K
KMG
Guest
Wrong again. There were TWO Masses. One of anticipation…the Vesperal Mass…and one of the feast proper, at dawn.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
KMG
Guest
You’re never going to convince me of ahistorical falsehoods that are patently wrong, and obviously I’m not going to convince you of the historical reality.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
IN THE MIDDLE AGES.Wrong again. There were TWO Masses. One of anticipation…the Vesperal Mass…and one of the feast proper, at dawn.
Would you PLEASE, PLEASE stop mixing time-periods.
K
KMG
Guest
Again, the vesperal liturgy was NOT INVENTED IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
K
KMG
Guest
It has clear parallels in the Greek rites. It is an ancient liturgy, showing some of the oldest signs of antiquity.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
You’re the one who insists on mixing time-periods.You’re never going to convince me of ahistorical falsehoods that are patently wrong, and obviously I’m not going to convince you of the historical reality.
You keep taking the practice of the middle ages and claiming that it is somehow the “original” way of doing things. You’ve done it repeatedly in this thread.
K
KMG
Guest
And YOU keep making gratuitous assertions about alleged innovations of the Middle Ages.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Correct.Again, the vesperal liturgy was NOT INVENTED IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
It was not invented in the middle ages.
The middle ages saw the parts of the VIGIL services MOVED earlier to the time of vespers.
K
KMG
Guest
Again, in antiquity Mass was celebrated after None, preceded by the lucernarium and vigil rites. And Mass was celebrated again at dawn, after Paschal Matins and Lauds.
Bugnini messed this all up in 1955, and the only way he could make it work was by cutting the most important Matins of the year. Go figure.
Bugnini messed this all up in 1955, and the only way he could make it work was by cutting the most important Matins of the year. Go figure.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
During the middle ages, that’s how things were done. I’m not saying otherwise.Again, in antiquity Mass was celebrated after None, preceded by the lucernarium and vigil rites. And Mass was celebrated again at dawn, after Paschal Matins and Lauds.
You still keep trying to make the practice of the middle ages the original way of doing things.Bugnini messed this all up in 1955, and the only way he could make it work was by cutting the most important Matins of the year. Go figure.
You’re ignoring the simple fact that the time-period you call “antiquity” represents an era in which the parts of the Easter services had already been moved to earlier hours-of-day.
I am NOT, not in any way, disputing your accounts of what happened during the middle ages. It’s consistent with what I know, and as for some specific details, I’m willing to take what you say at face-value.
The part of your claim that I am disputing is that the middle ages somehow represents the “original” way of doing things. That’s simply not the historic reality.
K
KMG
Guest
Then provide historical proof that things were done differently in antiquity. You can’t.
Again, no one disputes Christians stayed up all night for vigils. But they stayed up for multiple services stretching across the entire time from after None until dawn the next morning.
What we call the Easter Vigil was historically a PART of that all-night experience, the part that commenced after None.
Again, no one disputes Christians stayed up all night for vigils. But they stayed up for multiple services stretching across the entire time from after None until dawn the next morning.
What we call the Easter Vigil was historically a PART of that all-night experience, the part that commenced after None.
F
FontgombaultMonks
Guest
Dear Fr. David,
Have you read the writings of Egeria? If so, you would find that they match with what KMG is describing. Before you say that the Paschal Vigil beginning after None is an innovation, I would suggest that you read her writings. In case you haven’t heard of her, Egeria was a 3rd century pilgrim. So, her account of the liturgy is certainly not from the middle ages.
Also, antiquarianism is not the best way to move towards an authentic Roman Liturgy. We must be open to authentic liturgical development.
In Domino,
FontgombaultMonks
Have you read the writings of Egeria? If so, you would find that they match with what KMG is describing. Before you say that the Paschal Vigil beginning after None is an innovation, I would suggest that you read her writings. In case you haven’t heard of her, Egeria was a 3rd century pilgrim. So, her account of the liturgy is certainly not from the middle ages.
Also, antiquarianism is not the best way to move towards an authentic Roman Liturgy. We must be open to authentic liturgical development.
