Yes, of course, the liturgy has evolved and continues to evolve, as witnessed by the new English-language missal coming out.I can easily understand how someone would argue for the greater or beauty or spirituality of certain Tridentine masses in comparison to certain Pauline masses. However, I’m pretty confused by the frequent assertion that the this older mass is “eternal” compared to the Pauline mass: I mean, didn’t the Tridentine mass undergo some changes from earlier forms as well (i.e., medieval rites)?
This is only my memory that I am working with here, so feel free everyone to correct me if I err. The Mass in the western Church had been for many many many 100 hundred years evry sinilar to the TLM. However, there had arose local customs that made a change here or there in wording, when to kneel, stand etc… what Trent did was codify and all western rites less that 300 years old I believe became illict. In other words this is how to celebrate the Mass, If you do it another way, that way had to be in use for over 300 yrs. Now that have been changes made to the TLM over the years since Trent, but they were be followed by all, not and not a regional change so as to create a new rite.I can easily understand how someone would argue for the greater or beauty or spirituality of certain Tridentine masses in comparison to certain Pauline masses. However, I’m pretty confused by the frequent assertion that the this older mass is “eternal” compared to the Pauline mass: I mean, didn’t the Tridentine mass undergo some changes from earlier forms as well (i.e., medieval rites)?
The canon of the Roman Rite was completely recast in the two centuries before pope Gregory the Great (590-604) by unknown hands for unknown reasons, hardly what one would consider “organic development”. According to the Franciscans, in the time of St. Francis the Roman Rite wasn’t even used in Rome except on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. While terms like “eternal” or “Mass of All Time” and “Mass of the Ages” are bandied about casually here, they really are misnomers.However, I’m pretty confused by the frequent assertion that the this older mass is “eternal” compared to the Pauline mass: I mean, didn’t the Tridentine mass undergo some changes from earlier forms as well (i.e., medieval rites)?
No such thing as a Tridentine Mass. An eternal Mass, by definition, goes all the way back to Christ. Of course, there’ll be always be some “changes” along the way, but it’s still the same Mass, especially where the canon is concerned. It’s just that no one ever called it “new” before.I mean, didn’t the Tridentine mass undergo some changes from earlier forms as well (i.e., medieval rites)?
Says who?No such thing as a Tridentine Mass.
No, “by definition” it would have to go back to the beginning of time. Since there is no such thing, there is no “eternal Mass,” except in a sort of fake, euphemistic sense.An eternal Mass, by definition, goes all the way back to Christ.
Why wouldn’t anonymous changes over period of two centuries or more be called “organic development?”The canon of the Roman Rite was completely recast in the two centuries before pope Gregory the Great (590-604) by unknown hands for unknown reasons, hardly what one would consider “organic development”.