There is a book , I believe called the History of the Mass, that gives a description of the early celebration of the mass. I would sugest finding it or one similar. You might find them enlighting when looking at the OF and the EF.Really? So Bugnini copied the ancient liturgies? Any collaborating evidence?
Well FAB that will make me feel allot better knowing this, when I stay home this Sunday. Since I will be doing exactly as you suggest the very earliest of Christians did. Worshiped in the home. Why go to a Church. A celebration of the Eucharist at home. So when did Romans of the Western part of the Empire start calling it a Sacrifice vs a Celebration?. I guess the Old Roman Chant came after the lute and harp, along with the Old Kumbaya hymn. It’s real sad that the saints like, Benedict and Dominic didn’t just worship at home, vs building monasteries and priories. Thank God for the late 60’s and 70’s. If it wasn’t for the late 20th century, we would all still be worshiping as the pagans did. And calling the Celebration a Sacrifice.The Earliest celebrations of the mass was in homes, not until the fouth century did the celebration happen in churchs. The celebration consisted of sharing the word, then the celbration of the Eucharist. The forms of the celebration varied from location to location. the body of Christ in loaves of bread not wafers were broken and given to all present to share. the deacon took the Eucharist to those who were abstance, the precious blood was also shared. I would imagine, any music would have been made with the instruments of the day, lute and harp. The organ didn’t come into existance for hundreds of years. Chants didn’t start until the advent of monestaries.
The development of the mass moved away from this communial sharing, we got high altars, communion rails, the clergy seperated from the layity, an Echuarist only being given at Easter.
The OF as I indicated before is a restoration of ancient practices much older than the EF.
Peace,
FAB
Lack of knowledge of history is very unbecoming on your part.Well FAB that will make me feel allot better knowing this, when I stay home this Sunday. Since I will be doing exactly as you suggest the very earliest of Christians did. Worshiped in the home. Why go to a Church. A celebration of the Eucharist at home. So when did Romans of the Western part of the Empire start calling it a Sacrifice vs a Celebration?. I guess the Old Roman Chant came after the lute and harp, along with the Old Kumbaya hymn. It’s real sad that the saints like, Benedict and Dominic didn’t just worship at home, vs building monasteries and priories. Thank God for the late 60’s and 70’s. If it wasn’t for the late 20th century, we would all still be worshiping as the pagans did. And calling the Celebration a Sacrifice.
Iv’e seen protestant services, and I don;t see any resemblance. They have the word, but no sacrafic of the mass.I read somewhere that the first Masses were said in the catacombs. Perhaps that’s what the ‘spirit of V2’ wants us to do.
The Church must have wanted to get us away from apostolic liturgical tradition by making the Mass overly complex with all the ‘smells and bells’.
As the Novus Ordo resembles Protestant services more than the EF I guess they have a more authentic liturgy than the Church did for hundreds of years.
Once again, I have no idea where your wild speculation and exaggerations come from but rest assured they are inaccurate. I do have access to an EF and by no means am I bitter. Any sarcasm on my part was in direct response to yours.If you don’t have access to the EF right now, I don’t think that stewing in your bitterness and sarcasm is going to help that much either. You can blow off some steam, but has it really made the Church better (or even your personal situation)?
Maybe you could send him that book you read.Lack of knowledge of history is very unbecoming on your part.
I suspected as much.Many believe that that is true with V2. The spirit that so many want to criticize is Christ guiding his Church as promised.
Peace,
FAB
You may believe it is a banal fabrication, but that would ignor the hundreds of thousands who embrace the OF and the fact that is approved by the Church. What other parts of church practice and doctrine that you don’t like are you ready to say is not inspired by the Holy Spirit? How can you can you say that the Council or Trent had His guidance, but in the 60’s He was no longer with us? That the fathers of the Church at Trent had better guidance than those at V2? Many see V2 and I am amoung them hwo see V2 as the work of the Holy Spirit to renew His Church. The Novus Ordo being part of that renewal.I suspected as much.
Maybe the Spirit works in mysterious ways. Maybe the Spirit gave us a banal fabrication of our liturgy to make us appreciate the Usus Antiquor. Maybe the Spirit gave us the Novus Ordo in order to protect the UA from the modernists of our time.
Are you a Fransican?
Who are we to oppose Cardinal Ratzinger, part of the Church’s Magisterium, who wrote that it was?You may believe it is a banal fabrication
V2 didn’t call for a new Mass.Many see V2 and I am amoung them hwo see V2 as the work of the Holy Spirit to renew His Church. The Novus Ordo being part of that renewal.
