Do you think an order for historical liturgies will ever exist?

[EphelDuath]

Ever since I started studying liturgy and its history, I have had a deep desire to experience some of the ancient liturgies myself. Unfortunately all that is authorized for the moment for extraordinary worship is the liturgy of 1962. What if there was a religious order that was devoted to celebrating Mass and Divine Office as they existed in ancient times? Using the Missale Regulare of 1245 to celebrate Holy Mass, for example, so one could see how the first generations of Franciscans had experienced the liturgy. Or maybe even older texts such as the Gelasian Sacramentary, to see how it was before the reforms of Pope St. Gregory I. I would even be satisfied to have it as it were immediately after Trent, with the 1570 Missale and the 1568 Breviarium.

I think for this to ever happen though, it would have to be made clear that the order would not be adhering to antiquarianism (the notion that “older is better”); rather their charism would be to keep alive the ancient traditions of the Church.

Please tell me if you think this is a good or bad idea. God bless

 

[YoungTradCath]

A Mass according to the 1570 Missal would be only a bit different from a 1962 Mass. Otherwise, yes, I agree that it would be interesting.

 

[TimothyH]

I have longed to see how Peter, Paul, James and John celebrated the mysteries after Christ’s passion and ressurection, all of the sacraments in fact, and to see how the very early Church celebrate Mass throught the first 250 years or so.

I would have really liked to experience the Mass in the upper room after Paul raised Eu’tychus from the dead in Acts 20.

-Tim-

 

[Magnanimous]

I would even be satisfied to have it as it were immediately after Trent, with the 1570 Missale and the 1568 Breviarium.

As YoungTradCath said the 1962 Missal isn’t at all much different from the 1570, that’s the reason why the EF is still referred to as the “Tridentine Mass”.

The ICKSP, actually does something like this in relation to the EF, they sometimes use the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites and also some older practices that weren’t necessarily abrogated, but simply lost after time.

But I do agree, a religious order or society or whatever, devoted to the research and preservation of older pre-Trent, non-Roman rites could be beneficial, it’ll help us reflect on the ancient practices of the medieval and early Christians that could beneift us as we make future changes to our present Rites.

 

[triumphguy]

I have longed to see how Peter, Paul, James and John celebrated the mysteries after Christ’s passion and ressurection, all of the sacraments in fact, and to see how the very early Church celebrate Mass throught the first 250 years or so.

I would have really liked to experience the Mass in the upper room after Paul raised Eu’tychus from the dead in Acts 20.

-Tim-

Perhaps that can be re-enacted.

 

[TimothyH]

Perhaps that can be re-enacted.

Oh dear! Be careful what you ask for, I guess. I should stay away from windows.

OT. Carry on.

-Tim-

 

[EphelDuath]

I have longed to see how Peter, Paul, James and John celebrated the mysteries after Christ’s passion and ressurection, all of the sacraments in fact, and to see how the very early Church celebrate Mass throught the first 250 years or so.

I would have really liked to experience the Mass in the upper room after Paul raised Eu’tychus from the dead in Acts 20.

-Tim-

My understanding is that we don’t have a very clear view of how worship was done in apostolic times. Justin Martyr writes this in the First Apology:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

The only practices that we are reasonably sure of is that Psalms 148-150 were sung in Morning Prayer, and that the Eucharist is always celebrated with the Words of Institution.

 

[Neofight]

Just out of curiosity, are historical liturgies (especially OF or pre-1962) more theologically or dogmatically correct than today’s EF, or is just a matter of personal choice and aesthetics?

 

[EphelDuath]

Just out of curiosity, are historical liturgies (especially OF or pre-1962) more theologically or dogmatically correct than today’s EF, or is just a matter of personal choice and aesthetics?

The liturgy can never be “theologically incorrect” on account of the fact that the law of prayer is the law of faith.

The oldest complete liturgical manuscript we have is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which is from the 5th century. If you updated the propers, it would look remarkably close to the Tridentine Mass.

