious rituals are conducted.

I guess we have paleo-Modernist politically correct softies like Pius V to thank for our open-door, anything-goes policies, then? Or how did they do it at Trent, then, exactly?

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I guess we have paleo-Modernist politically correct softies like Pius V to thank for our open-door, anything-goes policies, then? Or how did they do it at Trent, then, exactly?

Everyone was baptised and Catholic is the main reason why the practice ended.

 

[14er]

Thanks for your responses so far. What I heard about the missal being moved is…It being on the epistle side signifies God’s covenant with his chosen people, the jews. Then for the gospel it’s moved to the gospel side to signify God’s new covenant with all nations in Christ. Then it’s moved back to the epistle side to signify our hope of unification of jews and christians before the second coming.

Has enyone else ever heard that?

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Thanks for your responses so far. What I heard about the missal being moved is…It being on the epistle side signifies God’s covenant with his chosen people, the jews. Then for the gospel it’s moved to the gospel side to signify God’s new covenant with all nations in Christ. Then it’s moved back to the epistle side to signify our hope of unification of jews and christians before the second coming.

Has enyone else ever heard that?

That’s new to me

 

[stuart12]

When you are suffering persecution it is not a bad idea to remove from the Mass those who are not of the Church. In the earliest days, there was a thing called ‘the disciple of the secret’ where the sacred mysteries where hidden from those outwith.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The reason why is because in the early Church the catechumens were sent away after the Gospel. The name continued to be there after they no longer sent them away.
. . …

They still are in many RCIA programs; it’s called Dismissal. They are calledforward after the homily and before the Creed, given a blessing and sent elsewhere with a leader to discuss the readings and the homily.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I have a couple of questions pertaining to the extraordinary form of the mass.

First question: Why is the first part of the mass called “mass of the catechumens” and then starting with the offertory it’s called “mass of the faithful”?

Secon question: What is the meaning of moving the missal from the epistle side of the altar, to the gospel side, then back to the epistle side? I heard an explanation of this, but I wanted to verify it here.

I have a couple more but I will post them later so you don’t get overwhelmed

Thanks for any help…

Rapunzel is correct about the catechumens being sent out before the Offertory.

As for the moving of the missal, the left side of the altar, as viewed from the vantage point of Christ on the cross, signifies the Old Testament. The first readings of Introit, Collect(s), and Epistle are usually (but not exclusively) from the Old Testament.

The right side of the altar represents the New Testament and the coming of Christ which is where the Gospel is read. To get to the New Testament requires that one pass by and through Christ, hence the crossing in front of and genuflecting before the crucifix and tabernacle. After the unbloody sacrifice, the missal is returned to the Old Testament side signifying that Christ came to fulfill and reveal Himself to His chosen people of the Old Testament.

likewise, when the priest puts the Paten under the corporal after the Consecration, it signifies the blindness of the Jews to Christ in their midst. At the Pater Noster, the priest takes the paten out from under the corporal and holds it on edge facing the Blessed Sacrament to signify Christ recognized by the chosen as the Son of God and finally when the host is placed on the paten, the acceptance of Christ by the chosen.

 

[palmas855]

I guess we have paleo-Modernist politically correct softies like Pius V to thank for our open-door, anything-goes policies, then? Or how did they do it at Trent, then, exactly?

Oh I see. Yes it all makes perfect sense now. Interpreting Trent according to Aquinas does indeed make total sense of course. As long as one desires baptism, he is effectively baptized and therefore being effectively baptized, he is free to hear the totality of the Mass and receive Holy Communion if he so desires:extrahappy:

No need for ritual baptism at all I guess, as long as we want to be baptized. Maybe we should just scrap the entire archaic concept in its’ totality.

Yes it all makes perfect sense now.

Yet somehow, I don’t believe that is exactly what they meant at Trent, but hey, what do I know?

 

[MarkThompson]

Oh I see. Yes it all makes perfect sense now. Interpreting Trent according to Aquinas does indeed make total sense of course. As long as one desires baptism, he is effectively baptized and therefore being effectively baptized, he is free to hear the totality of the Mass and receive Holy Communion if he so desires:extrahappy:

No need for ritual baptism at all I guess, as long as we want to be baptized. Maybe we should just scrap the entire archaic concept in its’ totality.

