SPLIT: History of Celebration of the Mass

[AlanF]

It is my opinion that the cathedral is quite nice. 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. This experience also promotes a general feeling of community, which so many Catholic churches (especially) today lack. I think that it is wonderful that a new cathedral church should be built in a way that is in accordance with Vatican II, and I think that it is wonderful that a cathedral, the leading parish in a diocese, should be taking the steps to make a parish more accessible to all that come to it. Catholicism is today more than ever becoming extremely conservative, glorifying the liturgy (especially the Latin Rite) instead of glorifying the act of the communion, in which Christ invites ALL to participate, not just the priest or the altar servers (as seen in pre-Vatican II times).

I don’t believe this is more like how the early church celebrated Mass at all. During the persecutions tombs in the catacombs were oftern used as altars, these were mostly built into the wall. From the time after the persecutions some of the oldest churchs exist in Rome, these have altars at the front with the congregation facing towards it.

I think it’s wrong to be making ourselves the centre of the liturgy like this, instead of the Holy Sacrifice. It makes a man centred faith, rather than a gad centred faith. As the Church developed in her understanding of the Mass the altar became a high altar and priest and cengregation all faced the same way, this is not degredation, this is improvement as the Church understands the Mass more.

Christ invites all to participate as you said, we all join our prayers to the priest at the altar, we all pray together through the liturgy. It is only the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice however, we as the congregation cannot offer the Sacrifice, we are not ordained so it is wrong to make ourselves equal to the priest in the Mass.

Furthermore, I do not believe for a second that Vatican II said everyone must gather around the altar like this. Vatican II was about christianity sticking to it’s traditions and liturgy during this time of upheaval, it said latin must be retained as the principal language of the liturgy and gregorian chant should have pride of place. Perhaps this sort of cathedral is in accordance with the liberal “progressivists” who hijacked Vatican II afterwards but certainly not with actual Vatican II.

Glorifying the liturgy is glorifying the act of Communion. The liturgy is not any worship, it preparation for Communion and the Holy Sacrifice, it should be done with utmost reverence. It also shapes how we believe, if we have a man centred liturgy we are likely to have a man centred faith &c. Some call this Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.

I would say that the downfall of the liturgy in the past 40 years it one of the main reasons for the crisis in the Church in the past 40 years. (Along with the downfall of education in the Faith)

GB,
Alan.

 

[cholman]

I don’t believe this is more like how the early church celebrated Mass at all. During the persecutions tombs in the catacombs were oftern used as altars, these were mostly built into the wall. From the time after the persecutions some of the oldest churchs exist in Rome, these have altars at the front with the congregation facing towards it.

I think it’s wrong to be making ourselves the centre of the liturgy like this, instead of the Holy Sacrifice. It makes a man centred faith, rather than a gad centred faith. As the Church developed in her understanding of the Mass the altar became a high altar and priest and cengregation all faced the same way, this is not degredation, this is improvement as the Church understands the Mass more.

Christ invites all to participate as you said, we all join our prayers to the priest at the altar, we all pray together through the liturgy. It is only the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice however, we as the congregation cannot offer the Sacrifice, we are not ordained so it is wrong to make ourselves equal to the priest in the Mass.

Furthermore, I do not believe for a second that Vatican II said everyone must gather around the altar like this. Vatican II was about christianity sticking to it’s traditions and liturgy during this time of upheaval, it said latin must be retained as the principal language of the liturgy and gregorian chant should have pride of place. Perhaps this sort of cathedral is in accordance with the liberal “progressivists” who hijacked Vatican II afterwards but certainly not with actual Vatican II.

Glorifying the liturgy is glorifying the act of Communion. The liturgy is not any worship, it preparation for Communion and the Holy Sacrifice, it should be done with utmost reverence. It also shapes how we believe, if we have a man centred liturgy we are likely to have a man centred faith &c. Some call this Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.

I would say that the downfall of the liturgy in the past 40 years it one of the main reasons for the crisis in the Church in the past 40 years. (Along with the downfall of education in the Faith)

GB,
Alan.

