Proper protocol for obeying in the midst of liturgical abuse?

[Uncle_Norbert]

Private Masses or Masses celebrated in private homes to which the parish community is not invited.

What about retired priests who say mass alone at their home altar?

 

[Walking_Home]

Standing Around the Altar

ewtn.com/expert/answers/non-ordained.htm

Although there is no precedent in Catholic liturgical tradition the question of whether it is permissible for children, youth or adults to stand around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer continues to be asked. The argument often given by those who encourage this practice is to foster “community”. In 1981 the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed this question in its official journal Notitiae. In an official interpretation of no. 101 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) it responded as follows:

Query: At the presentation of gifts at a Mass with congregation, persons (lay or religious) bring to the altar the bread and wine which are to be consecrated. These gifts are received by the priest celebrant. All those participating in the Mass accompany this group procession in which the gifts are brought forward. They then stand around the altar until communion time. Is this procedure in conformity with the spirit of the law and of the Roman Missal?

Reply: Assuredly, the Eucharistic celebration is the act of the entire community, carried out by all the members of the liturgical assembly. Nevertheless, everyone must have and also must observe his or her own place and proper role: "In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office  by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy." (SC art. 29). During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the "presbyterium," which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers. [Notitiae 17 (1981) 61[/COLOR]]

 

[Joysong]

When the new 2002 revised GIRM was finalized, our parish held a workshop for all who were involved in liturgy. The presenter was sent by the Bishop with documentation and instructions on how to interpret the changes.

What I failed to remember and just noted as I went back to these documents from the workshop is a large half-page statement that reads:

What is crucial

for implementing GIRM 2002

in the United States

is to realize that

this normative Roman document

does not have “the final word”

on every aspect of the celebration

of the Mass in this country.

There are specific references that assert it is the competency of the diocesan bishop to regulate the practice of concelebration, who may act as altar servers, the practice of distributing communion under both kinds, and the constructing and arranging of churches. Etc.

We do well to note this, and to consider that there may be matters where one exercises private judgment upon reading the GIRM, that may seem clearly implied yet be unformulated in writing. These are often under the jurisdiction of the Bishop to interpret for his diocese and are not able to be known by a casual reader of the document.

Although there is no precedent in Catholic liturgical tradition the question of whether it is permissible for children, youth or adults to stand around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer continues to be asked.

Query: At the presentation of gifts at a Mass with congregation, persons (lay or religious) bring to the altar the bread and wine which are to be consecrated.

Reply: Assuredly, the Eucharistic celebration is the act of the entire community, carried out by all the members of the liturgical assembly.

Clearly in this cited example, the Q and A refer to a congregation, entire community, liturgical assembly … and NOT a small gathering of a dozen or so participants outside the regular assembly. Here too, one needs to avoid private interpretation of a written response that does not include all applications, all countries, all dioceses. It is for the Bishop to regulate and interpret.

Do keep in mind that while I caution others about private interpretations, it does not follow that I personally approve this practice, nor have I stated that I am in favor of it, as my initial post will demonstrate.

 

[benedictgal]

There are more than two sets, with the first dating only back to 1969. In which case, the liturgies I spoke of as waaaaay back, were prior to 1969. But even if they were more recent, the very telling statement is the red bolded one, that there is NO provision.

I am presently reviewing another issue that was thought to be a prohibition, when in reality the bishop has authorized it. Each parish priest is under the authority of the Bishop, and if he has been given specific permission for certain celebrations that are small in number and not the regular Sunday liturgy, most people would have no way of knowing this by simply reading the GIRM. Understandably, some might take offense and calumniate the priest.

It is essential prior to taking any action based on what one thinks they know, that they do a little research first with the pastor, and then the Office of Worship to determine what, if any, permissions have been privately given by the Bishop for those things that seem to fall under the label “abuse” and for which nothing has been set in writing.

I have the 1969 Sacramentary, Joysong. The problem is that you seem to be forgetting something very important that doesn’t take much research. Read this from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[10.] ***The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 ***Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Joysong, the bishop does not have carte blanche to do with as he pleases where the Mass is concerned, as you seem to suggest. Sure, lots of things aren’t in the Roman Missal (regardless of which GIRM you are looking at) because some are common sense issues and others were never anticipated.

The problem is that there are many people who are so caught up in the alleged “spirit” of the Second Vatican Council that they don’t read what the documents actually say. They spend so much time “reading into” these papers that they couldn’t tell you what the writings actually say.