 

[MorEphrem]

I have longed to see how Peter, Paul, James and John celebrated the mysteries after Christ’s passion and ressurection, all of the sacraments in fact, and to see how the very early Church celebrate Mass throught the first 250 years or so…

I would suggest the St. James Liturgy (i.e. the Syriac liturgy) as a good way to see a mostly intact 3rd century liturgy but between the “sandwich” anaphorae and byzantinizations of the Syriac Orthodox and the complete evisceration and latinization of every Maronite sacrament I don’t know where to direct you. I will say, if it’s of interest, go to a Sephardic synagogue for a saturday service - it seemed much to me like what I’ve read in the 3rd-5th century liturgical documents (save, obviously, epistle-gospel readings and anaphorae) from liturgical orientation (bema, obv. ad orientum, congregation of the sides) to liturgical structuring (psalms, then reading from Torah then Prophets).

Anyway, on topic, I don’t see why it would ever be permitted to have an order that would celebrate historical liturgies simply because it can be easily seen as to how the sacredness of the mass (which is qualitatively the same in all forms) might take a backseat to novelty and a sort of theatrics even if that isn’t the intention.

 

[JM3]

and that the Eucharist is always celebrated with the Words of Institution.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

But the Lord’s prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood.

If you have proof that the Words of Institution were used in the first few centuries, I would like to have that information.

 

[EphelDuath]

That excerpt is in reference to the entire Roman Canon, not the Words of Institution. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 shows that even in Paul’s time, the Words were prayed over the offerings.

 

[CDB1718]

Anyway, on topic, I don’t see why it would ever be permitted to have an order that would celebrate historical liturgies simply because it can be easily seen as to how the sacredness of the mass (which is qualitatively the same in all forms) might take a backseat to novelty and a sort of theatrics even if that isn’t the intention.

Re-enactments of novelties misses the point of liturgy. It stops pointing to God and starts pointing to the self, as if Liturgy can be cherry picked for personal fancies instead of being the work of a living community.

To have a whole religious order devoted to that pursuit would be building a community on a foundation of sand.

 

[EphelDuath]

Re-enactments of novelties misses the point of liturgy. It stops pointing to God and starts pointing to the self, as if Liturgy can be cherry picked for personal fancies instead of being the work of a living community.

To have a whole religious order devoted to that pursuit would be building a community on a foundation of sand.

I don’t see how it’s a “re-enactment of novelties”, were it to be an order devoted to demonstrating the continuity of the Catholic liturgy. If bringing back pre-Tridentine tracts and sequences is a “personal fanc[y]”, then I would suppose practically every vernacular hymn is too, no?

I call to mind a lot of the anti-traditionalists that ignorantly decry the EF on account of the fact that it was born from a reform at Trent, just like the Mass of Paul VI was born at Vatican II. Perhaps if they saw that a Mass celebrated according to the texts and rubrics of an 8th century Sacramentary is almost exactly the same, their reverence for the Roman rite would be magnified.

 

[JM3]

That excerpt is in reference to the entire Roman Canon, not the Words of Institution. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 shows that even in Paul’s time, the Words were prayed over the offerings.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see it there. I see St. Paul explaining it, not that it is mandatory. As St. Gregory the Great said in his letter, “that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only.”, meaning the Lord’s Prayer.

 

[CDB1718]

I don’t see how it’s a “re-enactment of novelties”, were it to be an order devoted to demonstrating the continuity of the Catholic liturgy. If bringing back pre-Tridentine tracts and sequences is a “personal fanc[y]”, then I would suppose practically every vernacular hymn is too, no?

I call to mind a lot of the anti-traditionalists that ignorantly decry the EF on account of the fact that it was born from a reform at Trent, just like the Mass of Paul VI was born at Vatican II. Perhaps if they saw that a Mass celebrated according to the texts and rubrics of an 8th century Sacramentary is almost exactly the same, their reverence for the Roman rite would be magnified.

There’s a difference between a community integrating this hymn or that musical notation into their practice because it suits their needs and a community being built to whole cloth construct an ancient liturgy and use that as the foundation for their community life.

 

[EphelDuath]

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see it there. I see St. Paul explaining it, not that it is mandatory. As St. Gregory the Great said in his letter, “that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only.”, meaning the Lord’s Prayer.