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.

 

[Dicerning]

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

This sounds like cafeteria Catholicism. (picking and choosing according to one’s OWN personal “feelings” instead of GOd’s)
That is so mainstream…We do it with everything we find hard. “Marriage? Well if I see my spouse changing to what I don’t like I will just switch to another”. etc. etc. etc.

Based on what you say about “converting away” from the ONE TRUE church makes me wonder what your beliefs on Catholicism ARE.
IS it the ONE TRUE faith established by God to follow? If you believe this really true then you just publicly stated online that you would voluntarily consign yourself to Hell for ever because you don’t like the “old Mass”

OR Is the church one of Many equal paths to GOd? If this is your true belief then you really need to accept the “old Mass” as one of those many paths. Also if you believe this then you certainly picked an unpopular “religion” to belong to.

Oh and about those cobwebs of the 50? Certainly you are referring to the cobwebs of the 50’s you certainly mean the 1550’s, 1650’s,1750’s, 1850’s and 1950’s…RIGHT? SInce the "mass had been the same all 5 of those centuries.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

abc

 

[cholman]

This sounds like cafeteria Catholicism. (picking and choosing according to one’s OWN personal “feelings” instead of GOd’s)
That is so mainstream…We do it with everything we find hard. “Marriage? Well if I see my spouse changing to what I don’t like I will just switch to another”. etc. etc. etc.

Based on what you say about “converting away” from the ONE TRUE church makes me wonder what your beliefs on Catholicism ARE.
IS it the ONE TRUE faith established by God to follow? If you believe this really true then you just publicly stated online that you would voluntarily consign yourself to Hell for ever because you don’t like the “old Mass”

OR Is the church one of Many equal paths to GOd? If this is your true belief then you really need to accept the “old Mass” as one of those many paths. Also if you believe this then you certainly picked an unpopular “religion” to belong to.

Oh and about those cobwebs of the 50? Certainly you are referring to the cobwebs of the 50’s you certainly mean the 1550’s, 1650’s,1750’s, 1850’s and 1950’s…RIGHT? SInce the "mass had been the same all 5 of those centuries.

First of all, the Catholic Church declared in the Second Vatican Council that it is not the ONE TRUE Church, and all forms of Christianity can attain salvation (Catholics just have advantages by the sacraments, that’s all). Second, I accept Catholic teachings, and I love the Church! However, the liturgy is extremely important to me; the Church today portrays itself as a welcoming community, helping everyone achieve a personal relationship with Christ. However, the tridentine mass does not accomplish this goal (especially a personal relationship) because there is so little participation by the congregation. I’m not “consigning myself to hell” by this, I’m simply stating that the Catholic Church needs to portray itself accurately. (Also, I referred to the 1950’s because it is the most relatable time to modern day Catholics.) Essentially, I chose a faith that I thought would bring me closer to God. It’s like anything else: if the conditions of a job, for example, change in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable or upset in an irreparable way, then you should quit that job and find another that is like it, without the previous’ disadvantages. (Please understand, though, that all analogies break down at some point, and I’m not saying by any means that religion is a job)

 

[muffinmojo]

First, let me say I converted to Catholicism after seeing videos of the EF Mass on youtube, and attending Mass at a parish which follows the rubrics of the GIRM for the OF.

Who says just because it was done in the very early Church, it was good? This is nonsensical. Is there no room for progress? Natural evolution and development? The very first Mass had only priests present, alone in a room. Does that mean that Masses now should be celebrated by a collection of priests, locked away in a room, who then bring out the consecrated Hosts? Of course not. The liturgy develops and grows, coming in to itself and becoming better at what it is meant for; to bring people to God.

You say you don’t like the idea of Mass being the ‘peasants coming before a king(God) with the priest as the intermediary’. That is the entire point of Mass. God IS our king, He IS infinitely greater than us, and we ARE worms in His presence. The point of having a priest is to be an intermediary between God and man. That is the whole idea of sacraments. God is glorifying us, who are nothing in His sight (‘Remember you are dust, and unto dust you shall return’), by providing us with His grace.

