"Oh but it wasn't how it was done at the last supper and in the early church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason_Matthew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, things are changing. But, one thing you can be assured of is that the Church is not going to “go back” to anything that it has moved away from in the past. The Church will move forward though.
Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy: Ch. 4
“[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.”

Pope Saint Pius X; Pascendi Domenici Gregis
"28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.“14 On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason”;15 and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth."16 Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries – but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."17

Pope PIus XII; Mediator Dei
"59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
  1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
  2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man."
  3. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
  4. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation."
 
He further went on and said that Jesus did not have his back faced towards the disciples during the Last Supper and therefore, ad orientem should not be used
But is our liturgy based on a Meal only? I thought it was also a sacrifice that has its roots in the OT.
 
Someone I know said to me that because the Tridentine Mass is not how it was done at the Last Supper and in the early church, it is not how mass should be celebrated. He further went on and said that Jesus did not have his back faced towards the disciples during the Last Supper and therefore, ad orientem should not be used

I tried to explain to him that the mass developed and evolved as a result of increased theological understanding and the changing of circumstances but he is still reluctant.

How do you counter his argument?
Jesus was simply instructing his first appointed priests. They needed to face Jesus, less they be unable to celebrate the Eucharist in memory of him.
 
But is our liturgy based on a Meal only? I thought it was also a sacrifice that has its roots in the OT.
Denial of the Real Presence and a distorted emphasis on the meal aspects of the mass go hand in hand.
 
Don’t forget that we have to get rid of the Eucharistic fast, we are supposed to eat and drink prior to Communion.
Only three cups of wine, bitter herbs and roasted lamb.

Captain Crunch and Pop Tarts are not allowed.

-Tim-
 
Mass is not a re-presentation of the Last Supper. Mass is a re-presentation of Calvary, and has a meal aspect inasmuch as we receive Holy Communion into our mouths.

Something can be one thing and have aspect(s) of something else. If I have a house made of brown brick, I wouldn’t go up to someone and say I have some brown bricks. I would say that I have a house, or that I have a house made of brown bricks.

The thing is one thing, but has aspects of another.

When someone tells me that “Jesus didn’t have the Last Supper with his back to the apostles,” I would ask two questions:
  1. Can you prove that?
  2. Why does that matter?
 
I have spoken to that guy before! He also has issues with Humanae Vitae and quite a bit of church doctrine. He is worried Pope Benedict is " putting back the clock". He does however run the fairtraid stall.
 
Mass is not a re-presentation of the Last Supper. Mass is a re-presentation of Calvary, and has a meal aspect inasmuch as we receive Holy Communion into our mouths.
The Liturgies represent not only the sacrifice of Christ but also His Resurrection. So its not just Calvary.
 
Well, first I would say that if we really are to imitate the Last Supper then we should all be wearing tunics and sandals and reclining on couches around a U-shaped table inside the church while we mumble in Aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, forget the church: we should be doing it in our living room. 😉
Don’t laugh. Once upon a time, some post-V2 liturgical experimenter rigged the mass like a seder meal, with the consecration afterwards. But all this misses the point: Jesus was not setting up a ritual: he was telling them: this is me tomorrow, which is where it all leads, and what it all means. An event even more grand than the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt.
 
Don’t laugh. Once upon a time, some post-V2 liturgical experimenter rigged the mass like a seder meal, with the consecration afterwards. But all this misses the point: Jesus was not setting up a ritual: he was telling them: this is me tomorrow, which is where it all leads, and what it all means. An event even more grand than the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt.
There was this story about a priest in the Philippines post-VII who wanted to ‘spice up’ the Palm Sunday liturgy a bit. He asks a few parishioners how Filipinos welcome their guests (he was a foreign priest), he gets a few answers (‘garland’, ‘archway’, ‘brass band’, ‘fireworks’). Come Palm Sunday, Father shows up on horseback (they couldn’t get a donkey) with a flowing cape and all the fanfare. A little mishap with the fireworks (they flew straight into the wall instead of skywards) scared the horse, however, so Father has no choice but to go to ‘Jerusalem’ on foot with the horse tagging along behind! 😛
 
