Does the Novus Ordo reflect the Mass of the Early Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter georgewithfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

georgewithfaith

Guest
Help me out here. I keep hearing that in the early days of the Church during Mass the faithful received Communion in the hand and drank from the chalice. I am not sure but I think that certain other changes made to the Mass in 1969 were included with the justification that the early Church practiced this way.

Was the Mass of the early Church similar to the Novus Ordo? If so, in what ways? Is it fair to say Communion should be allowed in the hand because the early Church allowed it? Was the Traditional Latin Mass overly influenced by Middle Age thinking?
 
Help me out here. I keep hearing that in the early days of the Church during Mass the faithful received Communion in the hand and drank from the chalice. I am not sure but I think that certain other changes made to the Mass in 1969 were included with the justification that the early Church practiced this way.

Was the Mass of the early Church similar to the Novus Ordo? If so, in what ways? Is it fair to say Communion should be allowed in the hand because the early Church allowed it? Was the Traditional Latin Mass overly influenced by Middle Age thinking?
At the first mass (also known as the last supper) the communicants received in the hand, and drank from the cup.

Peace
James
 
We do not have records from the early mass celebrated by St Peter and the first priests.
 
This Bishop explains it better than anyone here can, and dispels some myths.
tl.gloria.tv/?media=2710
Darn you you bet me to it!! Bishop Schnider was the first one who came to my mind on this.
Was the Traditional Latin Mass overly influenced by Middle Age thinking?
I would say no to that one. The TLM gradually developed over the course of the first millennium and has been enriched over a considerable period of time. Indeed the Missal of Pius V (1570 ) was very similar to the first known printed edition from 1474 which itself would have been recognisable to Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century
 
We do not have records from the early mass celebrated by St Peter and the first priests.
We do have St. Paul’s words on the matter although they are somewhat lacking in fine detail 1 Cor 10:1-22, 11:17-34

and of course Acts 2:41-47
 
Help me out here. I keep hearing that in the early days of the Church during Mass the faithful received Communion in the hand and drank from the chalice. I am not sure but I think that certain other changes made to the Mass in 1969 were included with the justification that the early Church practiced this way.

Was the Mass of the early Church similar to the Novus Ordo? If so, in what ways? Is it fair to say Communion should be allowed in the hand because the early Church allowed it? Was the Traditional Latin Mass overly influenced by Middle Age thinking?
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. 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. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
 
The communicants were clergy.
Were they??
It was not until after the passion and resureaction that Christ laid hands and breathed upon them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”, the same form used by the Apostles and their successors when annointing clergy.
Perhaps at the last supper it would be more proper to say they were the first class of seminarians.

I’m not trying to make light of the subject but since we are all, by virtue of our baptism and confirmation, members of the “Royal Priesthood”, the legitimate questioin can be asked as to whether or not we too have the right and authority to touch our Dear Lord with our hands.

Just for the record, I receive on the tongue as I feel personally that it is more reverent. However, I do not begrudge another’s choice to receive in the hand, just as reverently.

Peace
James
 
Were they??
It was not until after the passion and resureaction that Christ laid hands and breathed upon them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”, the same form used by the Apostles and their successors when annointing clergy.
Perhaps at the last supper it would be more proper to say they were the first class of seminarians.
They were in the actual physical presence of God. The Holy Spirit came after Christ Assended back into Heaven.

CITH develops a gradual lessening of reverence and belief in the Real Presence. Let’s not have that discussion here though as there is a thread currently running already.
 
They were in the actual physical presence of God. The Holy Spirit came after Christ Assended back into Heaven.

CITH develops a gradual lessening of reverence and belief in the Real Presence. Let’s not have that discussion here though as there is a thread currently running already.
Right you are, and my comment about the last supper doesn’t really shed light on how the mass in the early Church developed.

Peace
James
 
They were in the actual physical presence of God. The Holy Spirit came after Christ Assended back into Heaven.
They would have touched Our Lord.

Indeed, after His resurrection, the Apostle Thomas physically touched Our Lord’s wounds with his hands.
 
