History of Divine Liturgies vs the Roman Mass

[Cavaradossi]

See post number 7

peace

Ah, ok. I get it now. Thank you.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s a new one on me. As I recall, the “Tridentine reform” was grounded in standardization with the usage of Rome (while at the same time not impinging on the integrity of those ancient and venerable Rites that had withstood the “test of time” and had been in continuous use for at least 200 years). That said, yes, certain “Gallicanisms” had crept in to Roman usage over some centuries (a classic example of that are the Sequences), and while those ended up being pruned, they weren’t necessarily eliminated completely.

Very true. Each form has its own history, and within each form, the various parts all have their own history. Many things (cultural, linguistic, etc) come into play. Anyway, I agree: it’s not as simple as it might appear.

Actually, and this is just my opinion, I find the entire question of “which is older?” to be rather pointless.

What the author suggested was actually a new one on me as well, although I’d heard other people and authors hinting at such an idea. Whether or not it’s true, I do not know. I just threw it into the thread for consideration, and possibly to spark a little deeper research. I plan on looking into it some more when I get the chance. Dom Prosper Guarenger’s book “The Holy Mass” makes no mention of such a thing. But the author of the book I quoted doesn’t really hold Guarenger in very high regard. He claims that Guarenger’s research was founded primarily in romanticism, and that he didn’t really get tot the heart of history of the Mass. Whether or not that’s true, again, I have no idea. From what I understand, however, Guarenger has been supplanted as the expert on the Mass by Joseph Jungmann. One way or another, I have both their works, so I guess I have some homework to do.

From a theological perspective I believe the question of which is older is rather pointless as well. But historically it can have some rather practical implications. I know certain Orthodox authors and scholars point to the lack of an explicit epiclesis in the Roman Mass and try to use that as an argument against the Roman Church. If one can point out that the historical reason is that the Roman Canon predates the Trinitarian controversies, and that Rome itself never really fell under the influence of those controversies, then perhaps it might assuage the doubts of said authors and scholars.

 

[jmj1984]

But the author of the book I quoted doesn’t really hold Guarenger in very high regard. He claims that Guarenger’s research was founded primarily in romanticism, and that he didn’t really get tot the heart of history of the Mass. Whether or not that’s true, again, I have no idea. From what I understand, however, Guarenger has been supplanted as the expert on the Mass by Joseph Jungmann. One way or another, I have both their works, so I guess I have some homework to do.

Yes, I’ve heard about that view, I have to say though the mere fact he didnt hold Dom Prosper Gueragner in high regard would make suspicious of him. Having read his book I can say Dom Prosper Gueragner most certainly did address his book. I can’t say I’ve heard of Joseph Jungman, it would be some achievement to supplant Dom Prosper Gueragner I assure you especially considering that he is the author of the famous 'The Liturgical Year’, I’ll look up Joseph Jungmans works though. I hope you enjoy Dom Prosper Gueragners work, I almost envy you being able to read it for the first time, I hold the book largely responsible for opening my eyes to the value and sacredness of the mass and in short a transformation of my spiritual life.

Ah, seeing as he was responsible for Vatican II’s ‘renewal’ of the mass I can see why he may have replaced Dom Propser Gueragner in popularity and safely say I’ll prefer Dom Prosper Gueragner

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Yes, I’ve heard about that view, I have to say though the mere fact he didnt hold Dom Prosper Gueragner in high regard would make suspicious of him. Having read his book I can say Dom Prosper Gueragner most certainly did address his book. I can’t say I’ve heard of Joseph Jungman, it would be some achievement to supplant Dom Prosper Gueragner I assure you especially considering that he is the author of the famous 'The Liturgical Year’, I’ll look up Joseph Jungmans works though. I hope you enjoy Dom Prosper Gueragners work, I almost envy you being able to read it for the first time, I hold the book largely responsible for opening my eyes to the value and sacredness of the mass and in short a transformation of my spiritual life.

