The Mass

[bear06]

otm:

Nice comeback.

Yet another document, like Pastor Aeternus, that will be ignored!

 

[Confiteor]

I thought folks on both “sides” of this issue might like to hear what the current Pope (the Cardinal Ratzinger) had to say in his interview with Raymond Arroyo:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892288&T1=

(Requires RealPlayer)

Besides his insights, you’ll get a nice dose of his soft spoken, firm, and articulate style. He talks about the old Mass never having been abolished, the need for adherence to the norms in the new Mass, the contribution of the vernacular to people’s understanding and participation in the Mass, and the need to continue with the use of some Latin in the new Mass to reflect the universality of the Church…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

otm:

But would they “get it”?

Some wouldn’t have a clue. Some would consider it a nefarious modernist ploy to undercut their agenda. These would likely continue to frequent the various wildcat and/or schismatic Traditionalist chapels that scar our landscape.

Some would smile and realize God really does have a sense of humor.

 

[otm]

Catholic Heart:

While it is true that the Mass does not resemble the Baptist service, or the services of non-denominational evangelitcal churches, it DOES resemble the Luteran, Methodist, the Episcopalian and to some degree the Presbyterian services. Execpt for the Euraristic Prayer, you could drop any of these servides into the Mass, and you would feel comfortable.

When I fist became a Catholic, on of my first observations were: Wow…The Catholic Church has become Protestant…I felt very much at home, because the Mass so closely resembled the Lutheran and Methodist churches I was used to…Even though the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Chruch do not have communin weekly (as the Chruch of Christ does), the other parts of their service are much like the Mass…The Protestant influence on the NOM is unmistakeable…

No, the Protestant (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran) services look like the Catholic Mass.

The Protestants adopted the readings which the Church was and is using. They are going on the Lectionary format the Catholics have. It isn’t that the Catholics adopted what the Protestants had - they didn’t have the 3 year cycle of readings. We added to the Mass with the Pauline rite and they adopted what we then had.

 

[otm]

bear06:

Yet another document, like Pastor Aeternus, that will be ignored!

Of course.

The far end liberals decided long ago that the Church needed to be reconstructed from the ground up - or the parish up; and have ignored almsot everything since they went ballistic over Humanae Vitae.

and the Conservatives, particularly the arch conservatives, igonre anything that comes out that causes any dissonance with their preconceieved preConciliar view of the Church, as the Church is now “infected” by the liberals.

Strange how theological discussions in the Church seem to resemble political discussions about the national political scene; a tremendous amount of heat and invective and no light.

 

[bear06]

and the Conservatives, particularly the arch conservatives, igonre anything that comes out that causes any dissonance with their preconceieved preConciliar view of the Church, as the Church is now “infected” by the liberals.

Yes, but a radical traditionalist should love PA and MD because they are both pre-Vatican II documents. However, like the liberals, they pick and choose which documents they will pay attention to instead of taking the whole lot of them. They don’t like ones that destroy their arguments.

 

[Confiteor]

otm:

No, the Protestant (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran) services look like the Catholic Mass.

The Protestants adopted the readings which the Church was and is using. They are going on the Lectionary format the Catholics have. It isn’t that the Catholics adopted what the Protestants had - they didn’t have the 3 year cycle of readings. We added to the Mass with the Pauline rite and they adopted what we then had.

This sounds correct from what I’ve read of the council. As I understand it, though, the reason some of the changes were made at/after VII were to make the Catholic liturgy more palatable to the Protestant groups… Certainly, that may have had some positive effects in terms of ecumenism. But it also means that the Catholic liturgy has lost some of its distinctiveness —at least in terms of externals—which is why some Protestants conclude that there isn’t that much difference between their faith and ours. (One thing I have observed is a lot of Protestant converts to the faith who seem to be a little intimidated by the notion of Latin masses because they fear they would not understand what is going on…Perhaps if more parishes adhered to the requirements of Sacrosanctum Concilium to retain Latin for some of the ordinary parts of the Mass, this would be less of an issue. )

To the extent that the changes in the Mass prayers obscure that the Mass is a sacrifice, that the hymns/songs sung sometimes present erroneous doctrine, and that the typical new Mass does not manifest the sense of the transcendent that should be present, we did lose something in the bargain. And that’s before you take into account liturgical abuses which can be substantial. Most of us are not well catechized enough to be able to sort through all of that and still articulate our faith clearly.

