M
Madaglan
Guest
Originally Posted by peary:
The historic Protestant communities maintained a liturgy. Indeed, even in Germany, the Lutheran churches were at first appearances indistinguishable from the Catholic churches. Lutherans mostly maintained the outer appearance of worship. They also kept the “Mass” with many of its component prayers: BUT, they dropped the Roman canon. Most Protestants did not reject liturgy itself, but what they believed the Roman Catholics had falsely added–namely the canon which presents the Eucharist as a true Sacrifice. Many Protestant hymns written at the time and afterwards were lovely to hear, and were played in the churches. Many of these same hymns are now sung in Roman Catholic churches.One of the effects of the protestant revolt in the 15th century was the eventual rejection of the Sacred or Divine Liturgy. Once the liturgy was rejected, then there had to be a supplanting of a non-sacred celebration or service. In Eastern-rite Catholicism, it is still referred to as the “Divine Liturgy” as well as in the Orthodox tradition. In the West it is called the ‘Mass’ but, even prior to Vatican II was considered ‘sacred’ and ‘divine’. As Scott Hahn points out to his readers, the Mass is “Heaven on earth”; hence, the ‘Divine’ or ‘Sacred’ Liturgy. Once you numb the senses and the heart to what is sacred or divine, you lose the sense of connection.
But you are right in several regards: many Protestant groups (such as those Reformed folk, and the Anabaptist) removed from the liturgy much of the “smells and bells” that was associated with Roman Catholicism.
So, in short: the Protestants didn’t openly reject liturgy as such, but the liturgy as done by Roman Catholicism. Removing Christ’s “Real Presence” from the Mass, from the Eucharist, can be considered as a loss of the sacredness of the Mass.