This is not something that is about Of vs EF. This is the theology of the Mass, in any form. If you disagree about this, then you are not simply a ‘progressive’ liturgist, you are in disagreement with the Church. =\

 

[thistle]

I don’t believe this is more like how the early church celebrated Mass at all. During the persecutions tombs in the catacombs were oftern used as altars, these were mostly built into the wall. From the time after the persecutions some of the oldest churchs exist in Rome, these have altars at the front with the congregation facing towards it.

I think it’s wrong to be making ourselves the centre of the liturgy like this, instead of the Holy Sacrifice. It makes a man centred faith, rather than a gad centred faith. As the Church developed in her understanding of the Mass the altar became a high altar and priest and cengregation all faced the same way, this is not degredation, this is improvement as the Church understands the Mass more.

Christ invites all to participate as you said, we all join our prayers to the priest at the altar, we all pray together through the liturgy. It is only the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice however, we as the congregation cannot offer the Sacrifice, we are not ordained so it is wrong to make ourselves equal to the priest in the Mass.

Furthermore, I do not believe for a second that Vatican II said everyone must gather around the altar like this. Vatican II was about christianity sticking to it’s traditions and liturgy during this time of upheaval, it said latin must be retained as the principal language of the liturgy and gregorian chant should have pride of place. Perhaps this sort of cathedral is in accordance with the liberal “progressivists” who hijacked Vatican II afterwards but certainly not with actual Vatican II.

Glorifying the liturgy is glorifying the act of Communion. The liturgy is not any worship, it preparation for Communion and the Holy Sacrifice, it should be done with utmost reverence. It also shapes how we believe, if we have a man centred liturgy we are likely to have a man centred faith &c. Some call this Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.

I would say that the downfall of the liturgy in the past 40 years it one of the main reasons for the crisis in the Church in the past 40 years. (Along with the downfall of education in the Faith)

GB,
Alan.

Sorry but can you stop with all the different font colours. It makes reading your posts very hard on the eyes.

 

[byers]

Try reading How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr James Meagher. It’s available at amazon and some Catholic book stores. Although a little dated (1911) it has a wealth of information on where and how all the various customs came into being and explanations of the Jewish rites in the days of Christ which will explain much that has seemed mysterious.

 

[quiet52]

from cholman:
First of all, the Catholic Church declared in the Second Vatican Council that it is not the ONE TRUE Church, and all forms of Christianity can attain salvation (Catholics just have advantages by the sacraments, that’s all).

You are misinformed. There is but one set of truths revealed by Jesus, which are preserved and proclaimed by the one true Church He established – the Catholic Church.

We acknowledge those truths that non-Catholics hold, which we also believe, but Catholics must believe that we are the one true Church, holding the fullest deposit of God’s revelation.

Please refer to the document Dominus Iesus. Here are some excerpts:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

1. In the course of the centuries, the Church has proclaimed and witnessed with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus. At the close of the second millennium, however, this mission is still far from complete.2 For that reason, Saint Paul’s words are now more relevant than ever: “Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium’s particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world.3

In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive approach, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions states: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.4 Continuing in this line of thought, the Church’s proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”.5 Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission,6 requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.7

[edited]

 

[quiet52]

(continued)

1. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church’s faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.

Such a position is in radical contradiction with the foregoing statements of Catholic faith according to which the full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God is given in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the words, deeds, and entire historical event of Jesus, though limited as human realities, have nevertheless the divine Person of the Incarnate Word, “true God and true man”13 as their subject. For this reason, they possess in themselves the definitiveness and completeness of the revelation of God’s salvific ways, even if the depth of the divine mystery in itself remains transcendent and inexhaustible. The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God. Thus, faith requires us to profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire mystery, who moves from incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as well as the fulfilment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity,14 and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, will teach this “entire truth” (Jn 16:13) to the Apostles and, through them, to the whole Church.

