SPLIT: History of Celebration of the Mass

[benedictgal]

I agree.

However, I have been under the impression that Mediator Dei has been superceded, or something similar. For example, the quoted items 61 to 64 about “antiquarianism” have been completely ignored since 1964 or so, right?

So, what is the status of Mediator Dei? Is it something that can be read or cited as current, as guidance for us?

TIA. ASD​

On the Sacred Liturgy

I believe that we could read Mediator Dei much as we would the Motu Propio that Pope St. Pius X on Sacred Music. A lot of what both Supreme Pontiffs wrote is certainly still true today. The attitudes that Pope Piux XII described the faithful ol having regarding the Mass are eerily similar to what is happening today.

Inasmuch as we do have some resourcement, if you will, in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy (a fruit of the Second Vatican Council), it is not done to the extent that is advocated by the poster to whom I was responding when I wrote my initial post on this thread. You can only take that argument so far before you get to the point that the Neocatechumenal Way go to before Pope Benedict XVI had to personally intervene. Recall that one of the tenents of the Neocatechumenal Way was a return to the early Church, especially as far as the Mass was concerned.

 

[japhy]

early Christianity … the very beginnings in the religious communities … this early time … the mass as the early Christians celebrated it … bring Christianity back to its roots

Compare those to:

people who just wanted their religion to dust off the cobwebs of the '50’s

So the Mass as celebrated in the 1950’s is covered in cobwebs… what does that say about the Mass as celebrated in AD 50?!

And as for your comment concerning “the performance of music”, the pop-concert atmosphere of many Protestant services (and several Catholic liturgies, especially those designed for youths) seems more conducive to the “performance” mentality you are referring to. I think the people attending Masses with chant and polyphony know they’re not at a “concert” or a “performance”.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The thing that I like most about this church and many new cathedrals (Our Lady of the Angels in LA, for example) is that the mass is celebrated “in the round” (there are pews all around the altar). I believe that this is how the masses during early Christianity were celebrated.

**I forgot to mention there were NO SEATS (except possibly for the bishop and presbyters) in “early Christianity.”

Obviously, they are not willing to conform to “early Christianity” in this regard.

And the evidence suggests that men and women were separated.**

 

[palmas85]

Well, you bring up some interesting points. When talking about early Christianity, I refer to the very beginnings in the religious communities before the persecutions had begun. During this early time, the mass was an actual feast, and everyone gathered around a table to celebrate.

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about high altars, because I feel that their use tends to lead us back to the middle ages, where we are like peasants to a king (God), and the priest is like an intermediary between the two. Because of this, the mass itself becomes like some dark mystery, simply because we the congregation cannot see what is going on.

While it is true that we cannot offer the sacrifice, I feel that it is necessary that we do respond to the sacrifice because religion itself is a very personal thing. The mass that appeared after the Council of Trent certainly was not even a semi-accurate representation of the mass as the early Christians celebrated it, simply because the congregation does so little.

Vatican II was conceived to bring Christianity back to its roots, and as I said above, many early masses were celebrated around an actual table. I never said that Vatican II specifically mentioned round churches (although I would venture to say Pius VI would agree with them). However, a greater sense of community was one of the goals of the Council, and I believe that this style of mass accomplishes this goal to a certain extent.

As for the liturgy, the liturgy is glorifying the eucharist as you said, but the manner in which this is done is sometimes far too overdone. I refer to the elaborate vestments, the downright gaudy chalices, the performance of music, and unnecessary acts, such as a master of ceremonies escorting the readers to the ambo, as ways of detracting from the mass itself. It is important for the mass to be reverent, but we need to just cut out all the extra stuff that makes the mass too overdone.

Furthermore, I believe that the new liturgy has become one of the most wonderful things about Catholicism. The liturgy has become an attracting point for so many people who just wanted their religion to dust off the cobwebs of the '50’s. As a convert myself, I can easily say that if the tridentine mass were put into affect again, I would most certainly convert away from Catholicism.

Several years ago I brought forth the opinion that many of todays converts would not have converted years ago for the very reason you say that you would leave the Church. I was roundly criticized bashed insulted and generally assumed to be a pharisee for even thinking such a thing.

Now you have proven my point. Thanks.

[edited]