It seems obvious to me that Paul is explaining this in a liturgical context, since he used the Words of Institution to explain why receiving Communion is blasphemy against the body and blood of Christ. Hence why he preempts it by saying “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you…” What exactly did he hand on in this regard, if not a consecratory prayer?

I also think you are misreading the quote of St. Gregory the Great. We know that “some scholastic” did not compose the Words of Institution; that was Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. Yet the Roman Canon as a whole is a non-Biblical text that had been in use centuries prior, hence why Gregory had no problem tampering with it (he is credited for adding the prayer “atque ab ætérna damnatióne nos éripi” to the Hanc Igitur). Furthermore, we can see how the liturgy was in Gregory’s time because of some surviving contemporary Sacramentaries, in which the Words of Institution are used, but the Lord’s Prayer is moved afterwards.

There’s a difference between a community integrating this hymn or that musical notation into their practice because it suits their needs and a community being built to whole cloth construct an ancient liturgy and use that as the foundation for their community life.

“This hymn or that” pretty much summarizes all of the differences between the current EF and that of centuries past. If you haven’t, I would take a gander at the text of a medieval Sacramentary if you can. I would think only somebody very well-learned about the history of the liturgy would be able to tell the difference between the EF and a Mass according to the Missa plena, were he to see it in person.

Tell me, would you think a Protestant or non-Christian that believes the typical anti-Catholic bigotries, would be amazed were he to go to some chapel, hear it announced that the Mass would be celebrated exactly as it were in the 8th century, and then see it appear almost identical to the current EF celebrated by many Catholics today?

 

[YoungTradCath]

There’s a difference between a community integrating this hymn or that musical notation into their practice because it suits their needs and a community being built to whole cloth construct an ancient liturgy and use that as the foundation for their community life.

Is the latter somehow bad, if the community is a clerical community?

 

[Esrb99]

There have been offerings of Pontifical mass according to the use of Sarum in decades past.

From Wiki:

“In April 2000 Mario Joseph Conti, then Bishop of Aberdeen, celebrated a Sarum Mass in King’s College Chapel at the University of Aberdeen to commemorate the quincentenary of the pre-Reformation founding of the chapel by William Elphinstone, Bishop of Aberdeen. That Aberdeen never celebrated according to Sarum, but had its own use, did not deter the organizers.”

There’s more about the Sarum use at the link below, along with videos from recent celebrations by Catholic bishops:

modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-use-of-sarum-brief-history-and-why.html

 

[CDB1718]

“This hymn or that” pretty much summarizes all of the differences between the current EF and that of centuries past. If you haven’t, I would take a gander at the text of a medieval Sacramentary if you can. I would think only somebody very well-learned about the history of the liturgy would be able to tell the difference between the EF and a Mass according to the Missa plena, were he to see it in person.

Tell me, would you think a Protestant or non-Christian that believes the typical anti-Catholic bigotries, would be amazed were he to go to some chapel, hear it announced that the Mass would be celebrated exactly as it were in the 8th century, and then see it appear almost identical to the current EF celebrated by many Catholics today?

I am not well-studied about western liturgical histories, but it is my understanding that there were significant differences between the 8th and 18th Centuries. Most of my exposure was in my personal study of paedocommunion, the original order of the sacraments, the culture of liturgy, and touched on the architecture of liturgy, meaning the order and rubrics were incidental to those topics. It is possible that the rubrics remained largely the same while the topics I was studying changed significantly. Fr. Robert Taft was one of my primary sources.

YoungTradCath:

CDB1718:

There’s a difference between a community integrating this hymn or that musical notation into their practice because it suits their needs and a community being built to whole cloth construct an ancient liturgy and use that as the foundation for their community life.

Is the latter somehow bad, if the community is a clerical community?

I’m not the arbiter of what is good or bad. I do not know why the clerical state would change anything. Re-enactments are for study or for entertainment or both. They aren’t “bad” when done for those reasons. Liturgy does not have study or entertainment as a primary aim so I can’t see how planning a religious, clerical, or lay community with study and entertainment as its anchor at the cost of liturgy focused on proper worship could be praise-worthy.