III. UNICITY AND UNIVERSALITY
OF THE SALVIFIC MYSTERY OF JESUS CHRIST

1. The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith.

The New Testament attests to this fact with clarity: “The Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world” (1 Jn 4:14); “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). In his discourse before the Sanhedrin, Peter, in order to justify the healing of a man who was crippled from birth, which was done in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:1-8), proclaims: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). St. Paul adds, moreover, that Jesus Christ “is Lord of all”, “judge of the living and the dead”, and thus “whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10: 36,42,43).

Paul, addressing himself to the community of Corinth, writes: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:5-6). Furthermore, John the Apostle states: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:4-6).

It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:3-14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfilment of salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time, which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviours. This inheritance of faith has been recalled recently by the Church’s Magisterium: “The Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all (cf. 2 Cor 5:15) can, through his Spirit, give man the light and the strength to be able to respond to his highest calling, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved (cf. Acts 4:12). The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre, and the purpose of the whole of man’s history is to be found in its Lord and Master”.42

continued

 

[quiet52]

(continued)

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. … Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

continued

 

[benedictgal]

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.

Actually, regarding your point about the liturgy of the early Church, there is a heresy called “liturgical archeologism” that states, if memory serves that:

“[One] would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as as a color for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Church; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer’s Body shows no trace of his cruel sufferings.”

You seem to not understand why the Church infuses her Liturgy with beauty. Nothing but the best should be given to God. If you recall, the Lord spent significant pages in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus detailing just how He should be worshipped. The vessels and sacred vestments used for the sacrifice (which would prefigure Jesus’ own sacrifice and his Eternal Priesthood) had to be of the highest quality. In other words, the vessels had to be made of gold and the vestments of the finest material. Loving the Triune God means that we must offer Him a pleasing and acceptable sacrifice which includes the finest materials we have and the best disposition possible (pure and contrite hearts).

Unfortunately, the kind of liturgy that you are describing is the kind that the Secretary for the Congergation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, notes should not be the case:

“To celebrate in spirit and in truth” of 1992. It affirmed: “Rhythm, order and style, three terms that belong by right to the art of celebrating, because they belong to the reign of every art and to the great reign of the language of communication. They express the rule of beauty, the measure by which perfection is measured, the completeness of that which is fully realized and of that which is perfectly expressed. They express the yearning of every artistic initiation and every vision of beauty” [Translated from – To Celebrate in Spirit and in Truth,
Rome 1992, p. 139].

Thus, with time this expression assumed a profoundly anthropological orientation. It entered liturgical vocabulary as something that expresses the necessary human action in Liturgy. In a socio-cultural context that tends to reduce the importance given to the role of the divine in human life and which gives pride of place to that which is essentially human and “this worldly”, the danger in positing a so called art of celebrating, to liturgy, in a purely humanistic sense is not minimal. Indeed, if Ars Celebrandi is to be understood as something based on human skills only, then, we have missed the point altogether. Whatever serves as the foundation for creative human art and skills, cannot be ipso facto transferred to Liturgy. But in some circles any acceptance of the term ars celebrandi is interpreted to mean a glorification of a sense of horizontalism.

I would urge you to read the Spirit of the Liturgy written by Pope Benedict XVI. That might give you some powerful insight as to why the Church does what she does in her treatment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[quiet52]

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS
IN RELATION TO SALVATION

1. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82

1. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”.86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.89

continued

 

[quiet52]

continued

1. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.93 One understands then that, following the Lord’s command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life”.94

CONCLUSION

1. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.

In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.99

The revelation of Christ will continue to be “the true lodestar” 100 in history for all humanity: “The truth, which is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority”. 101 The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family: “From their different locations and traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God’s children… Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: ‘You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the household of God’ (Eph 2:19)”. 102

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

Seem to detect a note of “Neocatechumenalism”.

