A Long Week's Worth of Thinking About Liturgy and the Church

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear Brethren,

I have had some time to think about the reality that in the Roman Rite there are “Lifeteen” Masses.

And I have reached a few conclusions.

The Second Vatican Council gave to us, as Roman Catholics, the reality of something we have not experienced since the 15th century: liturgical pluralism.

We as Roman Catholics now have options to our worship. While we only have two ways of celebrating our Holy Mass, the revised Missal and the unrevised one, the revised Missal has allowed for greater liberty in music and the externals of worship. We should also remember that the Revised Missal is the NORMATIVE way Holy Mass is to be celebrated.

And so we have Holy Masses which are done in the traditional “Roman” way (we see this in Rome and in Cathedrals and such) and also Lifeteen Masses geared to the youth and the valid things in between.

And as long as the rubrics handed down to us by our Patriarch and the Magisterium (as codified in the GIRM) are followed these Masses, however divergent in the externals, nevertheless maintain the ANCIENT Catholic worship that the Church has always known.

It is still Holy Mass, Christ still comes to us and the work of our redemption is carried out.

I have been to the Lifeteen Mass at my Church and seen a very reverent Holy Mass (the only difference being musical choice) and during these same Masses I have had intimate encounters with the Lord during Holy Communion, in which our Lord confirmed to me His Presence and His approval of these Masses.

I have also been to Easter Triduum Masses at my parish and Lenten Masses and Pentecost Vigils where in my parish Latin was used and Gregorian Chant employed. I have had moments there where I did not know whether I was on earth or heaven, but I knew I was participating in the Liturgy of the Throne of God.

Both these Masses, somewhat divergent, nevertheless allowed me to have intimate Communions and worship and adoration of the Eucharistic Christ and the Liturgical experience.

And while I much prefer the traditional Roman Masses, I know now that my personal tastes do not mandate whether one Mass in “better” than the other.

This has led me to a number of thoughts.

First, about Vatican II:

There was a time in my Catholic formation (though a baptized Catholic, I went through RCIA) when I felt that the Second Vatican Council was a major doubt in my mind concerning the Church.

I looked at the “fruits” of the Second Vatican Council and I saw:

1. Horrible and abused Masses.
2. De-Sacralization in the Church
3. Rank Heresy in the Church

…and the general feeling that the “new” post-conciliar Church had “changed” or in some cases, gone against Catholic Tradition.

BUT, I started to further study the History of the Church and I found what I briefly introduced here.

I learned quickly that ALL the Ecumenical Councils of the Church cause seemingly “bad” fruits, some more than others. The Great Councils of the Church nearly always followed with turmoil, liturgical upheavel, and “smoke in the sanctuary.”

History shows that it takes at least one full generation before the renewal by conciliar decrees to take place (some take much longer). Further this renewal must be understood by the faithful and the clergy and must be implemented in accordance of the dictates of St. Peter’s See in Rome. The longer large numbers of Catholic defy the Council or doubt it or try to “get around it” the longer it takes for the Renewal to take place. In a sense the Holy Spirit is “resisted.”

Since my discoveries (thanks be to God) I believe firmly in the Second Vatican Council and it the mandates it made theologically, liturgically, and pastorally. While I once saw myself as a “traditionalist” I now see that to truly be faithful to Jesus Christ is to sentire cum ecclesia (think with the Church). The key to finding true renewal is to abide by the official (!!!) decrees of the Council and how these are interpreted by the Magisterium. Further, we must defiantly oppose those who “do-as-they-please” with the Liturgy or teach theology against the Church, even when they invoke the mythical “spirit of Vatican II” to support their novelties.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Also I have considered the Liturgy itself:

I did not embrace my Catholic Christian identity because it was easy. No, I became Catholic because I wanted the Truth, and I found it only in the Catholic Church. I still remember when I went to my first real Mass. It was a Saturday morning in July, 2006. My spiritual father was serving as deacon and Fr. LeBlanc (my pastor) as celebrant. In that liturgy my heart found Christ, yes even in that liturgy. For a whole year I loved Mass, without qualm. Why? Because I had found the true faith. I had found Christ in a way I never had before, and so nothing else mattered.

There are two key points that I cannot ever let go of. Should ever let go of either one of these truths, then there is nothing to live for. And each of these shed light on the situation.