Ah, seeing as he was responsible for Vatican II’s ‘renewal’ of the mass I can see why he may have replaced Dom Propser Gueragner in popularity and safely say I’ll prefer Dom Prosper Gueragner

I don’t think Jungmann was at all responsible for Pope Paul VI’s renewal of the Mass (Vatican II had little to nothing to do with it). He was simply another beakon in the long line of scholars (including Gueranger), who was calling for a reform of the Rite (perhaps not a reform as extensive as what took place though). He was also very influential with the formation of one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, if memory serves me correctly. His classic work is the two-volume “Mass of the Roman Rite,” which is a very weighty tome. It was originally written during WWII, and thus the limits of his resources were recognized. I believe it was revised by the author post-WWII in order to present a more accurate and extensive research.

The other book to which I referred, and from which the controversial view-point was taken, is simply an interesting read. I can’t say whether or not I agree with the view presented simply because I don’t know enough history. I would certainly neither classify the author as “disingenious” nor any sort of liberal. He is an Orthodox scholar who was attempting to take an honest look at the Liturgical Movement in the West and how it has affected the East. He recognizes, of course, that Gueranger is an important figure in the Liturgical Movement. But he also recognizes that Gueranger, as any other scholar, had his limits and his own biases. The author’s claim is that Gueranger’s work was certainly ground-breaking for his time, and that it was very good work for that time as well, but that it has been surpassed by others. It might be more accurate to say that others have taken up the torch carried by Gueranger and attempted to purge his work of any personal biases he may have had. I’ll have to look again at that section of the book. I simply found his view to be an interesting viewpoint, and one worth exploring. A professor of mine once said, “You have to be a disciple before you can be a critic.”

As to my personal view of Gueranger’s work, I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read. I need to read some more. I also recognize his limits and do tend to agree that he can be a little over-romanticised, at least for my taste. But I do appreciate his work. I’d love to have a copy of his “Liturgical Year” series, but that is way out of my price range at the moment. My preference, however, is for Taft and Jungmann. Taft is a Byzantine scholar and his work tends to be very historical and somewhat dry. Jungmann is just amazing.

 

[DL82]

From what I understand, the reform of Trent, when the Tridentine Rite became the rite for the whole Latin Church, took the Church back to an older, simpler form, which the Franciscans had been using all over Europe, but which differed from practices in many areas. For Catholics in Rome, or attending a Franciscan parish, there would be few if any changes. At the same time, many other ancient rites fell out of use -for the Tridentine Rite would have been a very radical change for English Catholics used to hearing the Sarum Rite, or Swedish Catholics used to the Uppsala Use (if there were any left after the reformation).

All the same, all the Rites of the Latin Church were called Mass. They were a subset of one and the same liturgy, not like the differences between different Eastern Rites. The Divine Liturgy of the Mass, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and the Divine Liturgy of St Addai and Mari are all Divine Liturgies, but the Sarum Rite, Tridentine Rite and Pauline Rite are all the Divine Liturgy of the Mass.

I am not sure what makes a Mass a Mass, other than the words ‘ite missa est’, which are really difficult to translate as anything other than ‘Mass is ended’, or possibly ‘dismissed’, ‘go forth’ etc. Is a Mass simply any Divine Liturgy in the Latin Church? Hopefully someone will know the meaning of the name Mass better than I do.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think Jungmann was at all responsible for Pope Paul VI’s renewal of the Mass (Vatican II had little to nothing to do with it). He was simply another beakon in the long line of scholars (including Gueranger), who was calling for a reform of the Rite (perhaps not a reform as extensive as what took place though). He was also very influential with the formation of one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, if memory serves me correctly. His classic work is the two-volume “Mass of the Roman Rite,” which is a very weighty tome. It was originally written during WWII, and thus the limits of his resources were recognized. I believe it was revised by the author post-WWII in order to present a more accurate and extensive research.

The other book to which I referred, and from which the controversial view-point was taken, is simply an interesting read. I can’t say whether or not I agree with the view presented simply because I don’t know enough history. I would certainly neither classify the author as “disingenious” nor any sort of liberal. He is an Orthodox scholar who was attempting to take an honest look at the Liturgical Movement in the West and how it has affected the East. He recognizes, of course, that Gueranger is an important figure in the Liturgical Movement. But he also recognizes that Gueranger, as any other scholar, had his limits and his own biases. The author’s claim is that Gueranger’s work was certainly ground-breaking for his time, and that it was very good work for that time as well, but that it has been surpassed by others. It might be more accurate to say that others have taken up the torch carried by Gueranger and attempted to purge his work of any personal biases he may have had. I’ll have to look again at that section of the book. I simply found his view to be an interesting viewpoint, and one worth exploring. A professor of mine once said, “You have to be a disciple before you can be a critic.”