There was this story about a priest in the Philippines post-VII who wanted to ‘spice up’ the Palm Sunday liturgy a bit. He asks a few parishioners how Filipinos welcome their guests (he was a foreign priest), he gets a few answers (‘garland’, ‘archway’, ‘brass band’, ‘fireworks’). Come Palm Sunday, Father shows up on horseback (they couldn’t get a donkey) with a flowing cape and all the fanfare. A little mishap with the fireworks (they flew straight into the wall instead of skywards) scared the horse, however, so Father has no choice but to go to ‘Jerusalem’ on foot with the horse tagging along behind! 😛
They still do that to this day. And the priest modernized and used a scooter 😃
 
Don’t laugh. Once upon a time, some post-V2 liturgical experimenter rigged the mass like a seder meal, with the consecration afterwards. But all this misses the point: Jesus was not setting up a ritual: he was telling them: this is me tomorrow, which is where it all leads, and what it all means. An event even more grand than the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt.
I wonder if you shoudn’t read “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Dr. Brant Pitre.

-Tim-
 
The OPs question is easily answered.

The Last Supper cannot be the model for Mass in the 21st century. Jesus Himself was the presider at that sombre meal. The others present were the first bishops. His Sacrifice on Calvary hadn’t happened yet.

A better example would be the 10th Mass. Or the 200th. One where a bishop acted ‘In Persona Christi’. Then you must ask, why would that Mass be better than a TLM, today? No Chant, fewer Gospel readings(?), fewer prayers, said in a bare room, etc … Even assuming you could accurately work out what was done.

A Pontifical High Mass with a good choir and organist in a well decorated Church, with real candles and incense and proper vestments is about as good an attempt to bring Heaven to Earth as is now possible, so that even the spiritually short-sighted and the near-deaf can begin to think about their own salvation. It’s an attempt to show something great, transcendent and wonderful. By it’s extravagance, it’s an offering.

The ‘Back To The Last Supper’ idea just leads to iconoclasm.
 
Yes, things are changing. But, one thing you can be assured of is that the Church is not going to “go back” to anything that it has moved away from in the past. The Church will move forward though.
Are you referring to going back to the EF? How did the Church “move away” from something that was never abrogated? It’s precisely because we “moved away” from the most beautiful thing side of heaven that we have the turmoil in the Church today. Why do you think that the Holy Father issued the motu propio?

It really makes no sense why you would say that the Church is “not going back”, unless you’re saying that in a remorseful way. What do you think the “new” translation was all about? Almost everything we typically see in a “normal” Novus Ordo Mass was never intended by VII or His Holiness Paul VI, so what pray tell should we not be going back to? Better Mass attendance? More of the laity believing in the Real Presence instead of less? More vocations? No parish churches closing? A greater devotion to Our Lady? The belief in Hell? That the Mass is a sacrifice? If that’s “going back”, where do I sign…

I’m not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I really don’t understand why there are so many that can’t just admit that the Mass should have never been tampered with to the degree that it was tampered with in the 1960’s and '70’s. This doesn’t fall under the infallibility of the pope, so what’s the big deal? Did anyone ever stop to consider the possibility that we the Church have been paying the price the last 40 years for all this?

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
 
My two cents.

The 1570 Roman Missal was supposed to restore the Roman liturgy to the “original form and rite of the holy Fathers,” to ensure a greater standardization among all the Latin Church and the prevention of any heretical ideas that might creep in the Mass. It seems however that due to the lack of adequate time (quite a number of things that came out after Trent were literally rushed into the press; apparently everyone was very anxious to get them out as soon as possible) and necessary resources, they only half-succeeded in the aim of restoring the Roman liturgy. By contrast, the 1970 Ordo Missae, while its creators have access to more resources than the “learned men” of 1570 - mainly suffers from a certain lack of organicness, dare I say it is rather ‘artificial’: it attempts to purge out medieval ‘accretions’ while leaving the basic structure of the Mass as it is (again cf. the Creed and the Offertory prayers - written from scratch apparently based on Jewish blessings), and it has some penchant for reconstructing things (cf. the Prayer of the Faithful). As it is it is really a hodgepodge.

