Theology behind two Forms of the Roman Rite?

[phil19034]

It seems to me that questions like “What is the liturgy for/about?” are theological in nature. They aren’t matters of dogma/doctrine hence people can disagree about them in good faith, but that doesn’t make them non-theological.

And it seems to me like there is an obvious difference between how the two forms answer “What is the liturgy for/about?” – indeed the whole point of the liturgical reform was that we’d supposedly gotten it wrong.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think this is different theology. Our beliefs and the reasons behind the liturgy didn’t change. The reform was not to fix anything that was “wrong.” Nothing was wrong. There was nothing wrong with the 1962 Mass and there was nothing wrong with the Mass used in 50 AD.

However, the Mass does change over time to address current needs of the people. If this was not the case, Catholics and Orthodox would all be using the same liturgy used at the very first Mass after Pentecost.

Read these two Masses from the 60-69 AD

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

The theology looks pretty much the same and I can tell these are Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

Read these two Masses from the 60-69 AD

Thanks for the links. Interesting times they were as the Gospels were still being written.

 

[johnmann]

Maybe but who would do it?

Ecclesia Dei was supposed to look into updating the EF calendar.

 

[Digitonomy]

In some parts of Africa, the Zaire Use was and still is rarely used today since the 1970s.

Although there may have been experiments with it earlier, I don’t think it was officially promulgated until the late 1980s. AFAIK, it is widely used today not just in the DR Congo, but in some surrounding countries as well.