A Critique of the Traditional Roman Canon

[AJV]

Forgive me, but a work in which the author had a Doctorate in Divinity from Pope Leo XIII and was head of the Christian Press Association appeared to have a least some pretext of being scholarly, nor does it appear to be designed for “meditation.” While I may not necessarily disagree with you there may be inaccuracies, I would appreciate you pointing them out, since just saying it has inaccuracies helps no one here in their research.

There are quite a few and unfortunately, I don’t have time to list them all out but here are some, for starters:

• the colours of the vestments of Jewish priests was white, green, red and violet - not true, and the Roman scheme actually dates only from Innocent III.
• oil poured in the form of a cross on the high priests head - also not true and similar late introduction into the Roman ordination rites for a bishop.
• the division of common vestments to both priests and highpriests, the enumeration of the “extra” vestments of the highpriests which just happen to match the extra vesments of a bishop.
• the idea that Christ “wore” many vestments and that is analogous to the vestments of the bishop. In fact, as any book on such history will tell you, vestments in the Latin rite developed from the secular Roman garb, and all of them at different periods in history.
• the linking of the tassels on the Jewish garments with fringes on the stole and maniple. Again, both the written and the pictoral record show this to be false - fringes are a VERY late development in ornamentation.

To zip on though something can be found on practically every page in that chapter:

• the Temple Litany as the origin of the Confiteor - compare with the history and given in Jungmann. The Confiteor was not even in the rite until several centuries later.
• The arrangement given of the house to correspond a church is also incorrect if one reads actual descriptions of Jewish ceremonies of the time (of which also, not much is known, and certainly nothing is as much detail as described). Moreover, putting this desciple or that as corresponding to 2 deacons of honour, 2 masters of ceremonies, is also innacurate because these are late developements of courtly ceremonial that took place in the middle ages. If you read Ordo Romanus I, you won’t find, for example, two masters of ceremonies!.
• Other prayers such as the Jews reciting Psalm 43 are not supported. Again, the entrance of this psalm into the Latin liturgy at Rome is late. He quotes the Maronites in support, but actually, they borrowed that part of the Mass from the Romans! Likewise for the bows, and reverences which also ‘just happen’ to match those of the Traditional Mass, in the same places, despite the fact that these reverences were often introduced later.

It would just be too long to go through the entire chapter and list out all the actions that are faulty and which follow the pattern of the rites of the Traditional Mass at the turn of this century. But if you read something like Jungmann’s two volume work, you’ll see what I mean. You can also consider it from another angle: if the ceremonies were exactly like the order of the Roman liturgy, then
(1) does that mean the Eastern liturgies which have a different order have departed from it, and if so, would that not be a grievous thing that the Popes would seek to correct?
(2) what about the earlier Roman liturgy, which for example, did not use incense or have a confession at the beginning, departed from the Last Supper?

 

[diggerdomer]

Thank you.

And thanks to AJV for another informative post.
VC

It was a very good post. Very good. I probably still have some questions or differences or gaps in my knowledge referring to what was posted… but overall not as significant as other issues that have come up on this thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

Most innovations, such as facing the people and vernacular, were speculated as being ancient at the time but there is reason now to believe this is not the case.

Oh, really?

What do you base this opinion on?

Did Jesus not face the disciples at the Last Supper? While they were ‘reclined at table’? Did Jesus not speak to them in the “vernacular”? Did he turn His back to them as you read the Gospel accounts?

What language did the early Church use in Liturgy? Latin? No. The vernacular. Which, of course, was the reason to celebrate liturgy in the Latin language in the first place, later, because it was the VERNACULAR for certain communities.

Before the Church had established buildings for worship (most likely starting in the 4th century) do you really think they insisted on a specific and uniform posture for all gathered? So they all gathered in the church houses and ignored the table that was likely present and faced the same direction? Sure, maybe. But maybe not. Either way is ok with me, and as understand it, the Church. Are you ok with either option?

There is also much in the prayers which is a departure.

What? Are you kidding? Please, example or reference to what you claim?

The assertion “There’s a great opportunity to learn” is blithe, but you fail to point out exactly what can be learned. Please tell me what in the New Mass (not carried from the old) is truly of the ancients?

