Lex orandi lex creandi

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicstudent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ASD said:
We’ve gone pretty far afield, for which I apologize. But I really want to step into the breach on this point…
Click to expand...
I must say that this doesn’t quite seem to me in line with Catholic Liturgical tradition. The Mass has always contained instruction of the people. In fact, in the TLM what we would call today the Liturgy of the Word was actually known as the Instruction, and the readings as the Lessons.

I believe that one error made by some “fans” of the Extraordinary Form is a misapplication of the fact that the Mass is primarily the Holy Sacrifice of Christ. Shocking as it sounds, it is possible to overemphasize this to the point of losing it’s full meaning. It may sound at first shocking to say one could overemphasize it, but allow me to explain.

Now before I explain, let me point out first that the Mass has always contained other elements, including not only the instruction of the faithful but also the sense of other offerings and sacrifices offered in union with the Sacrifice of Christ. For example, while it is perhaps more obvious in the Ordinary Form, the Extraordinary Form does contain the offering of bread and wine to God, which is then followed by the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ. In both forms is present the individual offerings of the faithful’s daily works, offered in union with and through Christ. The listening to the Lessons and the Sermon, or the readings and the Homily, both constitute the sacrifice of one’s mind and will to the Lord, again with and through the offering of Christ, in fulfillment in a certain way of the Scripture that reads, “you do not desire burnt offerings, but a contrite heart.”

There is also a second way in which the instruction of the faithful and the hearing of the Scriptures are a part of the Holy Sacrifice, and that is as an act of preparation. The priest begins by approaching the altar, in the EF with greater solemnity, to begin the Sacrifice. Sorrow is expressed for sin and the Lord’s mercy entreated (in the Kyrie) before beginning the Sacrifice, and then the Collect or opening prayer is offered, which in some formal way really sets into motion the Sacrificial action that is to take place. Then, to prepare the people for this great Sacrifice, Scripture is read and instruction provided about the Lord to whom the offering is to be made.

There are all sorts of meaings to and reasons for this. The Instruction moves the hearts of the people to contrition for their sins, or to desire submission to God in one way or another, both of these which the Sacrifice will be offered for (that is, the Sacrifice is offered for the forgiveness of sins and in petition for the Grace to Love God more). The Instruction also serves as an introduction to the Sacrifice by means of teaching on the person of God, as if to say, “Oh people, this is the God to Whom we are to make our offering.”

Perhaps most importantly, it is the means by which we listen to God prior to offering Sacrifice to Him. The structure of the Instruction in the EF was designed in a particular way that the faithful may give ear to the Holy Trinity at each Mass. The Father speaks through the Old Testament or Epistle, the Son through the Gospel - which is why only the priest, acting in persona Christi, may read it - and the Holy Spirit through the Sermon. When a person attends Mass, he goes to God, confesses his sins, listens to God, and then sacrifices (through the priest) to Him. We do not, as the pagans may, simply approach our idol - which cannot speak, as the Psalmist says - and make some offering to appease it or to ask something of it. Our God is a living God, and so when we Sacrifice to Him, we begin by listening to Him. As a preparation for our offering, we go to Him to hear what He asks of us, and what He commands us. The two things cannot be separated; we hear the Lord and we offer to Him a Sacrifice that we may fulfill what He commands us. Certainly, as you say, a good Bible lesson on its own is a great thing, but in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is a unique “Bible lesson” which is intricately tied to the Sacrifice in a way that no Thursday night Bible study ever can be.

So, when I talk about overemphasizing the Sacrifice, what I mean is operating with the idea that every moment of the Mass must be in some way an offering, rather than viewing it with the proper understanding that every moment of the Mass in some way supports, prepares, or contributes to the Sacrifice (or, of course, actually substantively constitutes the Sacrifice, such as the Canon). The Epistle reading need not be read to God in the way you describe for it to be a part of the Sacrifice, nor does the priest somehow interrupt the Sacrifice to read it to the faithful or to offer a Sermon. Rather, in reading the Epistle to the faithful and in presenting to them a sermon, the priest acts as the mouth of the Living God as He speaks to His people, not indeed apart from the Sacrifice, but as a part of it.