Obedience to a priest who knowingly disregards the norms and rubrics of the Church’s liturgy is wrong and participating in such activity makes a person (who knows that these things are wrong) just as culpable as the priest. There is no such thing as being in obedience when what you are being asked to do is wrong. Like I’ve said throughout this thread. I love my mom. But, if she were to ask me to take a five-finger discount at Sephora (swiping a Bare Escentuals lipstick), and I know that it’s wrong, I am under no obligation to obey her.

 

[Walking_Home]

When the new 2002 revised GIRM was finalized, our parish held a workshop for all who were involved in liturgy. The presenter was sent by the Bishop with documentation and instructions on how to interpret the changes.

What I failed to remember and just noted as I went back to these documents from the workshop is a large half-page statement that reads:

There are specific references that assert it is the competency of the diocesan bishop to regulate the practice of concelebration, who may act as altar servers, the practice of distributing communion under both kinds, and the constructing and arranging of churches. Etc.

We do well to note this, and to consider that there may be matters where one exercises private judgment upon reading the GIRM, that may seem clearly implied yet be unformulated in writing. These are often under the jurisdiction of the Bishop to interpret for his diocese and are not able to be known by a casual reader of the document.

Clearly in this cited example, the Q and A refer to a congregation, entire community, liturgical assembly … and NOT a small gathering of a dozen or so participants outside the regular assembly. Here too, one needs to avoid private interpretation of a written response that does not include all applications, all countries, all dioceses. It is for the Bishop to regulate and interpret.

Do keep in mind that while I caution others about private interpretations, it does not follow that I personally approve this practice, nor have I stated that I am in favor of it, as my initial post will demonstrate.

---

You are a master at spinning to undo what Rome directs.

 

[benedictgal]

---

You are a master at spinning to undo what Rome directs.

My bishop sent me to the FDLC Conference in San Antonio some five years ago. I attended a workshop that focused on the GIRM and took copious notes which I dutifully gave to the priest who oversaw divine worship for our diocese at the time. Msgr. Moroney, who was, at the time, the Secretary for the former BCL never made any mention regarding flexibility, nor did he discuss what Joysong listed in her post.

Now, as disconcerting as some of the sessions were, this was one where everyone was on the same page, especially since Cardinal Arinze had already addressed the group. Everyone was really gung ho about things as a result of the good cardinal’s remarks. Incidentally, he didn’t even say anything that remotely sounded like what Joysong had posted when he addressed the San Antonio conference:

***Liturgical Commissions should guard against making too many regulations for the people or ignoring directives from higher authorities. When adaptations and inculturated changes by the Church in a country get so many that the Roman rite is somewhat obscured, the fault may lie not just on the Bishops, but also on their Liturgical Commissions and other liturgical experts who advise the Bishops. ***

He also notes that

Writing on the Holy Eucharist, Pope John Paul II says that “the treasure is too important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise through forms of experimentation or practices introduced without a careful review on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authorities [and] because the sacred liturgy expresses and celebrates the faith professed by all, and being the heritage of the whole Church, cannot be determined by local Churches in isolation from the universal Church” (EE, no. 51).

It is therefore reasonable and indeed obvious that there must be liturgical regulations and norms. With reference to the Holy Eucharist, for example, Pope John Paul II says that "these norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private properly, be it of the celebrant or of the community " (EE, no. 52). That is why Sacrosanctum Concilium already declared that the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the Bishops and the Bishops’ Conference. “Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (SC, no. 22).

The danger is that some people seem to think that inculturation in the liturgy encourages free and uncontrolled creativity. They imagine that according to Vatican II the progressive, modern and enlightened thing to do in liturgical celebrations is to be creative, to be original, to introduce something new, to do it yourself. Pope John Paul writes that "it must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many " (EE, no. 52).

The truth is that genuine inculturation has nothing to do with the product of the over-fertile imagination of an enthusiastic priest who concocts something on Saturday night and inflicts it on the innocent Sunday morning congregation now being used as a guinea pig. True and lasting inculturation demands long study, discussions among experts in interdisciplinary platforms, examination and decision by Bishops, recognitio from the Apostolic See and prudent presentation to the people of God. Moreover, it should be noted that in religious matters, people’s sensitivity and piety can easily be hurt by ill-considered and hasty novelties. In religious practices, most people are understandably conservative in the good sense and unwilling to endure frequent changes.