 

[AJV]

MrS:

very limited??? Gee, I thought the Mass consisted of the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The nine points mentioned that I “bought into” deal with both.

Perhaps “unlimited” would/should include all the abuses started by “people who lack much understanding of the Mass” from any perspective. Persistence, not correctness, has made those abuses norms

My comments were bases on the Latin Rite… I had no intention to address my “unfamiliarity with eastern ritesa… as well as multitude of practices within the Protestant world…”

But Sir, you stated:
1-service in the vernacular (Catholic was in Latin)
2-the liturgy was/is all audible (Catholic mostly inaudible)
3-three readings (Catholic two readings)
4-use of lay readers (Catholic no lay readers)
5-meal served on a table facing the congregation (Catholic on an altar leading the people)
6-receive communion standing, (Catholic much kneeling, including communion)
7-communion in the hand (Catholic on the tongue)
8-communion under both kinds (Catholics one kind)
9-no or little real reference to Real Presence (Catholics frequent reference to Real Presence)

Comparing it with the local Coptic church- the service is in Arabic (the vernacular), mostly audible and they have three readings (what’s wrong with that anyway?? ) They recive Communion in both kinds standing. They don’t receive in the hand but some of the Assyrians do.

5)Behold the liturgy of St. James as celebrated in a Greek Orthodox Church (okay their liturgies are not celebrated very often like that, but still…)

So… what does the NO resemble ???

An Orthodox Liturgy?

yikes! just realised …

That means the Protestants are Orthodox!!

 

[AJV]

Confiteor:

This sounds correct from what I’ve read of the council. As I understand it, though, the reason some of the changes were made at/after VII were to make the Catholic liturgy more palatable to the Protestant groups… Certainly, that may have had some positive effects in terms of ecumenism. But it also means that the Catholic liturgy has lost some of its distinctiveness —at least in terms of externals—which is why some Protestants conclude that there isn’t that much difference between their faith and ours. (One thing I have observed is a lot of Protestant converts to the faith who seem to be a little intimidated by the notion of Latin masses because they fear they would not understand what is going on…Perhaps if more parishes adhered to the requirements of Sacrosanctum Concilium to retain Latin for some of the ordinary parts of the Mass, this would be less of an issue. )

To the extent that the changes in the Mass prayers obscure that the Mass is a sacrifice, that the hymns/songs sung sometimes present erroneous doctrine, and that the typical new Mass does not manifest the sense of the transcendent that should be present, we did lose something in the bargain. And that’s before you take into account liturgical abuses which can be substantial. Most of us are not well catechized enough to be able to sort through all of that and still articulate our faith clearly.

If so, it doesn’t seem to be having much of an effect. Most Protestants converts I know (and I’m one of them) converted to the Church out of a love for Catholic doctrine-not because it was softened.

Seriously…can you imagine ANY Protestant saying “…and therefore I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin…to pray for me to the Lord our God”.

The only people likely to do something like that will be high Lutherans or Anglicans. And anyway, before the council some of them said the Tridentine mass is English. If these have switched to saying the Pauline Rite, as some posters seem to have asserted, then either (1) they are just imitating Rome (2) they feel it expresses the doctrine of the Real Presence and Sacrifice of the Mass adequately.