God bless**
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I must say that this doesn’t quite seem to me in line with Catholic Liturgical tradition. The Mass has always contained instruction of the people. In fact, in the TLM what we would call today the Liturgy of the Word was actually known as the Instruction, and the readings as the Lessons.
…
… let me point out first that the Mass has always contained other elements, including not only the instruction of the faithful but also the sense of other offerings and sacrifices offered in union with the Sacrifice of Christ…The listening to the Lessons and the Sermon, or the readings and the Homily, both constitute the sacrifice of one’s mind and will to the Lord, again with and through the offering of Christ, …
…
There is also a second way in which the instruction of the faithful and the hearing of the Scriptures are a part of the Holy Sacrifice, and that is as an act of preparation…Then, to prepare the people for this great Sacrifice, Scripture is read and instruction provided about the Lord to whom the offering is to be made.
…
… The Instruction moves the hearts of the people to contrition for their sins, or to desire submission to God in one way or another, both of these which the Sacrifice will be offered for (that is, the Sacrifice is offered for the forgiveness of sins and in petition for the Grace to Love God more). The Instruction also serves as an introduction to the Sacrifice by means of teaching on the person of God, as if to say, “Oh people, this is the God to Whom we are to make our offering.”

Perhaps most importantly, it is the means by which we listen to God prior to offering Sacrifice to Him. The structure of the Instruction in the EF was designed in a particular way that the faithful may give ear to the Holy Trinity at each Mass. The Father speaks through the Old Testament or Epistle, the Son through the Gospel - which is why only the priest, acting in persona Christi, may read it - and the Holy Spirit through the Sermon. … As a preparation for our offering, we go to Him to hear what He asks of us, and what He commands us. The two things cannot be separated; we hear the Lord and we offer to Him a Sacrifice that we may fulfill what He commands us. Certainly, as you say, a good Bible lesson on its own is a great thing, but in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is a unique “Bible lesson” which is intricately tied to the Sacrifice in a way that no Thursday night Bible study ever can be.

So, when I talk about overemphasizing the Sacrifice, what I mean is operating with the idea that every moment of the Mass must be in some way an offering, rather than viewing it with the proper understanding that every moment of the Mass in some way supports, prepares, or contributes to the Sacrifice…The Epistle reading need not be read to God in the way you describe for it to be a part of the Sacrifice, nor does the priest somehow interrupt the Sacrifice to read it to the faithful or to offer a Sermon. Rather, in reading the Epistle to the faithful and in presenting to them a sermon, the priest acts as the mouth of the Living God as He speaks to His people, not indeed apart from the Sacrifice, but as a part of it.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary. You’re right, of course. It occurred to me after the pesky EDIT button disappeared that it is, after all, called The Mass of the Catechumens.

So, a more circumspect statement of my previous point: If we think in terms of the sacrificial altar, reading the Epistle and Gospel ad orientam isn’t silly; we can see a certain logic in it.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
 
Aramis said:
The latin as used supports both interpretations. Latin is nasty-full of double-related meanings.
Click to expand...
I hate to be pedantic about things, but since you’re pointing to the Latin I have to in turn point out for others interested therein that the thread subject, as Mediator Dei quotations have shown, ought to read lex orandi lex credendi**. **As is it reads “the law of praying is the law of creating.”
Lazerlike42 said:
This is true to some degree, but I really don’t think that the Ordinary Form is to blame for this. I am no fan of Eucharistic Prayer II, of course, but I believe there is more to it than simply this. For example, Father Cipriano Vagaggini, a soundly orthodox priest, writing before the revision of the Liturgy made the same sort of statement about the EF as you have just made about the OF:
  • Father Cipriano Vagaggini, “The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform"
Personally, I prefer the fourth Eucharistic prayer, which in my mind expresses the idea of the sacrificial nature of the Mass better than the Roman Canon.

In any case, just some musings. 👍
Click to expand...
Fr. Vagaggini had lots of problems with the Roman Canon, some of which I gave some weight, others of which I felt were simply nitpicky. The interesting thing about the reform of the canon, though, is that the most “pressing” problems were left untouched while the institution narrative, which was in no strict need of reform, got reworked. It’s as if the Consilium, not getting its way with larger structural change, just had to change something to prove that it could. It’s also interesting to note that Fr. Vagaggini is no Thomist (not that one must be in every detail), for Thomas held that the offering occurred in the consecration itself, and not later on through the Unde et memores, etc.
 
ASD said:
Can you expand on that?

I always put my finger on the word offerimus in Unde et memores for my little girl when the priest reaches it. She never says, “No, Dad. That’s not what St. Thomas says.”

TIA. ASD​

Tranditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
Click to expand...
We covered it in my Reformation [era] Liturgies class, but only as an aside, so I’ll have to check with some of my buddies for the specific reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top