As to my personal view of Gueranger’s work, I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read. I need to read some more. I also recognize his limits and do tend to agree that he can be a little over-romanticised, at least for my taste. But I do appreciate his work. I’d love to have a copy of his “Liturgical Year” series, but that is way out of my price range at the moment. My preference, however, is for Taft and Jungmann. Taft is a Byzantine scholar and his work tends to be very historical and somewhat dry. Jungmann is just amazing.

Fair enough, I heard that he had a lot to do with the liturgical documents of VII, which ultimately led to Pope Paul VI’s mass.

I considered buying it but a £100 is just too much for me, especially when most places sell it for between £140 and £180.

Hmm, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, I can’t find any fault with Dom Prosper Gueragner. If he’s a byzantine that might explain it though, Dom Prosper Gueragner does make some criticisms of what he called ‘the rites of the greeks’, but nothing major, certainly no more than a few lines throughout the whole book. I would have to say I can’t see who could surpass him.

 

[mardukm]

From what I understand, the reform of Trent, when the Tridentine Rite became the rite for the whole Latin Church, took the Church back to an older, simpler form, which the Franciscans had been using all over Europe, but which differed from practices in many areas. For Catholics in Rome, or attending a Franciscan parish, there would be few if any changes. At the same time, many other ancient rites fell out of use -for the Tridentine Rite would have been a very radical change for English Catholics used to hearing the Sarum Rite, or Swedish Catholics used to the Uppsala Use (if there were any left after the reformation).

All the same, all the Rites of the Latin Church were called Mass. They were a subset of one and the same liturgy, not like the differences between different Eastern Rites. The Divine Liturgy of the Mass, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and the Divine Liturgy of St Addai and Mari are all Divine Liturgies, but the Sarum Rite, Tridentine Rite and Pauline Rite are all the Divine Liturgy of the Mass.

I am not sure what makes a Mass a Mass, other than the words ‘ite missa est’, which are really difficult to translate as anything other than ‘Mass is ended’, or possibly ‘dismissed’, ‘go forth’ etc. Is a Mass simply any Divine Liturgy in the Latin Church? Hopefully someone will know the meaning of the name Mass better than I do.

From my understanding as an Oriental, the term “Mass” refers not to the dismissal at the end of the Liturgy, but the dismissal of the Catechumens. Hence, “Mass” for Orientals is a specific reference to the Eucharistic Liturgy (from which the Catechumens were dismissed). It is a rather appropriate term for Orientals to use, as the Oriental Liturgies are always primarily focused on the Sacrifice.

I have read some Latin sources explain it that way too, given the common focus on the Sacrifice that the Oriental and Western Traditions share. I’m not sure why other Latin sources think that the dismissal that is being referenced is the final dismissal at the end of the Liturgy. It really doesn’t make much sense.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

The Catholic life is a life of prayer. The pinnacle of prayer is the mass ( dismissal of the catechumens). The pinnacle of the mass is the Eucharist (Greek). Thanks Be To God.

peace

 

[Aramis]

Well the “Tridentine” (really a misnomer) liturgy dates well before Trent. All Trent did was minor reform and codification of the Missal which was already in use in Rome, and made it mandatory for all the other western churches to use the Roman missal. So at the very least I imagine that Roman Missal goes back, in some ways, to early Roman liturgy. So its potentially older, or at least as old as the earliest roots of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

As far as influence goes, the Roman liturgy was influenced by the east through adoption of Gallican liturgical uses(which came to Gaul by means of Antiochenes) in the middle ages. I do not know what influence the Roman Missal had on the DL of St. John or St. Basil.

The liturgy codified by Trent is notably yet subtly different from the Dominican Missal - which was, when established in the 13th C, a codification of the missal in use in Rome. Unlike the Roman, it was codified and preserved in it’s 13th C state, adjusted only by adding of feasts. While recognizable to those familiar with the Trent approved missal, it has sufficient differences to be instantly recognizable to those who know the two. Especially since the Dominican prepares the gifts before the mass, not during, in a prothesis paralleling that of several of the eastern rites.