OF Supporters Please Stand Up!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SJP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saying that one supports the Mass in its OF is NOT the same as saying one does not support the Mass in EF. In fact, the great majority of posters here on CA seem to stand united with Rome, in supporting BOTH. Tastes, preferences, reasons can be argued 'til we fall over dead.
 
catharina said:
Saying that one supports the Mass in its OF is NOT the same as saying one does not support the Mass in EF. In fact, the great majority of posters here on CA seem to stand united with Rome, in supporting BOTH. Tastes, preferences, reasons can be argued 'til we fall over dead.
Click to expand...
Amen…and pointless arguing isn’t the way I want to have used my last keystroke!
 
I hope and pray that everyone will finally realize this. i have nothing against any of the forms whatever it may be. I personally prefer the Novus Ordo. But don’t tell me that it is not as good, etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada. or whatever. I am just happy that there are opportunities for all of us. And those opportunities will grow.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Our_Refuge said:
=Robster7;3761114]Folks,

You sure have a lot of complaints

These are not necessarily things inherently wrong with OF, rather, some excesses, and even abuses I have seen. It is NOT a criticism of the OF in and of itself.

In the Latin Mass you participate by praying with the priest “in silence” That is the best part of the TLM for me. Silence to pray and prepare oneself for receiving communion.

It just seems there is a disonnect where priest does his thing, and you do your thing, not together.

I have never experience that
It has more often than not been my experience. I really think it seems less than reverent to rush through, esp. if not necessary.

I
It is forbidden to say the Canon aloud. The congregation does respond in the High Mass. I have never noticed the priest in a hurry
Click to expand...
Why is it forbidden? I just want to know what liturgical development led to this silence, and why. It cant be that is essential that it be silent, since in the OF it is aloud.

I have respect for both forms, insofar as they are properly celebrated.
 
Robster7 said:
Why is it forbidden? I just want to know what liturgical development led to this silence, and why. It cant be that is essential that it be silent, since in the OF it is aloud.

I have respect for both forms, insofar as they are properly celebrated.
Click to expand...
Why do Dominicans preach aloud and Trappists keep silence? Is one right, and the other one wrong? Does one order serve God and the other not? No. In fact, if there were no one out there preaching, some of the Trappists would leave their cloisters and see to it that the Gospel was heard. Likewise, the words of the Dominicans come from the desert of silence where God speaks.

I think that this is what Benedict XVI meant when he wrote that the two forms would enhance each other.
 
I just wondered what the reasoning was for the silence, if anyone knows.
 
Robster7 said:
I just wondered what the reasoning was for the silence, if anyone knows.
Click to expand...
The Traditional Mass is full of symbolism. Here are some excerpts from the Douay Catechism of 1649 on the Mass.
.
Q. 954. What meaneth the priest’s coming back three steps from the Altar, and humbling himself before he begins?
A. It signifies the prostrating of Christ in the garden, when he began his passion.
Q. 957. Why doth the priest, ascending to the Altar, kiss it in the middle?
A. Because the Altar signifies the church, composed of divers people, as of divers living
stones, which Christ kissed in the middle, by giving a holy kiss of peace and unity, both
to the Jews and Gentiles
Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was
overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the
seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the
land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7.
Q. 983. Why then doth the priest sign the book with the sign of the cross?
A. To signify that the doctrine there delivered, appertains to the cross and passion of
Christ.
Q. 984. Why after this do both priest and people sign themselves with the cross in
three places?
A. They sign themselves on their foreheads, to signify they are not, nor will be ashamed
to profess Christ crucified: on their mouths to signify they will be ready with their
mouths, to confess unto salvation: and on their breast to signify that with their hearts they
believe unto justice.
Q. 993. What is the Canon?
A. It is a most sacred, essential, and substantial part of the mass, because in it the
sacrifice is effected.
**Q. 994. Why is the Canon read with a low voice?**A. To signify the sadness in our Saviour’s passion, which is there effectually represented.
Q. 995. Why doth the priest begin the Canon bowing his head?
A. To signify the obedience of Christ unto his Father in making himself a sacrifice to sin
Q. 1007. Why after consecration of each, doth the priest elevate, or lift up the
consecrated host and chalice?
A. That all the people may adore the body and blood of Christ, as also to signify, that for
our sins his body was lifted on the Cross and his blood shed.
 