1. No matter what happens, Christ is in charge of His Church.
2. No matter what happened, the Holy Spirit was at work in the Council.

Now with regard to the Liturgy, there comes a question that is inescapable: what are pretty liturgies to Christ?

“What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.” (Matthew 11:7-9)

The origin of aesthetically beautiful Masses and Liturgies originated with the explosion of Christian culture after St. Constantine the Great. The Church wanted to make her little services tantamount to Imperial pomp and circumstance with the objective that since Christ was King, He should be treated like the Emperor.

No, the earliest liturgies were incredibly simple as the Didache shows. The early Masses in Rome were almost identical to the current Pauline Mass and St. Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass does not look like the Divine Liturgy or the Tridentine Rite…it looks much, much more like the Mass of Paul VI.

So, we must ask ourselves: what is the heart of Catholic Christianity. It simply could not have been the power of majestic liturgies…else we wouldn’t even have majestic liturgies. No, the heart was the Eucharistic Christ who empowered the Early Church to be a Church of mighty saints.

Also aesthetical beauty has limits to its power. The Eastern Orthodox have been doing the same Liturgy since the year 402 A.D. Yet despite the incredible power and majesty of the Divine Liturgy, the Eastern Orthodox have become both partial schismatics and in some cases heretics. Also we must look at the Tridentine rite in place like Africa and China. No matter how powerful it may have been aesthetically it probably had little effect on newly converted peoples from heathenism.

Also, despite my love of the old ways…I am not a judge of what is Holy Tradition. The Fathers of the Council and current Magisterium, including Arinze, have the authority to judge what is timeless and changeable in the realm of liturgy. I do not have this right, nor should I, as I know very little compared to them.

Lifteteen and the Charismatic renewal have had powerful effects on Catholics of all ages. Who am I to say that this is wrong. I am a son, and an unprofitable one at that. Sons must obey what their Father says and does, trusting that their Father knows what is best for His family. My Father has decided that Lifeteen and the Charismatic Renewal is not just acceptable, but also beneficial to the members of His family. And we say: “Yes, Abba.”

Now comes the big question: Why do I go to Mass? This question will lead to a deeper question:

What is the heart of Orthodox Catholic Christianity. When I ask this question, it is clear that things like Liturgy, ritual pomp, aesthetical beauty, and ossified views of Tradition are not the heart(s).

The heart is Christ.

I do not go to Mass to see pretty liturgies, or get the undeniable “high” of aesthetics.

To be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ means a total giving of my whole life. This love of Liturgical pomp and this insensitivity to anything not like it, is something that must be handed over. He is in charge, and He is TRUSTWORTHY. Everything that has happened legitamately since Vatican II, even the approvals that I disagree with, have been HIS DOING.

And as one who claims Christ as Savior and Lord, I must follow where He leads.

I need to embrace the things that may “hurt” and focus on the same Jesus who spurred the backwater churches of Early Christianity into being a church of saints: the Eucharistic Christ and Him alone.

We must also remember, as Roman Catholics, that throughout the Church the Divine Liturgy has always remained, in its unchangeable essence, the same Mass that Jesus gave us at the Last Supper with His disciples.

The Mass is still the Mass.

TOO BE CONTINUED…

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

AND so my final conclusion is this:

Currently the Latin Church is going through a post-conciliar turmoil, which is not that surprising considering the history of Ecumenical Councils. But history also shows us that these things pass when the Liturgical changes are stabilized.

How does this happen? Historically it happens when the Ordinary Form of the Mass as it is celebrated in Rome becomes the way it is celebrated in all Catholic parishes of the Roman Patriarchate.

For Trent this took almost 100 years. It is all dependent on how Roman Catholics cooperate with the official decrees of the Council and the leadership of the Pope.

Things are looking good for a unified and reverent Roman Mass. The new English translation brings to bear much more fully the beauty of the original Latin, and the “reform of the reform” is growing, especially among the young I might add, which promotes Latin in the liturgy and Gregorian Chant (as was mandated by Vatican II and is promoted by the Popes).

Also “Tridentine” Masses (valid ones that is) are on the rise and while they will never become anything more than extraordinary celebrations of Holy Mass, their natural and intrinsic reverence will, when celebrated alongside the revised Missal, help to foster the organic return to the unified Roman rite simply by their own presence.