Now wait a minute, what are you asking? What in the “New Mass” (as you call it regardless of what the Church calls it) is ancient? Or, as you seem to indicate, what of the “New Mass” (as you call it regardless of what the Church calls it) is not carried from the “old” (as you call it regardless of what the Church calls it).

 

[EnchantedEve]

Actually, at the Last Supper, Our Lord would have used a “liturgical” language, Hebrew, since it was the feast of Passover and the rite would be in Hebrew, not Aramaic, his vernacular tongue. Our Lord may not have had his back to the disciples at the Last Supper, but remember that this aspect of the rite developed as the sacrificial nature of the rite did, which of course would not occur until after the Sacrifice, that is, after the Crucifixion.

You would be hard pressed to find a liturgical book other than latin or greek for the early Church. It had long been presumed that Greek had been the earliest liturgical language, but recent findings of even older Latin texts tells us that Latin may have been the prevelant language all along. Outside the East, vernacular was rare (and to claim that Latin was everyone’s vernacular would be untrue, as Roman documents show of many locals in the provinces who still did not know Latin) It was used because it was considered a universal language.

As far as prayers go here are a few examples:

• The consecrations formula, the words “mystery of faith” moved elsewhere, the use of for “all” instead of for “many,” which St. Alphonsus Liguori noted for its importance. (This problem is a translation issue, but we are discussing Mass in vernacular)
• The orations dropping, from 1182 in the Old Missal, to less than 460 now.
• In Good Friday prayers, no longer praying for conversion of Jews, pagans, or heretics.

-In the ordination rite, the dropping of any mention of performing an immemorial sacrifice or ability of forgiving sins.

-The dropping of the Introibo ad altare dei altogether, and the use of non-Catholic prayers ("Blessed are you, Lord, God of All Creation, etc…which is from a Jewish prayer).

• In Masses for the dead, 11 prayers were dropped and 23 of the remaining 25 had the word anima, or soul, dropped completely. The world hell was omitted for every prayer.

-Any mention of wrath of God, fury, vice, anger, sin, death, etc. all omitted.

These are some of the changes, and even if appearing small, taken together are a substantial change in the nature of what the Mass was meant to do, how we worship in it, and how we understand it.

By the way, thank you AJV! It has been a few years since I read the book and have done more research since then. This is a great place to pick up again and peruse some more. (By the way, I am always seeking new material, can you recommend any?) Excellent post and most helpful!

 

[AJV]

As far as prayers go here are a few examples:

• The orations dropping, from 1182 in the Old Missal, to less than 460 now.

Could you clarify this a bit more, please? It seems, at least, numerically impossible, since the 2002 missals has far more texts for Masses than the Traditional. Did you mean that only 482 were retained?

In Good Friday prayers, no longer praying for conversion of Jews, pagans, or heretics

I suppose that’s little dicey since phrases like “arrive at the fullness of redemption” in the prayer for the Jews, may be misinterpreted. But other prayers are more clear: for exmaple, the prayer for “those who do not believe in God” says "may they recognise in the lives of Christians the tokens of your love and mercy **and gladly acknowlege you as the one true God and Father of us all. **.

In the ordination rite, the dropping of any mention of performing an immemorial sacrifice or ability of forgiving sins.

On the contrary, the ordination rite for priests does mention the sacrifice in the words for the anointing of the hands. The model homily also contains this reference to the unbloody sacrifice, which is clearly laid out there, and since 1989, the priests also promise faithfulness in celebrating the sacraments “especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice”. Finally, although the difference is not there in the English translation, which uses “priest” for both, the Latin actually uses two words “Presbyteri” (Presbyter) and “Sacerdoti” (Priest). The first signifies only the office but the second signifies the power of sacrificing and Os throughout the ordination rite, while praying that they may be ordained to the order of Presbyters, he prays for the grace of the (sacrificing) priesthood — gratiae sacerdotalis

In Masses for the dead, 11 prayers were dropped and 23 of the remaining 25 had the word anima, or soul, dropped completely. The world hell was omitted for every prayer.