Even when we give the hasty innovator the benefit of the doubt, that the motivation is a sincere attempt to bring the liturgy home to the people, it remains true that the results are generally disastrous. Unapproved innovations distract and annoy the people. They often draw attention to the priest rather than to God. They generally do not last long. They are often superficial. And they scandalize because they run against Church norms and regulations. If many lay people had only one request to make, they would ask that the priest celebrate Mass, or other rites, simply according to the approved books. Many lay faithful complain that rarely do they find two priests celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice in the same way. ***The Roman liturgy is not a free-for-all experimentation field where each celebrant has the option to tag on his cherished accretions. Repeated and laid-down action is part of ritual. The people are not tired of it, as long as the celebrant is full of faith and devotion and has the proper ars celebrandi (art of how to celebrate). ***

We need to defiintely keep this in mind. The San Antonio conference was five years ago, but, these words ring very true right now.

 

[Joysong]

[Edited by Moderator]

I submitted my post.

It is veritable truth.

I have no intention of defending my Bishop’s teaching document which did not come from him, but was reprinted with permission of the eminent author. It stands on its own merit for those who have eyes to see.

 

[japhy]

There are specific references that assert it is the competency of the diocesan bishop to regulate the practice of concelebration, who may act as altar servers, the practice of distributing communion under both kinds, and the constructing and arranging of churches. Etc.

That’s all well and good, but it is a different situation. The Congregation for Divine Worship was asked about this issue of standing around the altar. It was not simply a matter of “where people stand during the Liturgy of the Eucharist is left to the discretion of the diocesan bishop or local ordinary”. It’s a matter of “the GIRM isn’t clear on whether this IS or ISN’T permitted… what do you say, Rome?” The CDW gave its official interpretation of the GIRM.

Query: At the presentation of gifts at a Mass with congregation

I am afraid I agree with the other poster, that you are twisting and spinning the words here.

A Mass with congregation includes a Mass with a dozen lay faithful.

In using the language “the act of the entire community”, the CDW is affirming that “the Eucharistic celebration” is not simply the act of the clergy and those who are serving at the altar and those who are leading the choir and those who are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion: rather, “the Eucharistic celebration is the act of the entire community” which includes “all the members of the liturgical assembly”, meaning all of the people who have gathered for the liturgy.

It is not code language for “normal scheduled parish Mass”.

They use this language to then explain that, while everyone present is participating in the act, each one participates to the degree (and no further) which their role entails. The “celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers” are the only ones in the presbyterium during the Eucharistic Prayer. And the rest of the faithful should be where their role dictates, outside the presbyterium, kneeling in our pews.

It doesn’t take cleverness to apply these instructions. It takes straightforwardness and common sense. Someone might have their feelings hurt and be offended and say “but we’ve always stood up here!” I’m very sorry for them. They’re not supposed to be there.

See how hard it is to correct a problem that’s been around for a while? So much easier to avoid the problem in the first place!

 

[Joysong]

Japhy:

That’s all well and good, but it is a different situation. The Congregation for Divine Worship was asked about this issue of standing around the altar.

What was so rudely overlooked by my opponents was the fact that I said this practice occurred prior to 1969, and therefore prior to the first GIRM, and obviously PRIOR to the document you refer to, dated 1981. And then my words were broadly swept into a faulted understanding of V-II in a derogatory connotation, and a further ridiculous analogy of heisting lipstick.

In 1981 the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed this question in its official journal Notitiae. In an official interpretation of no. 101 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) it responded as follows:
I also note that the Notitiae is a document that gives further interpretation the GIRM, which I have alluded to as being documentation additionally available to bishops and clergy beyond that which is stated ambiguously or omitted in the GIRM itself.

Do any of our CAF members who bring public charges of abuse to this forum have access to this or any other nonpublished document? I believe not. And that is the very point I have been making all along. Before anyone accuses the clergy of abuse, it is well to contact those in authority who have access to other interpretations of Church documents beyond one’s casual reading on an internet site!

I would not be so bold to interpret the Notitiae, all inclusively, as a basis for condemning my priest, if this practice is continued after 1981 in small weekly assemblies. Personally, I have not experienced this “invitation” to gather in the sanctuary since those earlier days, as you have. Yet the responsibility lies with you to determine whether or not this was inappropriate, and whether or not there were other permissions granted to the priest, or possibly an interpretation of that document that is different from the surface reading of it. And then go from there.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What about retired priests who say mass alone at their home altar?

Where Mass is celebrated, where the Blessed Sacrament reserved, etc, is regulated by the Church, usually by the Bishop of the diocese or the Superior of the religious Order, or Abbot. Retired priests usually celebrate Mass in a local parish church or a chapel usually in a nursing home or hospital. Rarely will you find an altar for the celebration of Mass in a rectory or even convent any longer, if there is one it is no longer used. Current norms I believe require at least one member of the faithful to be present.