My pastor did a presentation on the history of the mass, and it was very interesting. It started with Jewish roots, the early church, medieval period, and some modern changes.

In short, there were a lot of changes that took place in the medieval church. For example, they started allowing communion only on the tongue because the people were abusing the host, taking it home and using it as a magic charm against vampires, or taking it with them in battle for protection. This had to be stopped, so communion only on the tongue.

There are many more examples, but I don’t have my notes with me. 😦 Some examples include infant baptism (with the plague and other diseases, they started baptizing younger) and the priest raising the host during the consecration. People wanted to SEE the bread, the body of Christ. Some people would even bribe the priests, or call out “higher, higher!” to get them to raise it up higher, or for longer. Some of these things might seem silly to us, but it’s because their faith was so strong!

They also started putting tabernacles in the sanctuary. This was due to the protestant reformation. Protestants said the eucharist was not the real body and blood, and so made it less important. So the Catholic church responded by making the it MORE important, and feature it more prominently in the church. There were several things like that, where protestants would start preaching one thing, and the Catholic church would emphasize the opposite to make the truth more known.

So, the relatively recent changes to the mass were trying to get closer to the way the early disciples celebrated the mass. In many ways, it succeeded. Some things though, like the tabernacle being prominent, and infant baptism, I am glad to have around!

edit: before becoming our pastor, this priest was a professor at the nearby Benedictine University. Smart guy!
 
At the first mass (also known as the last supper) the communicants received in the hand, and drank from the cup.

Peace
James
Absolutely not. It’s 50/50, we don’t know whether it was on the tongue as was a custom for the host of a dinner to feed his guests so, or whether it is as you say. Don’t try and make up history to support your argument, we cannot and will not know the answer until we are in heaven and can ask God ourselves 🙂

And either way, yes they were clergy.

God bless
 
My pastor did a presentation on the history of the mass, and it was very interesting. It started with Jewish roots, the early church, medieval period, and some modern changes.
The late Father Louis Bouyar did some great work on the early formation of the liturgy. Among other things he pointed out how the variations in first century synagog practice affected the earliest development of the Mass from place to place.
His books should still be available.
 
My point is that receiving the hand isn’t wrong, since Our Lord allowed many to touch his physical body with their hands. What matters is the reverence.
Amen to that! The Mass is an ongoing growing thing that has been celebrated in all times and in all cultures since Jesus did those strange things during the Last Supper which was a Passover seder much like the jews still celebrate which would have probably been not in Latin but in Hewbrew and Aramaic. The essentials of the old Latin Mass are still there that which has changed is the language. The Vatican has approved about 20 different rites to celebrate the Eucharist and that same mass might find variants because of cultures and languages. To scandalise the Latin Mass crowd I would suggest they go to youtube and look up misa luba (an African mass from 1968 celebrated in Latin) and the Mass in F Minor by the Electric Prunes from 1968 also. I had the privlige last year of attending a retreat on the Navajo reservation and attended mass in a Navajo Hogan chapel and even heard a homily in Navajo. At communion time they recieved mostly in the hands but not from the cup for practical purposes (the rampant alcoholism on the rez.)
 
There is a thread on Communion in the hand (CITH) if you would like to explore the subject.
 
Was the Traditional Latin Mass overly influenced by Middle Age thinking?
The “Middle Ages” were perhaps the most religiously reverent times in Western civilization, so this stereotype of all things Medieval being wrong has got to go. I suggest Regine Pernoud, Warren H. Carroll, and Hilaire Belloc for some great - and wholly Catholic - perspectives on Medieval history.

I submit that it doesn’t matter if the Novus Ordo Mass somehow reflects early liturgical practices (which is a stretch to claim, at best) - the Mass developed over time into what it needed to be for both the greater glory of God and the edification of man, and the results were codified at Trent during a time of great crisis in the Church (due to the Lutheran heresy and its spread at the time). Christ also wore sandals and had long hair - does this mean we should as well? Where does mimicry end and real religion begin?

The Tridentine Mass is and must be judged on its content as well as the fruits of its usage over the centuries. This is more than enough to justify its continued use today as well as all calls for the wider use of this liturgy in the Latin Rite Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top