Actually amidst all the Masses for the dead, the word hell only occurs in one - the mass of burial- and not in any of the other collects, secrets or postcommunions. Moreover, even though prayers were dropped (some of which were merely for categories such as “Cardinal Deacon”, “Cardinal Priest” etc. ), the prayers all still pray for the dead ( even in the emasculated ICEL version currently in use)

-Any mention of wrath of God, fury, vice, anger, sin, death, etc. all omitted.

This is not true and you can read through a missal and see it. You don’t even have to grow through the while thing, you can just read through Advent and Lent and find stuff about vice, sin, etc. For an example of a prayer, take this one: (I select this one simply because it has a lot of the categories you mentioned)

Tribulatiónem nostram, quaesumus, Dómine, propítius réspice, et iram tuae indignatiónis, quam pro peccátis nostris iuste merémur, per passiónem Fílii tui, propitiátus avérte.

Regard mercifully, Lord, our trials, and, through the passion of your Son, turn away from us the wrath of your indignation which for our sins we have justly deserved

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, at the Last Supper, Our Lord would have used a “liturgical” language, Hebrew, since it was the feast of Passover and the rite would be in Hebrew, not Aramaic, his vernacular tongue. Our Lord may not have had his back to the disciples at the Last Supper, but remember that this aspect of the rite developed as the sacrificial nature of the rite did, which of course would not occur until after the Sacrifice, that is, after the Crucifixion.

The Passover ritual is inherently sacrificial as well, so that element would have been present. Granted, the Christian sacrifice is different due to the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ…but it’s not fair to say that the Passover rite is not sacrificial (think of the episode it recalls).

It had long been presumed that Greek had been the earliest liturgical language, but recent findings of even older Latin texts tells us that Latin may have been the prevelant language all along.

That would truly be shocking (to me). Can you give us some more information or references about such findings? None of the earliest liturgical historical sources I’ve heard of are suggested to have originally been composed in Latin. This would be interesting to learn, though, if you could help with some references.

 

[EnchantedEve]

A few responses here:

I am not denying the sacrificial aspect of the Passover seder, which is why I believe it was God’s Providence that it was used for the Last Supper. However, the Sacrifice which which defines the Mass is Christ’s, and not the Passover. The Mass is defined by this sacrifice only.

Admittedly, the source for the Latin language is someone obscure, Paul
Berry, in The Christian Inscription at Pompeii (Lewiston, Edwin Mellen,
c. 1995), discusses discovering inscriptions of Christian liturgies from around 79 A.D. in southern Italy, which pre-dates our earliest Greek texts. The texts themselves could not bring about a full Mass, but it is evidence that Latin was a liturgical language early on, and not only Greek as we once thought.

While it is debatable the intent, the Good Friday can be interpreted almost anyway you want. Jews may think the finding of “fullness of redemption” could be the coming of the Messiah, who has already come, and this is not conversion. Nor is acknowledging “the one God” conversion either, not even metaphorically. I can believe in the Trinitarian God and not be Catholic. Again, these re-writes fundamentally alter meaning. As it is said, If you cannot say what you mean, you do not mean what you say.

Apologies, my Missal did not have the Mass for Burial, so I was not aware that any mentioned hell, but we must admit that mention of it is less prevalent, as is mention of the Devil and his angels. I know we still pray for the dead, but it seems to be almost and after thought as tonality in the Funeral Rite almost implies being in heaven.
Prayer over Gifts: …receive our brother into the glory of Your Son…
Prayer after Communion: bring our brother the peace of your eternal home.

Contrast to:
Collect: we humbly beseech thee…that he may not undergo the pains of hell…
Tact: And by the help of thy grace may they be enabled to escape the avenging judgement…
Of course, the classic Sequence: O Day of Wrath! O day of mourning!

A little different tone, I would say.

True, there are mentions in certain prayers of the Missal of the things I mentioned, but I refer to the Mass itself. I must admit though, I exaggerated somewhat throwing sin without qualification, since sin is mentioned in the New Mass. However, examples of what I mean:

In Preperation for Communion: …deliver me by Thy Most Holy Body and Blood from all my transgressions and all evils.

In Preperation for Consecration: …bid us be delivered from eternal damnation.

In Lavabo: Take away not my soul, O God, with the wicked, nor my life with men of blood.

In Offertory: …for my own countless sins, offenses, and negligences.

Those are some of the things which are absent in the New Mass, or are obscured in their wording.