What was the level of understanding of the Mass in the 7th century and how does it compare with today? We have 1.1 billion Catholics now so I would guess that a larger number of people understand the Mass today.Then by your implications the understanding of the Mass should have exponentially increased with the suppression of the Latin. There has not been any evidence that the vernacular in the liturgy has increased any such understanding. If anything it has declined.
I wasn’t responding to you with that post.Once again, I have no idea where your wild speculation and exaggerations come from but rest assured they are inaccurate. I do have access to an EF and by no means am I bitter. Any sarcasm on my part was in direct response to yours.
BTW, personal attacks are against forum rules.
If their understanding of the Mass is better, why do only 25% attend Mass every Sunday? Or do they understand it so well, they think they can’t possibly learn anything more? Again this does not provide evidence to show the level of understanding of the Mass is better now that it’s in the vernacular.What was the level of understanding of the Mass in the 7th century and how does it compare with today? We have 1.1 billion Catholics now so I would guess that a larger number of people understand the Mass today.
None of us were around in the 9th century to know how much was understood. The vernacular then was an exception granted for valid reasons, I’m sure, but if it worked so well in getting the people to understand it more even on a small sample basis, one would think the rest would want it and get it too, no? I mean, who wants to study the official language of the Church if he doesn’t have to?We might consider the liturgies which have been offered in the vernacular language since the 9th century. Was this something evil?
Which proves what? It is common sense that the vernacular is useful in missionary work. That’s why the Bible was translated into so many vernaculars, some of them more close to the truth than others. Doesn’t mean that the liturgy needs to be changed, though. The Vatican has had its own methodology for determining which vernaculars are good enough for the liturgy. There is no blanket indult for using whichever vernacular you well please. They must all be authenticized and adjusted every so often to accommodate changes in those vernaculars. Quite a task to do this for several hundred vernaculars, don’t you think? What, you think there are computer programs which translate the liturgy perfectly? There are an estimated 7,000 languages in the world today. I’m sure there are requests to translate even more than several hundred too. Where’s the manpower to do this?St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into Slavonic and his disciples afterwards added other works of the Greek saints and the canon law. These two brother saints always celebrated Mass and administered the sacraments in the Slavonic language. News of their successful missionary work among the pagan Slavs was carried to Rome along with complaints against them for celebrating the rites of the Church in the heathen vernacular. In 868 Saints Cyril and Methodius were summoned to Rome by Nicholas I, but arriving there after his death they were heartily received by his successor Adrian II, who approved of their Slavonic version of the liturgy.
Not totally correctV2 didn’t call for a new Mass.
Actually, when the NO was first presented the majority of bishops voted against it.
You are ignoring the vast majority who stay home on Sundays now rather than embrace the beauty of the NO.
This looks like a call for major reform of the liturgy and the OF was the ultimate result, eventually approved.III THE REFORM OF THE SACRED LITURGY
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. for the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. the Christian people, as far as is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community.
A Novus Ordo (Paul VI’s own words) went more than a major reform. As creating a new rite would have been a violation of Trent’s canon, Vatican II refrained from ordering such.This looks like a call for major reform of the liturgy …
Was this objective achieved? Did Christian people really understand the texts and rites better? Where is the evidence among the most Catholics who don’t attend weekly Mass?In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. the Christian people, as far as is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community.
They embraced it, because they had no choice but to embrace it. It was forced down their throats. For the lack of a better term.You may believe it is a banal fabrication, but that would ignor the hundreds of thousands who embrace the OF and the fact that is approved by the Church. What other parts of church practice and doctrine that you don’t like are you ready to say is not inspired by the Holy Spirit? How can you can you say that the Council or Trent had His guidance, but in the 60’s He was no longer with us? That the fathers of the Church at Trent had better guidance than those at V2? Many see V2 and I am amoung them hwo see V2 as the work of the Holy Spirit to renew His Church. The Novus Ordo being part of that renewal.
I don’t denegrade the EF since I agree it is a beautiful form of the mass. I also believe that the the OF should also not be denegraded. Perhaps it would be better to see the beauty of the sacrafice contained in both forms.
Peace,
FAB
Really. Can you tell me what liturgy the Armenians use. And the history of that liturgy.Lack of knowledge of history is very unbecoming on your part.
Probably written by Sr. Joan Chittister.Maybe you could send him that book you read.