 

[japhy]

What was so rudely overlooked by my opponents was the fact that I said this practice occurred prior to 1969, and therefore prior to the first GIRM, and obviously PRIOR to the document you refer to, dated 1981.

I do recall you making such statements, but I don’t see their relevance to the situation at hand. Since 1981, the CDW has made its position on the matter clear (at least, I think it’s clear). They can’t change the past, so what happened in 1980 is not my concern. I am concerned about what is happening in 2008.

Do any of our CAF members who bring public charges of abuse to this forum have access to this or any other nonpublished document? I believe not. And that is the very point I have been making all along. Before anyone accuses the clergy of abuse, it is well to contact those in authority who have access to other interpretations of Church documents beyond one’s casual reading on an internet site!

Notitiae is a published monthly magazine of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. That being said, it is not likely, I agree, that many parishes (or even dioceses!) throughout the world have a subscription to it. (I sure would like one…) So it is very likely that the priest who said Mass for the group I was in is simply not aware of the fact that standing around the altar is not permitted. I do not think he called us up there in an act of defiance and disobedience (although the actions of another priest of his order is another matter altogether), but he simply didn’t know he was doing something he was not permitted to do.

Is it wrong for me to want to educate him? I’m not attacking him, nor accusing him, nor vilifying him. I want to correct him, though, so he does not make the same mistake again. I’m trying to do this in charity.

I would not be so bold to interpret the Notitiae, all inclusively, as a basis for condemning my priest, if this practice is continued after 1981 in small weekly assemblies.

I don’t see why the clarification by the CDW would not apply to smaller assemblies.

By the way, a collection of excerpts from Notitiae from 1969 through 1981 that pertain to the GIRM can be found here and here. I will check my 1985 English Sacramentary when I get home to see if, perchance, they appear there as well. In any case, they appear in the new Sacramentary (which does not yet exist in English). See, if they are including the 1985 English Sacramentary, then I can simply point the priest to the mention there, rather than to some web site.

 

[Joysong]

Originally Posted by Uncle Norbert
What about retired priests who say mass alone at their home altar?

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
When Celebrating Mass Alone
ROME, 14 NOV. 2006 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Before entering into detail I wish to mention that some priests believe that this form of Mass with no faithful present is now forbidden. This is not the case. Indeed, present canon law, by requiring a just cause for celebrating alone, and no longer a grave cause as did the 1917 code, has actually made it easier to celebrate such a Mass even though it should always be seen as an exception and to be avoided whenever possible.

All the same, many priests have on some occasion been faced with the choice of celebrating alone, or not celebrating. *Both canon law and the law of grace recommend celebrating Mass as the better thing to do. *

 

[Joysong]

Japhy:

I do not think he called us up there in an act of defiance and disobedience but he simply didn’t know he was doing something he was not permitted to do.

Innocent until proven guilty … Amen! Isn’t that the position we wish our juries to take? And the position law enforcement officers follow? I commend you, for not everyone exercises that premise.

Is it wrong for me to want to educate him? I’m not attacking him, nor accusing him, nor vilifying him. I want to correct him, though, so he does not make the same mistake again. I’m trying to do this in charity.

I agree that it is not wrong to educate him, and since you are the only one in the group with ‘awareness,’ it falls to you to have a heart-to-heart … in charity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joysong
I would not be so bold to interpret the Notitiae, all inclusively, as a basis for condemning my priest, if this practice is continued after 1981 in small weekly assemblies.

I don’t see why the clarification by the CDW would not apply to smaller assemblies.

It may truly apply, but I would not want to put a rubber stamp on it without being certain. My place is not to judge without full knowledge.

 

[FAB]

Whenever I come to this site I am amazed at the legalism that permeates most of these threads. The to make a point they are in bold print and different colors.
Yes the GIRM is important and should be followed. But in a mass, the priest is the authority and if he feels that instead of having a small group of people stay 20 or 30 feet away it is approriate to have them come closer to the alter, seriously, what harm is done. Rules are important, but not more than bringing people to Christ. The apostles were chatstised by Christ for not letting the children come to him. We are still Gods’ children, why would we not want to take very opportunity to be closer to our savior?

Peace,
FAB

 

[japhy]

Yes the GIRM is important and should be followed. But in a mass, the priest is the authority and if he feels that instead of having a small group of people stay 20 or 30 feet away it is approriate to have them come closer to the alter, seriously, what harm is done. Rules are important, but not more than bringing people to Christ. The apostles were chatstised by Christ for not letting the children come to him. We are still Gods’ children, why would we not want to take very opportunity to be closer to our savior?

Why do you believe the priest has that authority?