 

[otm]

Confiteor:

This sounds correct from what I’ve read of the council. As I understand it, though, the reason some of the changes were made at/after VII were to make the Catholic liturgy more palatable to the Protestant groups… Certainly, that may have had some positive effects in terms of ecumenism. But it also means that the Catholic liturgy has lost some of its distinctiveness —at least in terms of externals—which is why some Protestants conclude that there isn’t that much difference between their faith and ours. (One thing I have observed is a lot of Protestant converts to the faith who seem to be a little intimidated by the notion of Latin masses because they fear they would not understand what is going on…Perhaps if more parishes adhered to the requirements of Sacrosanctum Concilium to retain Latin for some of the ordinary parts of the Mass, this would be less of an issue. )

To the extent that the changes in the Mass prayers obscure that the Mass is a sacrifice, that the hymns/songs sung sometimes present erroneous doctrine, and that the typical new Mass does not manifest the sense of the transcendent that should be present, we did lose something in the bargain. And that’s before you take into account liturgical abuses which can be substantial. Most of us are not well catechized enough to be able to sort through all of that and still articulate our faith clearly.

Again, I would join with other posters to ask for some citation somewhere, other than from radical traditionalist background, that says that the changes post Vatican 2 - that is, the Pauline rite - were made for any accomodation to the Protestants as a whole, or any subset(s) of them. I know of none.

The readings were expanded to do several things; first, to provide more material from the Gospels, and second, to pull in the Old Testament, which foretold of Christ’s coming, and which so often paralells what Christ teaches. The theme of the OT reading is brought to conclusion in the Gospel reading consistently throughout the three year cycle. This wasn’t done because of some Protestant group doing it (they weren’t), but because they Council wanted the Church to get even more immersed in the Bible; it is, after all, our book.

As to the issue of obscuring the sacrificial aspect, there are two aspects: sacrifice and sacred meal. Some see that any emphasis on the sacred meal aspect as an obscuring of the scrificial aspect; others see it as providing more balance to two legitimate aspects of the Mass and Eucharist.

Have we lost some sapects of the transendence of God? Yes. Have we emphasized some aspects of the immanence of God? Yes. Are the two in conflict? Some believe so, but they are both aspects of our understanding of God. I would agree that at times there has been a loss of reverence, and would whole-heartedly recommend getting back to that. I would suspect that a return to reverence would probbly deal with the immanence/transcendence issue reasonably well, however.

I also suspect that your comment about catechesis may be the most critical; with a strong understanding of the faith a lot of this either seems to fall into place, or perhaps be of less significance to the main objective - worshiping God.

 

[GWS]

thistle:

From the reading I have done around 150 A.D. Saint Justin described a celebration of the Eucharist that closely resembles today’s Mass and in essence the Mass we have now is actually a return to what was done in the early days of the Church up until 1570. It seems to me that the 400 year Latin Mass was celebrated for only 20% of our Church’s history and the Mass we have now (since Vatican II) is a return to the traditional Mass celebrated for 80% of our history.

Now that’s interesting!

Is there anything online where we can read more about this as you have?

 

[GWS]

Dropper:

I hear that there might be big news on this front come November 19.

Where have you read this? I’ve been awaiting word on a possible “universal indult” for the Tridentine rite Mass, as have many people. I’ve heard and read a few things in this regard myself, but where did you get the date of November 19 from?

 

[thistle]

GWS:

Now that’s interesting!

Is there anything online where we can read more about this as you have?

Its not online. The part about St Justin describing a Mass closely resembling the one celebrated today is in a course I’m doing from the Catholic Home Study Service.
Details of the various courses are at website:

www.amm.org/chss/chss.htm

The one I am currently doing is the “We Believe” course.

 

[bear06]

GWS:

Where have you read this? I’ve been awaiting word on a possible “universal indult” for the Tridentine rite Mass, as have many people. I’ve heard and read a few things in this regard myself, but where did you get the date of November 19 from?

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.htm

probably from the same site that said that sspx was going to reunite with rome. sorry for the lower case. spilled on the keyboard and the shift won’t work.