Robster7 said:
I just wondered what the reasoning was for the silence, if anyone knows.
Click to expand...
It is a two-way conversation, and one never knows when the One who actually has something to say might start speaking! 😃
 
Our_Refuge said:
The Traditional Mass is full of symbolism. Here are some excerpts from the Douay Catechism of 1649 on the Mass.
.
Q. 954. What meaneth the priest’s coming back three steps from the Altar, and humbling himself before he begins?
A. It signifies the prostrating of Christ in the garden, when he began his passion.
Q. 957. Why doth the priest, ascending to the Altar, kiss it in the middle?
A. Because the Altar signifies the church, composed of divers people, as of divers living
stones, which Christ kissed in the middle, by giving a holy kiss of peace and unity, both
to the Jews and Gentiles
Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was
overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the
seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the
land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7.
Q. 983. Why then doth the priest sign the book with the sign of the cross?
A. To signify that the doctrine there delivered, appertains to the cross and passion of
Christ.
Q. 984. Why after this do both priest and people sign themselves with the cross in
three places?
A. They sign themselves on their foreheads, to signify they are not, nor will be ashamed
to profess Christ crucified: on their mouths to signify they will be ready with their
mouths, to confess unto salvation: and on their breast to signify that with their hearts they
believe unto justice.
Q. 993. What is the Canon?
A. It is a most sacred, essential, and substantial part of the mass, because in it the
sacrifice is effected.
**Q. 994. Why is the Canon read with a low voice?**A. To signify the sadness in our Saviour’s passion, which is there effectually represented.
Q. 995. Why doth the priest begin the Canon bowing his head?
A. To signify the obedience of Christ unto his Father in making himself a sacrifice to sin
Q. 1007. Why after consecration of each, doth the priest elevate, or lift up the
consecrated host and chalice?
A. That all the people may adore the body and blood of Christ, as also to signify, that for
our sins his body was lifted on the Cross and his blood shed.
Click to expand...
Dear Refuge, Many thanks for this post. In spite of several years of Catholic Schools, I have never been told why the rituals of the Mass are performed. I am going to print this off and memorize it. Again, many, many thanks. 👍
 
Our_Refuge said:
The Traditional Mass is full of symbolism. Here are some excerpts from the Douay Catechism of 1649 on the Mass.
.
Q. 954. What meaneth the priest’s coming back three steps from the Altar, and humbling himself before he begins?
A. It signifies the prostrating of Christ in the garden, when he began his passion.
Q. 957. Why doth the priest, ascending to the Altar, kiss it in the middle?
A. Because the Altar signifies the church, composed of divers people, as of divers living
stones, which Christ kissed in the middle, by giving a holy kiss of peace and unity, both
to the Jews and Gentiles
Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was
overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the
seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the
land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7.
Q. 983. Why then doth the priest sign the book with the sign of the cross?
A. To signify that the doctrine there delivered, appertains to the cross and passion of
Christ.
Q. 984. Why after this do both priest and people sign themselves with the cross in
three places?
A. They sign themselves on their foreheads, to signify they are not, nor will be ashamed
to profess Christ crucified: on their mouths to signify they will be ready with their
mouths, to confess unto salvation: and on their breast to signify that with their hearts they
believe unto justice.
Q. 993. What is the Canon?
A. It is a most sacred, essential, and substantial part of the mass, because in it the
sacrifice is effected.
**Q. 994. Why is the Canon read with a low voice?**A. To signify the sadness in our Saviour’s passion, which is there effectually represented.
Q. 995. Why doth the priest begin the Canon bowing his head?
A. To signify the obedience of Christ unto his Father in making himself a sacrifice to sin
Q. 1007. Why after consecration of each, doth the priest elevate, or lift up the
consecrated host and chalice?
A. That all the people may adore the body and blood of Christ, as also to signify, that for
our sins his body was lifted on the Cross and his blood shed.
Click to expand...
Is more of this posted on the Internet somewhere? 🙂
 