This is actually happening:

cantius.org/

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

While we who seek the renewal of the Roman rite and the end of less than sacred Masses and even abused rubrics must wait for the renewal to take place, we should take heart because all is not black. The worst of the liturgical upheavel is coming to an end…more and more diocese are implementing Vatican II correctly, however slowly.

As a young person I am part of that renewal, and even more so as I feel called to the priesthood. Should the Lord make me a priest, I would be one of the growing number of young men disposed and prepared to celebrate the Roman Mass as Vatican II intended.

This also sheds light on why the Popes and the Magisterium tolerate the valid Charismatic Renewals and the Lifeteen Masses among other valid externals of worship. All these changes must happen organically and indeed they are. The worst of the liturgical upheavel is coming to an end…more and more diocese are implementing Vatican II correctly, however slowly. In the end, while the Lifeteen and charismatic renewals have brought good to the Roman rite, they are instrinsically ephemeral and history shows that they will not last alongside a traditionally performed Missal, especially since that is the way Mass is performed in Rome, the center of our Patriarchate. And even if they do last, which they very well may since they have been so helpful, they will be confined to certain quarters (as they are today) as the Roman rite slowly returns to its characteristic Liturgical unity.

So what must we do as Roman Catholics seeking the true renewal of the revised Roman Missal?

I believe the key to surviving the post-conciliar turmoil rests in four “steps”

1. Keep the Faith
2. Follow the Pope
3. Learn what the Council really said
4. Do/Implement it

We must believe firmly that Vatican II was a great gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. And while renewal as envisioned by the Holy Fathers of the Council has yet to happen, we know as Catholics that a day is coming (and soon) when the entire Catholic Church, East and West, will be renewed in accordance with the holy decrees of the 21st Ecumenical Synod of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

(The Catholic East has already gone through a powerful and healthy renewal since Vatican II’s decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches).

Until that time let us patiently await on the Lord, and seek in our lives to holdfast to the Church of Christ and doing all we can to help implement those decrees in our own life and parish the renewal called for by Vatican II.

Fear not, a day is coming when the Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox will once again (whatever they think of Catholic Christianity) enter into a Roman Catholic parish and know that God dwells among us.

And it will be a “Vatican II” Mass.

LAUDETUR IESUS CHRISTUS!!!

BE NOT AFRAID!!!

THE MASS IS STILL THE SAME MASS!!

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…cilium_en.html

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

BUT, I started to further study the History of the Church and I found what I briefly introduced here.

I learned quickly that ALL the Ecumenical Councils of the Church cause seemingly “bad” fruits …

History shows that it takes at least one full generation before the renewal by conciliar decrees to take place (some take much longer).

What were the bad fruits in Vatican I, and which of its conciliar decreed did not take place for 100 years, which would be the year 1970?

And has there ever been a council whose documents were so “misinterpreted” by the Catholic Bishops?

And lastly, has their every been a council whose documents caused otherwise good Catholics to adhere to errors that had been formally condemned in the previous century?

 

[brotherhrolf]

The problem is that there are still large numbers of us who quite clearly remember HMC before Vatican II. And equally large numbers of us who were happy with what happened after 1965.

I’m not dead yet. I’m only 57 and while that makes me an ancient to young people…I’m not dead yet…I’m feeling better.

I have nothing but respect for you young people who are part of the renewal. But you have to remember that there are many of us who submitted to the will of HMC and have prayed for these long 40 years that things would change. We may not see things in black and white. For us, there are shades of grey. Not all of Vatican II was bad.

 

[quiet52]

Thank you Antonius for sharing your thoughts with us.
Please keep sharing your love of Christ and His Church.

 

[jeanannemarie]

There is so much that I don’t know about the whys of things in the liturgy. When I search and read, there is so much interesting info about the symbolism of the Mass which isn’t readily known, at least by me. I have just recently read about why linen should be used for all the altar fabrics because it symbolizes Christ being wrapped in the linen when he was buried. That sort of info makes me so much more excited about what is going on at Mass. To me, before, it was just cloth, so what? I am beginning to think much has been lost along the way that is very beautiful and meaningful as far as all this paring down goes. I intend to keep learning…and I am pretty sure that if I look at the fabric in our sacristy, it isn’t going to be linen. I also heard once that our Pope started to use a wool stole when he became Pope ( as opposed to whatever else there is,) because it symbolizes him being our shepard and the wool stole around his neck is the symbol of the lamb. I never looked at that the same again, either. We may easily overlook things which might appear dispensible, but really are very lovely.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The Eastern Orthodox have been doing the same Liturgy since the year 402 A.D. Yet despite the incredible power and majesty of the Divine Liturgy, the Eastern Orthodox have become both partial schismatics and in some cases heretics.