Yes it all makes perfect sense now.

Yet somehow, I don’t believe that is exactly what they meant at Trent, but hey, what do I know?

I must be really dense, but that’s the oddest series of unrelated non-sequiturs I’ve ever read. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you might be trying to communicate.

I do hope, though, that you’ve abandoned the concept of trying to somehow lay blame on the post-Vatican II Church for abandoning the practice of restricting attendance at the “Mass of the Faithful” to the baptized. You write that “The early Church was much less concerned with being politically correct than we are today and didn’t feel that not hurting any ones feelings was being the primary motivating factor in how religious rituals are conducted.” As though political correctness or people’s feelings had even the slightest connection to why this practice was dropped.

Or else for your next trick, maybe you’d like to blame modern political correctness for not having the Mass in catacombs any more: “I guess underground tombs aren’t ‘hep’ or ‘groovy’ enough anymore, huh?”

 

[palmas855]

I must be really dense, but that’s the oddest series of unrelated non-sequiturs I’ve ever read. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you might be trying to communicate.

I do hope, though, that you’ve abandoned the concept of trying to somehow lay blame on the post-Vatican II Church for abandoning the practice of restricting attendance at the “Mass of the Faithful” to the baptized. You write that “The early Church was much less concerned with being politically correct than we are today and didn’t feel that not hurting any ones feelings was being the primary motivating factor in how religious rituals are conducted.” As though political correctness or people’s feelings had even the slightest connection to why this practice was dropped.

Or else for your next trick, maybe you’d like to blame modern political correctness for not having the Mass in catacombs any more: “I guess underground tombs aren’t ‘hep’ or ‘groovy’ enough anymore, huh?”

It is interesting to note at this juncture that in RCIA programs the Catechumans are typically excluded, dismissed is the term used, from the totality of the Mass. Strange that they should be excluded, yet if their brother or sister is there visiting, they can stay.

Attacking me really doesn’t help your argument. It just makes you look pompus and more than a little silly.

 

[MarkThompson]

It is interesting to note at this juncture that in RCIA programs the Catechumans are typically excluded, dismissed is the term used, from the totality of the Mass. Strange that they should be excluded, yet if their brother or sister is there visiting, they can stay.

Attacking me really doesn’t help your argument. It just makes you look pompus and more than a little silly.

No, it’s not very interesting to note that. People in RCIA are not excluded from Mass. Their training sessions (or whatever you call them) are done during the Liturgy of the Eucharist of certain Masses, but if the same catechumen went to any other Mass he would stay for the whole thing, no problem.

Whether you went to a Mass celebrated by Pius V in 1570 at the high altar in St. Peter’s, or an SSPX Mass celebrated by Bernard Fellay today, you would not see them order the the unbaptized to leave before the Eucharist. So who, exactly, are these politically correct, feelings-motivated people you are complaining about? Could you just retract that, say you were confused and had no basis for blaming the modern era for this “change,” and we can all move on?

 

[palmas855]

No, it’s not very interesting to note that. People in RCIA are not excluded from Mass. Their training sessions (or whatever you call them) are done during the Liturgy of the Eucharist of certain Masses, but if the same catechumen went to any other Mass he would stay for the whole thing, no problem.

Whether you went to a Mass celebrated by Pius V in 1570 at the high altar in St. Peter’s, or an SSPX Mass celebrated by Bernard Fellay today, you would not see them order the the unbaptized to leave before the Eucharist. So who, exactly, are these politically correct, feelings-motivated people you are complaining about? Could you just retract that, say you were confused and had no basis for blaming the modern era for this “change,” and we can all move on?

Not confused at all. Will not retract what I said as there is no reason to. Not blaming the modern era for anything other than what it is.

You are indeed correct that the political correct mindset of today is not responsible for the unbaptized attending Mass nor for them feeling free to receive the Eucharist which many of them do.

It has however directly exacerbated things to a great degree.

You can move on at any time you like. No one is keeping you here.