Note that this is not an attack on the validity of both forms, just a personal critique.
 
It really makes no sense why you would say that the Church is “not going back”. What do you think the “new” translation was all about? Almost everything we typically see in a “normal” Novus Ordo Mass was never intended by VII or His Holiness Paul VI. I’m not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I really don’t understand why there are so many that can’t just admit that the Mass should have never been tampered with to the degree that it was tampered with in the 1960’s and '70’s.Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
My point of the Church not going back, is because that is how the Bishops phrase it. The Church may revisit tradition, but does it by moving forward. The new translation was not the Church moving backward. It fixed a flawed translation, and by doing that has moved on (forward) My opinion on why Vatican II took place would not be widely received here or probably even allowed by the mods. As I have said over and over again, It is not any Catholics place to openly go against Rome. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is not up to you or I to say this way is better or should be changed. If the Vatican says change, then there will be change. As laity we are called to celebrate the Mass each Sunday. The Mass that is sanctioned and approved by the Vatican. Is one any better than another? No. Not unless there are abuses. If there are abuses, they should be reported to the Bishop. The Bishops always call for the Church to “Move Forward”. So…I do.
 
Are you referring to going back to the EF? How did the Church “move away” from something that was never abrogated? It’s precisely because we “moved away” from the most beautiful thing side of heaven that we have the turmoil in the Church today. Why do you think that the Holy Father issued the motu propio?

It really makes no sense why you would say that the Church is “not going back”, unless you’re saying that in a remorseful way. What do you think the “new” translation was all about? Almost everything we typically see in a “normal” Novus Ordo Mass was never intended by VII or His Holiness Paul VI, so what pray tell should we not be going back to? Better Mass attendance? More of the laity believing in the Real Presence instead of less? More vocations? No parish churches closing? A greater devotion to Our Lady? The belief in Hell? That the Mass is a sacrifice? If that’s “going back”, where do I sign…

I’m not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I really don’t understand why there are so many that can’t just admit that the Mass should have never been tampered with to the degree that it was tampered with in the 1960’s and '70’s. This doesn’t fall under the infallibility of the pope, so what’s the big deal? Did anyone ever stop to consider the possibility that we the Church have been paying the price the last 40 years for all this?

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
At the time of the last supper, there weren’t 1200 families in one parish with one priest.
We live today and have to meet today’s needs. It would be nice to have a small setting but largely impossible.

And I don’t find the majority of changes in the liturgy all that disturbing now.

I liked the vernacular very much.
Same for the altar position and the priest facing the people.

There isn’t much I object to except some of the hymn choices which may be spiritual but not appropriate for Mass. Same with some music.

I would like to see more gregorian chant returning.

And I do like the fact that there is more singing and participation by the people.
And if they were trained in this more, it would make a big difference not only in the liturgy but also in them.

But the one thing I don’t care for, removal of communion rails, and less people folding their hands while going to communion. It would be nice if a part of a communion rail was installed on one side of the sanctuary so people could kneel if they wished.

It dosen’t occur to people that how they conduct themselves at mass and communion does have an impact others around them. And charity does begin at home even in our own church.

It can be as dynamic as we want to make it. It is a question of effort and attention.

Now apart from the liturgy, there have been many other changes which have had a downside to them. These should be corrected especially the true teaching of the faith.

Just a few mutterings.
 
I think it comes down to this.

If one sat down to work out how to create a Mass that would serve the 4 Ends of the Mass well, that would resist modification by mediocre liturgists, that would work across the Western hemisphere, that would avoid accretions to the N.O. that most annoy traditonalists, that would exemplify the faith to the ignorant and that would be inspiring for priest and congregation, it would be hard to beat the TLM.

I have a strong sense we’ve tried to re-invent the wheel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top