I would like to know what you mean by the last sentence. How are th Orthodox “partial schismatics”, and, especially, how are they “in some cases heretics”?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I would like to know what you mean by the last sentence. How are th Orthodox “partial schismatics”, and, especially, how are they “in some cases heretics”?

The Orthdox are actually completely schismatical and true heretics.

A heretic is someone who rejects a dogma of the faith. The Orthddox reject many of the dogmas of the faith, as well as all but 7 of the Councils.

One of the dogmas they reject is the Primacy of the Pope, which also makes them schismatic. They deny that the Pope has any authority over them, and refuse submission to him.

Therefore, the Orthodox are both heretics and schismatics. They aren’t “partial schismatics”, or “maybe heretics”. They are true schismatics and true heretics, in ever sense of the word.

 

[cspb56]

I whole heartedly agree with Antonius Lupus. Time will eventually make the teachings of the Second Vatican council clear. The Holy Spirit works in his own good time not ours and what will eventually be is his perogative not ours. I would strongly suggest that more people actually study the history of the church in all its facets before making comments. Too many people make statements in these forums based on snippets of what they know (or think they know). There is great richness in the church and always has been. One size does not fit all.

 

[bpbasilphx]

While we only have two ways of celebrating our Holy Mass, the revised Missal and the unrevised one, the revised Missal has allowed for greater liberty in music and the externals of worship.

**What do you mean by “revised Missal and the unrevised one”?

Did you think that the Tridentine Mas had never been revised?

It’s been tinkered with constantly since the etime it was promulgated.

1962 was merely the LAST of a long line of revisions of it.**

 

[Stewmont]

The Orthdox are actually completely schismatical and true heretics.

A heretic is someone who rejects a dogma of the faith. The Orthddox reject many of the dogmas of the faith, as well as all but 7 of the Councils.

One of the dogmas they reject is the Primacy of the Pope, which also makes them schismatic. They deny that the Pope has any authority over them, and refuse submission to him.

Therefore, the Orthodox are both heretics and schismatics. They aren’t “partial schismatics”, or “maybe heretics”. They are true schismatics and true heretics, in ever sense of the word.

Your syllogism is faulty. You are mistaken. The Orthodox are not heretics.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Your syllogism is faulty. You are mistaken. The Orthodox are not heretics.

No? So a person can deny dogmas of the faith and reject 13 councils and that doesn’t make them hererics? Then please explain what a heretic is.

And a group can absolutely reject the Papal Primacy and refuse submission to him and not be a schismatic? Then please explain what a schismatic is.

By the way, what do you think of the SSPX? They accept every dogma of the faith, including the Papal Primacy.

 

[Dempsey1919]

What were the bad fruits in Vatican I

Some within the Church refused to accept the doctrine of Papal Infallability and left to form the “Old Catholic Church,” which exists to this very day.

 

[bpbasilphx]

By the way, what do you think of the SSPX? They accept every dogma of the faith, including the Papal Primacy.

And the SSPX has bishops that were consecrated in defiance of a direct order from Pope John Paul II. What does that make them?

 

[ASD]

There is so much that I don’t know about the whys of things in the liturgy. When I search and read, there is so much interesting info about the symbolism of the Mass which isn’t readily known, at least by me. I have just recently read about why linen should be used for all the altar fabrics because it symbolizes Christ being wrapped in the linen when he was buried. That sort of info makes me so much more excited about what is going on at Mass. To me, before, it was just cloth, so what? I am beginning to think much has been lost along the way that is very beautiful and meaningful as far as all this paring down goes. I intend to keep learning…and I am pretty sure that if I look at the fabric in our sacristy, it isn’t going to be linen. I also heard once that our Pope started to use a wool stole when he became Pope ( as opposed to whatever else there is,) because it symbolizes him being our shepard and the wool stole around his neck is the symbol of the lamb. I never looked at that the same again, either. We may easily overlook things which might appear dispensible, but really are very lovely.