Again, these are minor in and of themselves, but their dimunition and omition (sp?) creates at the least a different tone in the nature of worship.

As for Ordination, I think you will admit at minimum the power to forgive sin in not mentioned. I will have to get back to you further on this.

Hope this helps! Thank you.

 

[Aramis]

The “Blessed are you, Lord,…” is used in the hours in some Eastern Rites, including the Byzantine. In both the liturgy of St John and St. Basil, and in the Hours.

It occurs in the psalms, and thus it occurs in both jewish and catholic prayer modes.

Heck, the opening line of the DL of St. Basil and of St John is “Blessed is our God, always, now and ever!” (Sometimes rendered “Blessed is our God, Always, Now and unto ages of ages!”)

It’s not traditionally Roman, but it is Catholic, to use the Jewish modes of prayer in the liturgy.

 

[EnchantedEve]

The “Blessed are you, Lord,…” is used in the hours in some Eastern Rites, including the Byzantine. In both the liturgy of St John and St. Basil, and in the Hours.

It occurs in the psalms, and thus it occurs in both jewish and catholic prayer modes.

Heck, the opening line of the DL of St. Basil and of St John is “Blessed is our God, always, now and ever!” (Sometimes rendered “Blessed is our God, Always, Now and unto ages of ages!”)

It’s not traditionally Roman, but it is Catholic, to use the Jewish modes of prayer in the liturgy.

True. In fact, I laud the Eastern Rite for maintaining their strong Jewish roots and maintaining, to an astonishing extent, fidelity to the liturgy of the old Temple rite, in form and style. That being said, however, as you note, this is not part of the organic history of the Western Rite, and its sudden insertion in said rites is a departure from previous forms and therefore is a novelty there. The same would be said for introducing confessionals in the Eastern rite. This would certainly be within Catholic practice, but would not be an organic part of the Eastern tradtion. I am not arguing the New Rite is invalid, which would be silly since I attend it and it would make all my communions sacrilegious, and would not fulfill my obligation. I am simply pointing out the New Mass, both in form, content, and presention is a departure from the development of the past, and for no defensible reason.

No man, not even the Pope, can claim he can approve such changes and not have said to have, in some way, affected the Faith. Our traditions are perennial, and the worship which was validated by the blood and Faith of our fathers cannot be so lightly dispensed without scaring the soul of our apostolate. To say otherwise is to do an injustice to the venerable nature of our sacred tradition, and lessens the influence of the Spirit in our lives, temporal and spiritual.

 

[AJV]

Apologies, my Missal did not have the Mass for Burial, so I was not aware that any mentioned hell, but we must admit that mention of it is less prevalent, as is mention of the Devil and his angels. I know we still pray for the dead, but it seems to be almost and after thought as tonality in the Funeral Rite almost implies being in heaven.
Prayer over Gifts: …receive our brother into the glory of Your Son…
Prayer after Communion: bring our brother the peace of your eternal home.

Contrast to:
Collect: we humbly beseech thee…that he may not undergo the pains of hell…
Tact: And by the help of thy grace may they be enabled to escape the avenging judgement…
Of course, the classic Sequence: O Day of Wrath! O day of mourning!

A little different tone, I would say.

I can see your point with reference to the Tract and Sequence but not necessarily with reference to the proper prayers of the Mass itself.

The Prayer of the Gifts and the Postcommunion that you quoted are for funerals in the Easter season (Funeral Mass C), when all Masses take on a more “paschal” character, with baptism, resurrection, etc. When you look at those for outside the Easter season (and again this is ICEL. The Latin is more clear):

A:……receive the gifts we offer for the salvation of N. May Christ be merciful in judging our brother (sister) N…

B:….accept this sacrifice we offer for our brother (sister) N…….cleanse him (her)
from his (her) human weakness and forgive any sins he (she) may have committed.

D: ….may this sacrifice wash away the sins of our brother (sister) N. in the blood of Christ. ……in loving mercy grant him (her) pardon and peace.

True, there are mentions in certain prayers of the Missal of the things I mentioned, but I refer to the Mass itself. I must admit though, I exaggerated somewhat throwing sin without qualification, since sin is mentioned in the New Mass. However, examples of what I mean:

In Preparation for Communion: …deliver me by Thy Most Holy Body and Blood from all my transgressions and all evils.