 

[AJV]

Try reading How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr James Meagher. It’s available at amazon and some Catholic book stores. Although a little dated (1911) it has a wealth of information on where and how all the various customs came into being and explanations of the Jewish rites in the days of Christ which will explain much that has seemed mysterious.

I would not recommend the book (sorry if the tone of this sounds pompous) because it is very inaccurate and thus may open the practice itself to ridicule. It is a pious book but not historical - the reverend author instead very often superimposes a late Latin liturgy onto the Last Supper.

 

[benedictgal]

I would also recommend reading Mediator Dei, the encyclical written by Pope Pius XII as it addresses some of what one of the posters questioned.

One quote from the encyclical sounds as though Pope Pius XII is speaking to us when he writes that:

1. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.

Pope Pius XII also makes an observation that has been made repeatedly throughout these threads:

1. Thus we observe that when God institutes the Old Law, He makes provision besides for sacred rites, and determines in exact detail the rules to be observed by His people in rendering Him the worship He ordains. To this end He established various kinds of sacrifice and designated the ceremonies with which they were to be offered to Him. His enactments on all matters relating to the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple and the holy days are minute and clear. He established a sacerdotal tribe with its high priest, selected and described the vestments with which the sacred ministers were to be clothed, and every function in any way pertaining to divine worship.[11] Yet this was nothing more than a faint foreshadowing[12] of the worship which the High Priest of the New Testament was to render to the Father in heaven.

What God mandated in the Old Testament, He brought to fulfillment in the New Testament. Furthermore, if we carefully examine the parts of the Mass and the use of sacred vessels and vestments, we will find similarities to the way Ancient Israel worshipped. What some may forget is the fact that the Church is the New Israel.

He makes another point, which, I believe, traces the history and understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

1. Liturgical practice begins with the very founding of the Church. The first Christians, in fact, “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.”[23] Whenever their pastors can summon a little group of the faithful together, they set up an altar on which they proceed to offer the sacrifice, and around which are ranged all the other rites appropriate for the saving of souls and for the honor due to God…Next comes the reading of the Law, the prophets, the gospel and the apostolic epistles; and last of all the homily or sermon in which the official head of the congregation recalls and explains the practical bearing of the commandments of the divine Master and the chief events of His life, combining instruction with appropriate exhortation and illustration of the benefit of all his listeners.

1. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, “that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it.”[25] … She (the Church) gathers all Christians about her altars, inviting and urging them repeatedly to take part in the celebration of the Mass, feeding them with the Bread of angels to make them ever stronger.

…23. The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior. It is exterior because the nature of man as a composite of body and soul requires it to be so. Likewise, because divine Providence has disposed that “while we recognize God visibly, we may be drawn by Him to love of things unseen.”[26] Every impulse of the human heart, besides, expresses itself naturally through the senses; and the worship of God, being the concern not merely of individuals but of the whole community of mankind, must therefore be social as well. This obviously it cannot be unless religious activity is also organized and manifested outwardly. Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: “for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their won right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion. They provide instruction for simple folk, decoration for divine worship, continuity of religious practice. They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts.”[27*]

This is a document that still speaks clearly to us even 62 years later.

 

[benedictgal]

For those who seem to advocate going back to earlier times, Pope Pius XII notes, in Mediator Dei, that:

1. 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.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

1. 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.

1. 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.

You can find the conplete encyclical by following this link:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

Pope Pius’ words certainly ring true today.

 

[ASD]

I would also recommend reading Mediator Dei, the encyclical written by Pope Pius XII as it addresses some of what one of the posters questioned…This is a document that still speaks clearly to us even 62 years later.

Pope Pius’ words certainly ring true today

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

 

[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.

**The masses during early Christianity were also celebrated in anticipation of martyrdom (a risk that today is on the rise).

The background of early Christianity also had abdominal surgery without anesthetic, high infant mortality, and women dying in childbirth.

Do you want to be like early Christianity in these ways?

Or do you just pick and choose what you like about “early Christianity”?**