Antonius Lupus, Thanks for thoughtful post. Although I have some reservations, your notion that other councils represented equally difficult ruptures is interesting & worth looking into.

jeanannemarie, I would like to second your point: Much has been lost. In fact, sometimes at Novus Ordo Mass I feel like I’m just drowning in a sea of unknowing. The linen coverings & the wool stole are good examples of “forgetfullness.” But I think the ignorance runs much deeper & involves much more fundamental issues.

A little experiment: Assuming one could find a polite, benign way to ask, put this question to some Catholics:

So, what is the difference between the Catholic Mass & the [fill in blank] Protestant service down the street?

To my mind, a correct answer has to involve the notion of a sacrificial altar & making the sacrifice of Calvary present. It’s fundamental. But I don’t think many Catholics who know only Novus Ordo would mention sacrifice because it’s been so muted in new Mass.

So, sadly true: Much has been lost.

Regards, ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Cat]

Antonius Lupus, Thanks for thoughtful post. Although I have some reservations, your notion that other councils represented equally difficult ruptures is interesting & worth looking into.

jeanannemarie, I would like to second your point: Much has been lost. In fact, sometimes at Novus Ordo Mass I feel like I’m just drowning in a sea of unknowing. The linen coverings & the wool stole are good examples of “forgetfullness.” But I think the ignorance runs much deeper & involves much more fundamental issues.

A little experiment: Assuming one could find a polite, benign way to ask, put this question to some Catholics:

So, what is the difference between the Catholic Mass & the [fill in blank] Protestant service down the street?

To my mind, a correct answer has to involve the notion of a sacrificial altar & making the sacrifice of Calvary present. It’s fundamental. But I don’t think many Catholics who know only Novus Ordo would mention sacrifice because it’s been so muted in new Mass.

So, sadly true: Much has been lost.

Regards, ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

I think you’re making a pretty bleak and incorrect assumption here.

My husband and I are converts from evangelical Protestantism. We knew very little about the Catholic Church, other than what we learned from Jack T. Chick tracts and other Protestant apologetics.

Yet from the very first time we visited Mass, we recognized that it was a sacrifice. Protestants know their Bibles, and they recognize the various elements of Old Testament “sacrifice” at the Mass; e.g., vestments, an altar. The word “sacrifice” is mentioned several times during the OF of the Mass. The various prayers of the OF make it clear that this is not just a “communion service” but a re-presentation of the Sacrifice at Calvary.

As for Catholics not knowing–well, perhaps that’s true. But I think that it’s a catechesis problem, not a Mass problem. I can’t speak for other cities, but in our city, there are all kinds of classes and other means for Catholics to learn about the Mass. We have several Bible studies and classes in our parish and a big diocescan Bible study (one for men and one for women). There are seminars and missions, classes at the Retreat House, and the organizations and clubs offer speakers on a regular basis. There’s a huge Catholic bookstore that has all kinds of books about the Mass. There’s the diocescan newspaper, which is given free at many churches and bookstores. There’s the bishops weekly radion program and daily television devotional. And there’s wonderful Relevant Radio and the online Catholic websites.

So catechesis has started in the U.S. Hopefully as more and more parishes get involved with adult catechesis, there will be more understanding of the Mass.

As for other differences between the Catholic OF of the Mass and the Protestant service down the road–I can give you a looooooong list. When my husband and I started attending Mass, we went to a contemporary-style church building where the OF of the Mass was celebrated. We found it absolutely ANCIENT. I remember sitting at the Cracker Barrel with my husband, and both of us were saying that we felt like we had gone back to the Medieval times! Honestly, ASD, there is very little that the Mass has in common with most evangelical Protestant worship services. Most evangelicals have the same reaction we did–“What is going ON here?!”

Perhaps there is some similiarity with the more liturgical Protestant worship services, but not a lot. These services are becoming less and less liturgical as these older (mainline) Protestant denominations are striving to hold onto members and attract young people. The mainline denominations are losing thousands of people, while the evangelical denominations continue to gain hundreds of thousands of people. Most mainlines are trying to imitate the less liturgical churches, and incorporate “praise bands,” “testimony times,” lots of solos and other music, theater, no offering, etc.