Still there. (ICEL: “free me from all my sins and from every evil”)

In Lavabo: Take away not my soul, O God, with the wicked, nor my life with men of blood.

As an aside point, this verse is not the reason for the psalm - it is just that in the Roman liturgy, a huge portion of the psalm is recited on account of the first verses of the psalm “Lavabo”. Many other uses which keep the psalm omit this verse. And moreover, this was not done to omit mention of sin but in order to shorten a long text.

Noe going to its replacement, it conveys the idea of sin quite clearly. “Lord wash me from my inquity, cleanse me from my sin”
In Offertory: …for my own countless sins, offenses, and negligences.

As for Ordination, I think you will admit at minimum the power to forgive sin in not mentioned. I will have to get back to you further on this.

A couple of points here:
(1) it is not necessary that such a power be conveyed in the rite of Ordination
(2) the omission is of the imperative form “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseris peccata, etc.”. This is the only text in the Traditional ordinal that mentions the forgiveness of sins, and its omission is taken as the reason why the new ordinal fails to mention the power to forgive sins.

Now, this is a late addition to the ordination rite in the 12th century (thus supporting (1)) and the reason for its omission was not the conveyance of the power to forgive sins, but rather, its imperative nature which, according to the revisers, clouded the meaning, as it appeared to give the priest a power which he had already received earlier in the rite when the prayer of Ordination was recited.

There is another argument that this text may not itself signify unequivocally the power to forgive sins, given its retention in a few Protestant ordinals, which certainly did not accept such a power or interpret this text in that way. I admit that this argument may be weakened by the fact that any text really can be interpreted in another sense, other than literal.

(3) the new ordinal does contain such a mention of forgiving sins in three places

• “…Paenitentiae sacramento peccata in nomine Christi et Ecclesiae dimittentes…”

One may argue that a bishop does not necessarily have ot say these words, but in any case, they provide a definition of what the rite means when it says ‘presbyteri’ and so, give an ‘ex adiunctis signification’

• “Vultis mysteria Christi ad laudem Dei et sanctificationem populi christiani, secundum Ecclesiae traditionem, praesertim in …Sacramento Reconciliationis, pie et fideliter celebrare…”
• “Sint nobiscum fideles dispensatores mysteriorum tuorum, …utque reconcilientur peccatores…”

 

[Aramis]

The authority to forgive sins is NOT granted at ordination, tho the power to do so is… It is a separate faculty, granted either by the bishop, or by installation as bishop, pastor or priestly abbot.

 

[AJV]

(1) it is not necessary that such a power be conveyed in the rite of Ordination

To avoid any confusion, I mean conveyed by means of explicit words.

 

[EnchantedEve]

A:……receive the gifts we offer for the salvation of N. May Christ be merciful in judging our brother (sister) N…

B:….accept this sacrifice we offer for our brother (sister) N…….cleanse him (her)
from his (her) human weakness and forgive any sins he (she) may have committed.

D: ….may this sacrifice wash away the sins of our brother (sister) N. in the blood of Christ. ……in loving mercy grant him (her) pardon and peace…"

I think we are getting sidetracked somewhat from my original point. I was not attempting a point by point analysis of the entire Roman Missal, more worthily accomplished by others, but showing that the tone and presentation is less explicit and conveys the Faith in a less meaningful way than the traditional Mass. Even the examples you cite above are at best obscurities of the fullness of Catholic teaching on the afterlife. The fact the hell remains in just 1 prayer reflects this. My assertions are not regarding the validity of the rites, but their explicit rendering of the Faith. The fact that the power to forgive sins is not mentioned does not render the rite invalid, but it certainly lessens somewhat the uniqueness of the Catholic priesthood, one important function being forgiving sins,a far bigger value in our Faith than in others. The fact that a rite was reformed making any teaching less clear** is to me a cause for concern.

To convey what I mean, my Lavabo example was not meant to convey the lack of sin mentioned, but the acknowledgement in that prayer that there are wicked men who wish to do wicked deeds. The removal of this implies we are no longer as concerned about being defended from wickedness. Again, I am not saying this is the explicit intent per se, but what the implied result of such an omission is. I think this and my other examples, and even examples from AJV, prove this point: The Spirit of the Liturgy, such as it is, is at best watered down and at worse removed altogether from the Mass, making it less of a bastion against error than before, and less of an explicit exposition of the Catholic Faith. Any effective worship of God should also be a clear exposition of His Truths, being that which is His glory on earth, His Truth.