In Domino,
FontgombaultMonks
F
FontgombaultMonks
Guest
This is not what Byzantine Catholics do, and it is not their tradition. But there is no ACTUAL evidence that this is the Roman tradition. I would say that there is no conclusion either way.The Mass was at dawn on Sunday morning, following the VIGIL services which were done during the hours of VIGIL which are the night-time.
You may be interested to know that the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (with 15 extra readings) is celebrated on the morning of Holy Saturday in the Paschal form in Byzantine Catholic churches to this day. So, the church has no aversion to the celebration of the Paschal rites on the morning of Holy Saturday.
In Domino,
FontgombaultMonks
Last edited:
F
FontgombaultMonks
Guest
I never said that it originally began in the morning. I believe it to be an authentic case of organic liturgical development.The claim that the Easter Vigil originally began in the morning is unfounded.
Stating the obvious is not necessary.The Church did not originate in the Middle Ages; nor did the Vigil Masses,
F
FontgombaultMonks
Guest
The 1955 changes to Holy Week had no background in Roman liturgical tradition. That is not organic development. The rites were entirely changed. Organic development always builds upon the past rites, and does not replace them.Yes he was. And the resulting 1955 revisions were not objectionable. On that ground i call prejudice more than anything.
K
KMG
Guest
The pre-1955 Holy Saturday is astonishing in the depth of antiquity it reveals in its texts. Including the antiphon at Vespers…completely cut in the Bugnini rites…that speaks of the evening of the Saturday.
It is an anticipatory liturgy, analogous to the similar rites in the Greek churches. The main difference is, the Greek equivalent of Pascal Matins is quite long…the Roman version is quite brief, precisely because it represents a primitive Matins, without hymns, etc.
It is an anticipatory liturgy, analogous to the similar rites in the Greek churches. The main difference is, the Greek equivalent of Pascal Matins is quite long…the Roman version is quite brief, precisely because it represents a primitive Matins, without hymns, etc.
K
KMG
Guest
Exactly. And in the East, the reason the liturgy is celebrated in the morning and not late afternoon is to allow a break before the Paschal Matins equivalent (Orthros). Otherwise you’d be in church for many hours straight, as they did in antiquity…but STARTING at around 330 or 4pm with the Vesperal Liturgy.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Of course I can. Anyone who understands the subject will tell you the same thing.Then provide historical proof that things were done differently in antiquity. You can’t.
By the middle ages, the time when you seem to think this all began, CHANGED what was done before. The services were moved to earlier times.
Again, you prove that you have no idea what you’re writing about. You’re still making the same error of thinking that what was done in the middle ages was also being done in earlier periods of the Church.Again, no one disputes Christians stayed up all night for vigils. But they stayed up for multiple services stretching across the entire time from after None until dawn the next morning.
That’s your fundamental, foundational error.
No. You’re moving them to a point too early in the clock. They were done during the NIGHT in the early centuries. They were later MOVED to what you try to claim was their original time.What we call the Easter Vigil was historically a PART of that all-night experience, the part that commenced after None.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes, I have.Dear Fr. David,
Have you read the writings of Egeria?
No, they don’t.If so, you would find that they match with what KMG is describing.
What KMG is describing is the practice as it was done in later centuries, when the services of the night-time had already been moved to an earlier hour.
In the ancient accounts, the VIGIL services were done during the night (not the afternoon, as in the middle ages). They ended before sunrise on Sunday morning; with the Eucharist being about sunrise or a little later.
I would suggest that you read up on the subject before you try to lecture me on it.Before you say that the Paschal Vigil beginning after None is an innovation, I would suggest that you read her writings. In case you haven’t heard of her, Egeria was a 3rd century pilgrim. So, her account of the liturgy is certainly not from the middle ages.
They weren’t lighting the lamps in the middle of the day in the earlier centuries.
I suggest you take your own advice on that. You’re the one advocating holding vigil services on Holy Saturday morning.Also, antiquarianism is not the best way to move towards an authentic Roman Liturgy. We must be open to authentic liturgical development.
In Domino,
FontgombaultMonks
K
KMG
Guest
They were lighting lamps AFTER NONE, and BEFORE VESPERS. This isn’t rock science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.