J
jwinch2
Guest
The website you posted is unlikely to convince anyone, even those who have preferences for the EF of the Mass. The amount of garbage it contains makes it difficult at best to winnow out any relevant information.The mass changed very little from the 5th C. onward. Let me repeat that. From 400 AD until 1962, the mass changed very little. For 1500 years, the mass changed very little.
Your claims of major changes in the 5th C. are misrepresented.
However, to the claims that you made, you can repeat them as often as you like, but there are obviously differing opinions on the matter including learned ones which suggest that there were important changes made to the liturgy not just the re-arranging that you suggested.
This development of the Mass was hardly new:We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590-604). Gregory knew the Mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the Canon is concerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it.
newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htmThe Roman Mass, even apart from the testimony of Justin Martyr, Clement, Hippolytus, Novatian, still bears evidence of its development from a type of liturgy of which that of the Apostolic Constitutions is the only perfect surviving specimen (see LITURGY). There is reason to believe, moreover, that it has since been influenced both from Jerusalem-Antioch and Alexandria, though many of the forms common to it and these two may be survivals of that original, universal fluid rite which have not been preserved in the Apost. Const. It must always be remembered that no one maintains that the Apost. Const. Liturgy is word for word the primitive universal Liturgy. The thesis defended by Probst, Drews, Kattenbusch, Baumstark, and others is that there was a comparatively vague and fluid rite of which the Apost. Const. have preserved for us a specimen.