japhy said:
Right here. It’s the “The Douay Catechism of 1649” by Henry Tuberville, D.D.
Click to expand...
WOW Japhy. Many thanks. Although a Cradle Catholic, an illiterate one, it seems, I have never seen the Douay Catechism. Since I’m not afraid to show my ignorance which is in evidence many times, is the Douay and Douay Rheims Catechism the same? Thanks. 🙂
 
elts1956 said:
Since I’m not afraid to show my ignorance which is in evidence many times, is the Douay and Douay Rheims Catechism the same?
Click to expand...
Douay (or Douai) is a place in France, after which the Douay (and later Douay-Rheims and later Douay-Rheims-Challoner) Bible is named. I would expect this catechism is named after the same place.
 
japhy said:
Douay (or Douai) is a place in France, after which the Douay (and later Douay-Rheims and later Douay-Rheims-Challoner) Bible is named. I would expect this catechism is named after the same place.
Click to expand...
Thanks Japhy.🙂
 
SJP said:
  1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
Click to expand...
No
SJP said:
  1. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
Click to expand...
Making it mandatory to switch thee day of worship from Saturday to Sunday in the 4th century. Huge change from what the Hebrew Christians were used to.

Forcing Latin on the Greeks. Huge change overnight.
SJP said:
  1. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t supposed to be. It was a step back to pre-medieval times.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
SJP;3726308:
  1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
Click to expand...
No.
SJP said:
  1. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
Click to expand...
Making it mandatory to switch thee day of worship from Saturday to Sunday in the 4th century. Huge change from what the Hebrew Christians were used to. Forcing Latin on the Greeks. Huge change overnight.
SJP said:
  1. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t supposed to be. It was a step back to pre-medieval times.
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council quite clearly pointed out the necessity for (and thus validity of) organic development in the liturgy. From Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 23:That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

More recently (on the 40th anniversary of that document) a statement was made by Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino about “[t]he rediscovery … of the connection between the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy and Pope Pius X’s Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, a Document that paved the way for it many decades earlier, makes it easier to understand ecclesial tradition as organic development, guaranteed by the transcendent action of God’s Spirit.”

What proof do you have that the promotion of Sunday rather than Saturday was made only by the 4th century? I’ve never heard the date being set so far from the Apostolic age. Granted, much of my knowledge concerns Hellenistic Christianity (such as the witness of Justin Martyr explaining how they gather on the “day of the sun”)…

And what is that about Greeks being forced to use Latin? The liturgies of the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) aren’t in Latin, as far as I’ve seen. Was there a reversion to Greek (among other languages) later on?
 
japhy said:
The Second Vatican Council quite clearly pointed out the necessity for (and thus validity of) organic development in the liturgy. From Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 23:That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
Click to expand...
Organically from forms already existing doesn’t mean organic from the latest form. Vatican II tried to undo centuries of small changes which added up over time. The liturgy was historical, just not from a recent time period.
japhy said:
What proof do you have that the promotion of Sunday rather than Saturday was made only by the 4th century?
Click to expand...
I never said it was first promoted in the 4th century. In the 4th century it was made mandatory under Constantine. However, in some places the saturday sabbath is still followed by Christians (Ethiopia). It was a major overnight change for those still worshipping on Saturday.
japhy said:
And what is that about Greeks being forced to use Latin? The liturgies of the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) aren’t in Latin, as far as I’ve seen. Was there a reversion to Greek (among other languages) later on?
Click to expand...
The Latins took over Greek areas and made them say mass in Latin. Big overnight changes are nothing new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top