When Pius XII, of venerable memory, permitted the reform of 1955 and simplified the rather dizzying array of rubrics, no compromise of Faith could even be implied. (The SSPV might argue this point, but I will go with it). Strong foundations remained, and aspects of lirturgy not necessary to explicitely render Christ’s teaching were dropped. Why did the Novus Ordo not follow this precedent? It is anyone’s speculation. For example, in the reforming of the ordinal, why not just reform the wording to make the rite more clear, why remove it altogether? Heck, why not even add a clearer wording? Even when concept such as sacrifice or sin are mentioned, the nature of these concepts is not expounded or elaborated upon, merely acknowledged as existing.

For my part all I can say is the New Mass, while still Catholic, is less so than the Old Mass even when said well. It simple does not render the Faith in the same depth nor does it appear designed to. Therein lies my concern.

 

[diggerdomer]

For my part all I can say is the New Mass, while still Catholic, is less so than the Old Mass even when said well. It simple does not render the Faith in the same depth nor does it appear designed to. Therein lies my concern.

Ok, but surely you aren’t claiming that the “New Mass” is in fact “less Catholic” than the “Old Mass” are you?

You’re just saying you think it is, which of course you’re entitled to have your own opinion on. Right?

 

[diggerdomer]

Admittedly, the source for the Latin language is someone obscure, Paul
Berry, in The Christian Inscription at Pompeii (Lewiston, Edwin Mellen,
c. 1995), discusses discovering inscriptions of Christian liturgies from around 79 A.D. in southern Italy, which pre-dates our earliest Greek texts. The texts themselves could not bring about a full Mass, but it is evidence that Latin was a liturgical language early on, and not only Greek as we once thought.

I’d agree, obscure. An interesting theory, a scholarly argument, but I’d be more persuaded at its relevance or significance if this source or theory appeared in any less obscure and readily available Commentaries or other books about the New Testament. No such reference that I have cites this book, but if you know of one I’d appreciate it.

In fact, I found a book review in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Jul 1997) that does not help your case. It claims Berry overly relies on circumstantial evidence, and concludes with the comment:

In the final chapter B. diverts to the argument that because the Pompeiian Christian inscription is in Latin, Roman Christians from the beginning spoke Latin. The preponderance of evidence to the contrary is simply ignored. The major evidence offered is an interesting list of quotations from Roman writers revealing their prejudice towards Greek. The assumption that even Jesus did not speak Latin to the Roman centurion and Pilate is “an unsupported estimate” (p. 42). Unfortunately, arguments like this, joined to some wildly inaccurate interpretations of NT texts (e.g., 1 Cor 7:17 refers to Paul ordaining presbyters) make this very short and overpriced book completely unusable except for its helpful graphics. That is too bad. It could have been a focused study of the history of interpretation of an intriguing inscription.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Ok, but surely you aren’t claiming that the “New Mass” is in fact “less Catholic” than the “Old Mass” are you?

You’re just saying you think it is, which of course you’re entitled to have your own opinion on. Right?

Of course. I have no jurisdiction for my opinion to have any weight other than as an opinion. As I mentioned in another post, I take the position that I am not sure what occured at the Second Vatican Council, or at the reform of the liturgy, but that there are causes for concern to me. But until the Church gives its definitive judgement on the Council and its aims, I can only express my concern over what gives the appearance of a substantial change by the Church and her mission on earth. This includes the liturgical changes of 1968 forward. However, ultimately it is the Church which must decide, which is why I can never, nor can I understand traditionalists who do, give any kind of definitive statement. It is not in my power to do so, nor may I make it binding on the faith of others, as the Dimond brothers do. It remains only my personal belief, binding only my own conscience.