 

[benedictgal]

Whenever I come to this site I am amazed at the legalism that permeates most of these threads. The to make a point they are in bold print and different colors.
Yes the GIRM is important and should be followed. But in a mass, the priest is the authority and if he feels that instead of having a small group of people stay 20 or 30 feet away it is approriate to have them come closer to the alter, seriously, what harm is done. Rules are important, but not more than bringing people to Christ. The apostles were chatstised by Christ for not letting the children come to him. We are still Gods’ children, why would we not want to take very opportunity to be closer to our savior?

Peace,
FAB

First of all, we’re talking about two very different things here, FAB. The Mass is not some sort of free-for-all experimentation in creativity. If you recall, God spelled out in detail to Moses exactly how He wanted to be worshipped, right down to the exact colors of the vestment, the precise measurement of the ark and the rituals and words.

Ritual is supremely important to worship. Every time Ancient Israel deviated from the form prescribed by God, terrible calamities visited them. The Church is the New Israel. Her form of worship has more in common with Ancient Israel. While it has a proclamation of the Word, it also has the Sacrificial element.

No one has the authority to add his own personal idiosyncracies and tastes to the Mass. Nor does the authority exist to ad lib and create new prayers. This is a fallacy that has been condemned repeatedly by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Most notably, Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses all of those problems that eminated when people followed the spirit of Vatican II than what the documents actually said.

 

[Brendan]

I also note that the Notitiae is a document that gives further interpretation the GIRM, which I have alluded to as being documentation additionally available to bishops and clergy beyond that which is stated ambiguously or omitted in the GIRM itself.

Do any of our CAF members who bring public charges of abuse to this forum have access to this or any other nonpublished document? I believe not. And that is the very point I have been making all along. Before anyone accuses the clergy of abuse, it is well to contact those in authority who have access to other interpretations of Church documents beyond one’s casual reading on an internet site!

Notatie is a the Official publication of the CDWDS. It the way that they make public any decisions they make in the intrepretation of Liturgical Law that they wish to make binding onto all.

And yes, I do subscribe to the english language version, which comes out quarterly.

My Canon Law professor required it for our class, and I have continued the subscription because it is rather interesting.

 

[FAB]

First of all, we’re talking about two very different things here, FAB. The Mass is not some sort of free-for-all experimentation in creativity. If you recall, God spelled out in detail to Moses exactly how He wanted to be worshipped, right down to the exact colors of the vestment, the precise measurement of the ark and the rituals and words.

Ritual is supremely important to worship. Every time Ancient Israel deviated from the form prescribed by God, terrible calamities visited them. The Church is the New Israel. Her form of worship has more in common with Ancient Israel. While it has a proclamation of the Word, it also has the Sacrificial element.

No one has the authority to add his own personal idiosyncracies and tastes to the Mass. Nor does the authority exist to ad lib and create new prayers. This is a fallacy that has been condemned repeatedly by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Most notably, Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses all of those problems that eminated when people followed the spirit of Vatican II than what the documents actually said.

With all due respect, you made my point. More important to follow the law, than to act pastorally. This was one of the reasons for Vatican II reforms, the church was acting as the Phaisees of old and not like sheperds, tending the needs of it’s people. I don’t believe the GIRM gives and exact footage to the distance that the faithfull should be from the alter. Some how, I don’t think this will bring down the biblical wrath of God. Remember, the Incarnation brought us a new covenate from the time of Moses.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Why do you believe the priest has that authority?

Because, the GIRM spells out many aspects of the celebration of the Liturgy, much interpetation is also left to the local bishop, but the priest does still have a certain amount of descretion in excercising his pastoral duties.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

With all due respect, you made my point. More important to follow the law, than to act pastorally. This was one of the reasons for Vatican II reforms, the church was acting as the Phaisees of old and not like sheperds, tending the needs of it’s people. I don’t believe the GIRM gives and exact footage to the distance that the faithfull should be from the alter. Some how, I don’t think this will bring down the biblical wrath of God. Remember, the Incarnation brought us a new covenate from the time of Moses.

Peace,
FAB

I don’t believe I made your point. In fact, I think that you’ve missed what I said entirely. You seem to think that we should adopt a free-form for the Mass where the priest can do as he pleases. It doesn’t work that way.

The Second Vatican Council never gave priests the authority to change the Mass. What you are doing is “reading into” what the Council said than actually reading what was written.

Yes, Jesus is the New Moses, but, we are very much descended from Ancient Israel. If someone from Ancient Israel were to come to a properly celebrated Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he would recognize many elements from the time of the Hebrews.