M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Has anybody read the book “How Not to Say Mass: A Guidebook on Liturgical Principles and the Roman Missal” written by Fr. Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J. and published by Paulist Press. Would you recommend it?
Judging by your posts here, I think that you will not like certain parts of it. Certainly not reform-of-the-reform-y.Has anybody read the book “How Not to Say Mass: A Guidebook on Liturgical Principles and the Roman Missal” written by Fr. Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J. and published by Paulist Press. Would you recommend it?
AJV I am completely confused here by what you mean. I’d be grateful if you’d expand, explain. Thanks!Judging by your posts here, I think that you will not like certain parts of it. Certainly not reform-of-the-reform-y.
Excellent resource, and author.Has anybody read the book “How Not to Say Mass: A Guidebook on Liturgical Principles and the Roman Missal” written by Fr. Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J. and published by Paulist Press. Would you recommend it?
99% sure I’m going to get it now despite the comments AJV made in Post #2, which have completely baffled me.Excellent resource, and author.
At least two reasons immediately come to mind. 1. An interest in these matters. 2. Laity fulfil ministries such as MC, sacristan, etc. who may find the contents useful.What interest would a book with title be to the laity?
Because the laity are full, active, and conscious participants in the celebration of the Mass. THe Mass is not something that simply the priest does.What interest would a book with title be to the laity?
You’re not suggesting that supporting the Mass approved by Paul VI following Vatican II is a problem, are you? After all, following Vatican II, that is how the Roman Catholic Church celebrated Eucharist. Why shouldn’t it be promoted, and explained? Just as, following the Council of Trent, the Mass of Pius V was similarly promoted, explained, and celebrated, even if radically different from certain peoples’ experience prior to the radical reforms and changes introduced.The author is clearly against using certain gestures found in the old Mass in the new…
I am naturally quite inquisitive so am perplexed at how you came round to this thinking. All I can conclude is that perhaps you have me confused with someone else.My impression from your posts is that you are in favor of a certain continuity of expression between the old form of the Mass and the new. If I read this wrongly, my apologies.
Nope. That’s not what he/she said. Sounds like a baited question.You’re not suggesting that supporting the Mass approved by Paul VI following Vatican II is a problem, are you? After all, following Vatican II, that is how the Roman Catholic Church celebrated Eucharist. Why shouldn’t it be promoted, and explained? Just as, following the Council of Trent, the Mass of Pius V was similarly promoted, explained, and celebrated, even if radically different from certain peoples’ experience prior to the radical reforms and changes introduced.
That is somewhat irrelevant (sorry, don’t mean to sound dismissive…but I couldn’t think of another word) because the book is clearly a book aimed at presiding, which the laity cannot do. Not to say that lay people shouldn’t read it, and can’t glean good knowledge from it, but if you want a book that goes into the Mass, then another book is porbably better.Because the laity are full, active, and conscious participants in the celebration of the Mass. THe Mass is not something that simply the priest does.
No clue where you got all this from my post. However there are different styles of celebrating Mass in many cases indicative of (as we would say in the Anglican church) “churchmanship” either of the celebrant or the person who taught him. This is often possible due to the non-specific nature of the rubrics. Thus some priests will bow when reciting the prayers before Communion, and receive the Precious Blood, holding the paten or purificator under the chin. Others stand straight and just drink from the chalice. Some bow more profoundly then others when reciting the Words of Institution. Some prefer to elevate the Host at head or above head level, and others prefer a face-level “showing” to the people. Some bow their heads visibly at the name of Jesus and others do so imperceptibly. Etc., etc.You’re not suggesting that supporting the Mass approved by Paul VI following Vatican II is a problem, are you? After all, following Vatican II, that is how the Roman Catholic Church celebrated Eucharist. Why shouldn’t it be promoted, and explained? Just as, following the Council of Trent, the Mass of Pius V was similarly promoted, explained, and celebrated, even if radically different from certain peoples’ experience prior to the radical reforms and changes introduced.
Of course the laity don’t preside.because the book is clearly a book aimed at presiding, which the laity cannot do.