The info I offered on latin was evidence, as I stated, that latin MAY have been the prevelant language all along, and thence cited my source. I simply pointed this out for scholarly interest, not a point of assertion. Were there latin liturgies in the early Church? I am inclined to think so. Did this constitute prevelant practice and therefore established custom? Based on current evidence, I cannot make this claim. However, the claim has been made, it is now only for scholars to study further. I will admit that I know of no book off hand that cites this, but given the book is not that old, scholarship may not have studied it claims thoroughly yet, and I do not consider a single review sufficient scholarly analysis, since it is not a true refutation. Time can only tell if this will be studied further.

That being said, thank you for doing you homework, it shows how much you care for the truth of our Holy Faith!

 

[diggerdomer]

As I mentioned in another post, I take the position that I am not sure what occured at the Second Vatican Council, or at the reform of the liturgy, but that there are causes for concern to me.

Well, for starters, I think everyone who’s concerned about “what really happened” at the Council to read the documents. Everything that followed VII may or not be in accord with the “Spirit” but the least all of us can do interested in this topic is to ground conversations in the documents. Regardless of what we think VII should or shouldn’t have done, it did produce the documents that are official authoritative teachings of the Magisterium.

That comment was not directed at you, personally, just my thought following on what you said.

I will admit that I know of no book off hand that cites this, but given the book is not that old, scholarship may not have studied it claims thoroughly yet, and I do not consider a single review sufficient scholarly analysis, since it is not a true refutation. Time can only tell if this will be studied further.

Thanks. Yes, it’s not that old on one hand, but on the other hand a book like Raymond Brown’s “Introduction to the New Testament” or the Harper-Collins Bible Commentary would have noted it or its theory if either thought it warranted. Maybe?

Of course, of course, a single review is not sufficient for scholarly analysis. It was just the only review I found in my brief time investigating, and it’s by an eminently reputable source (CBQ) and the author is a name I recognize from an institution I recognize (Catholic Theological Union in Chicago)–which again of course is subjective, but in contrast to Paul Berry (who is he? does he teach? has he published other works? what is his educational background?–none of that was available in the book you mentioned). I agree, time will tell. But from what we’ve each shared here on this thread my bet for now is that Berry’s work is not going to pan out conclusively or authoritatively. We shall see.

Thank you, as well. I enjoyed checking up on that source, it was interesting to investigate something new (as always).

 

[EnchantedEve]

Quick mention I wanted to make:

Apparently there is a somewhat reputable book which cites Berry’s, written by a Paul McKechnie. It is called The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church. Allegedly it is used in colleges. Also, apparently on Lew Rockwell.com there is an article saying Fr. Adrien Fortescue believed latin was an early liturgical language. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Thank you all for your replies; I had some work I had to take care of and I came back to a very interesting discussion.
I tend to take the ‘evolutionary’ view of the liturgy- when a small change is mandated in the liturgy it is for a reason- the ‘Prayer of the Faithful’ to the ‘Kyrie’, the Second Prayer of the Faithful to the ‘Oremus,’ which then leads into the Offertorium. (offertory-verse)
A short defense of the Tridentine Missal: What is wrong with the same reading for every Sunday of the year? I believe that Sunday Mass is to worship God; it is a perfect time to get taught doctrine and lessons the Church holds dear. One could read the Bible on one’s own time, and even in the days where many could not read, the Church should still be teaching the faith on Sundays. Not that reading Scripture is a bad thing however.
I will also mention how the Canon was thought as strange: some thought it appeared to be a combination of random prayers that had nothing to do with each other. I do not hold this opinion.
And so what if Mass is celebrated with the priest facing God? (not back-to-people)? The Mass is not just the Last Supper; it is the faithful standing at the foot of the Cross. A sacrifice re-presented.

 

[diggerdomer]

What is wrong with the same reading for every Sunday of the year?

Nothing is wrong with it, of course. No one I know of says it is.

The point of Vatican II, though, was to encourage the Faithful to have MORE exposure to Scripture, and a 3-year Lectionary vs. a 1-year cycle of readings was chosen as a way to carry out that teaching.

So this is not a case of defending any particular liturgical Rite, unless one needs to defend less Scripture vs. more Scripture.

I believe that Sunday Mass is to worship God; it is a perfect time to get taught doctrine and lessons the Church holds dear.

Worship and teaching are two distinct things. Related, important…but not the same. I agree, Sunday Mass (as with every Mass and every Liturgy of the Church) is to worship God.