 

[brotherhrolf]

No, Cat, ASD is not off the mark. Much has been lost both liturgically and in our perceptions.

I grew up in the pre-Vatican II church. When you went into church, you walked into the presence of God. Habakuk 2:20 captures the spirit of the pre-Vatican II church:

"But the LORD is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth! "
That alone is a monumental difference. You could hear a pin drop in the pre-Vatican II church before Mass. We were in the presence of God. My cathedral parish is pretty good (but not perfect) about this but my local geographic parish could just as well be Walmart.

Given the above, the EF is about worship. The OF is about community. There really is a different mindset as strange as it may seem.

You remarked that as a Protestant, the OF seems ancient. As a Catholic of Irish, French, Scot, and German ancestry, I could drop back to 1550 and participate at Mass with any of my ancestors. Reverse the timeline and none of them would be able to participate at Mass today. You don’t see it because the OF is all you have known. But there are many, many of us who grew up with the EF and we see major differences.

 

[ASD]

My husband and I are converts from evangelical Protestantism. We knew very little about the Catholic Church, other than what we learned from Jack T. Chick tracts and other Protestant apologetics.

Yet from the very first time we visited Mass, we recognized that it was a sacrifice. Protestants know their Bibles, and they recognize the various elements of Old Testament “sacrifice” at the Mass; e.g., vestments, an altar. The word “sacrifice” is mentioned several times during the OF of the Mass. The various prayers of the OF make it clear that this is not just a “communion service” but a re-presentation of the Sacrifice at Calvary.

Wow, that’s very interesting. It seems like your background gives you an entirely different perspective on Mass. I wonder what your response to EF was or would be?

As for Catholics not knowing–well, perhaps that’s true. But I think that it’s a catechesis problem, not a Mass problem.

Yea, I definitely agree that catechesis is weak. You have made important distinctions explicit. I think there are 3 points in play, & it seems like we agree on 2 out of 3:

1. Sacrifice is part of OF. Agree.
2. Sacrifice is muted in OF. Uh, agree to disagree.
3. Far too many Catholics don’t really understand importance of sacrifice in OF. Agree, I think.

I can’t speak for other cities, but in our city, there are all kinds of classes and other means for Catholics to learn about the Mass. We have several Bible studies and classes in our parish and a big diocescan Bible study (one for men and one for women). There are seminars and missions, classes at the Retreat House, and the organizations and clubs offer speakers on a regular basis. There’s a huge Catholic bookstore that has all kinds of books about the Mass. There’s the diocescan newspaper, which is given free at many churches and bookstores. There’s the bishops weekly radio program and daily television devotional. And there’s wonderful Relevant Radio and the online Catholic websites.

You’re lucky. In your opinion, do the classes, &c, emphasize sacrifice? I mean, a bad class about Mass might be worse than none at all.

So catechesis has started in the U.S. Hopefully as more and more parishes get involved with adult catechesis, there will be more understanding of the Mass.

I hope you’re right.

As for other differences between the Catholic OF of the Mass and the Protestant service down the road–I can give you a looooooong list. When my husband and I started attending Mass, we went to a contemporary-style church building where the OF of the Mass was celebrated. We found it absolutely ANCIENT. I remember sitting at the Cracker Barrel with my husband, and both of us were saying that we felt like we had gone back to the Medieval times! Honestly, ASD, there is very little that the Mass has in common with most evangelical Protestant worship services. Most evangelicals have the same reaction we did–“What is going ON here?!”

No doubt you’re right that OF is different in many ways from Evangelical services.

Perhaps there is some similiarity with the more liturgical Protestant worship services, but not a lot. These services are becoming less and less liturgical as these older (mainline) Protestant denominations are striving to hold onto members and attract young people. The mainline denominations are losing thousands of people, while the evangelical denominations continue to gain hundreds of thousands of people. Most mainlines are trying to imitate the less liturgical churches, and incorporate “praise bands,” “testimony times,” lots of solos and other music, theater, no offering, etc.

Another interesting point.

The big question: How to engage the faithful? (1) Be more like the surrounding culture so it’s all familiar or easy & people are comfortable? Or, (2) Stand entirely apart from the surrounding culture & give people what they can’t get anywhere else?

I say if all we get at Mass is more of the same stuff we get everywhere else, why bother? But I realize that lots of good Catholics don’t see it that way.