**SORRY BUT:
It might be better to say that the Protestants retained a certain amount of Catholic ceremonial. I’m pretty certain Martin Luther wasn’t “copying” Catholicism; at least from his point of view, he was keeping the stuff that was worthwhile and excising the questionable material. The English Reformers seem to have felt the same way.
I see the issue of Protestant observers thrown up repeatedly, as if they were participants rather than observers; the issue is a red herring. And I disagree that the changes in the Mass were an attempt to attract the Protestants (numbers wise it makes absolutely no sense, since a very, very small minority of Protestants are what could be called high liturgy). Rather, the changes in the Mass were an attempt, rightly or wrongly, to get back to a Mass which was closer to the foundations of the Church (and don’t bother sending me comments allegedly made by Bugninni). We can all agree that the change was abrupt, not organic, and has been troubled further by a large number of priests who considered rubrics to be suggestions.
As above, I disagree - it was an attempt to peel off some of the accretions over the centuries and move closer to the earlier Mass, long before Trent. Whether it succeeded, and whether that was appropriate can be and has been argued for something like 40 years now.
Well, the high Lutheran and Anglican services were a lot like the EF, because they retained aspects of Trid ceremonial (ad orientem, processions, etc). But lower-church Lutheran and Anglican services were different. I can’t speak much to the Lutheran angle, but the practice for low-church Anglican Eucharists was to read the service from the north end of the altar in a Geneva gown with tippets and a black scarf. Genuflections, Sanctus bells, etc were eschewed in favor of strict adherence to Prayer Book rubrics (except the Ornaments Rubric, of course). The bulk of the Canon in the 1662 BCP is actually read after the congregation has communicated.
***What your sharring is certainly true; however this is after nearly 1600 of tears, years, and proof that the Mass [at least] worked! The CC had become the dominate Faith even in a somewhat free enterprise zone.
Sincere thanks for sharring this information.
As I thought. Thank you for the information.
Part of what was done in shaping the OF was to remove repetitive parts, part was to remove accretions. However, not all changes resulting in the OF were removals; Scripture was increased both in terms of readings (by adding Old Testament readings paralleling the Gospel ) and by increasing the cycle to three years to cover more Gospel readings. And I disagree that by remioving accretions and repetitions, that we are “protestantizing” anything. That leaves one only two chioices: leave the Ef as it was say, in 1960, or add further accretions and repetitions. The use of the term “prtotestantization” or related terms is simply a means of denigrating the OF. I am all for agreeing with the Pope that is was not an organic change and that some of the chages were less than stellar. I have no problem with cleaning up the English translation we have (although I might not agree with every last change, I certainly agree with the need) and I have no problem reviewing some of the prayers that were changed or dropped and seeing if some of that would be beneficial to change. But in and of itself, the Church’s authority includes looking at what was added to the Mass over the ages and determining if some of it would be better removed, returning us to the essence of the Mass in a less “added to” format. And to give an example, while I love John 1 and have used part of it in RCIA teaching, it was not part of the Mass until it was moved from a private prayer of the priest into the Mass. Moving it back out is not “protestantizing” the Mass. Everyone is free to read it (or memorize it, as I did) on their own; just as they are most welcome to say the prayer to St Michael (and should be encouraged to do so). But being outraged over removal of those items does not justify denigrating the changes.
I really think (as a more-or-less outside observer here) that thinking of the repetitions or accretions as superfluities that needed to be removed is the wrong way to approach the liturgy. In essence, the reformers of V2 were approaching the liturgy as a series of theological propositions, an intellectual presentation of a thesis supported by certain manual acts and demonstrations.
Well, one could say the same thing in a musical vein, with parts repeated that break the rhythm and structure of the piece. There is also much to be szaid for a simple piece, which does not ahve extraneous parts thrown in creating dissonance.
I am no proponent of Rahner or Schillebeecx, and although both clearly went over the edge, like most theologians they got some of it right, but sullied the whole thing by the directions they took. For the average lay person interested in theology, they are best avoided.Ah, but without dissonance consonance is boring.Well, one could say the same thing in a musical vein, with parts repeated that break the rhythm and structure of the piece. There is also much to be szaid for a simple piece, which does not ahve extraneous parts thrown in creating dissonance.
I have “been there, done that” on both ends. I have been to more pre-OF Masses in my lifetime than most 30 and 40 somethings will go to in the next 10 or maybe 15 years. That does not qualify me as a liturgical expert, but what some of the 30 and 40 somethings forget is that they focus on what we used to call a High Mass ( and if malphono is still lurking, he can provide the proper terms - we didn’t use them then - just unsophisticated bumkins, I guess). There are few priests saying the EF now, and the EF in itself is quite rare, and so it tends to be done with all the pomp and circumstance which can be mustered. To that I have no doubt and absolutely no objection. But back then, the EF was almost exclusively the Low Mass, with one high Mass offered on Sunday if there was a choir (and I say “if” because one of the highlights of the year was when the choir my dad sang in went up to a rural parish, equiped with an old and not in good condition pump organ and sang a High Mass - it may have been the only one in that parish that year).
I do not deny anyone the joy and awe they experience in the EF with a choir (who can actually sing the pieces, not slaughter them) and all the stops pulled out.
I have also experienced all too many Masses in the EF said hurriedly, at times with what appeared to be a formal pass at reverence and an eye to the clock. And I have experienced Masses in the OF, Sunday Masses, which take about an hour and fifteen minutes, a schola chanting the psalm, a homily that is always worthy of chewing on, incense liberally applied and a clear and marked sense of reverence. Perhaps in that I am quite lucky, as others in here seem to find nowhere to go to find reverence.
Some people are never going to be happy with any changes made to the EF. But to presume that the scholars who were working on the Liturgy before Roncalli became a pope were wreckovationists and out to protestantize thae Mass is not based on any facts whatsoever; even granted that a goodly number of them may still be spining in their graves for what we got. And just for giggles: we have been experiencing a new crop of priests, often referred to as the “JP2” priests, who have a far different agenda than their predecessors and are bringing back that sense of reverence and willingness to follow the Magisterium that has been so lacking for so long. So: where are they coming from? A hint: given that worldwide the percentage of Masses said in Latin is about 1 in 250, they are coming hand over fist from OF parishes.
Just a thought.
We can hope, for sure. I hope the OF was only intended to be a more ancient form of the Mass.
The high Lutheran services of the past, or those of now? I’ve been to a few, and they ape the Catholic liturgy in many ways, though never fail to come off as irritatingly truncated. At least it seems to me, that is.
The Sarum Missal can be viewed here : justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/index.htm
Thanks for that; certainly establishes only the most bare continuity between the OF and the Sarum rite. That’s one down; I understand there are others.
I couldn’t find the Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic or Celtic rites online. I’m sure they’re out there somewhere, but the Anglicans made it easy.
One thing that is hard to explain was the jaw-dropping explosive dissent to Humanae Vitae. That wasn’t something that spent several months or a year of more building to a head; it was “yesterday the document comes out and today the dissenters are on the airwaves”. And it wasn’t one or two goofballs here and there; it was massive and right doen into the pews.
Keep in mind that it is far more difficult to receive the Cup at an altar rail. Whether standing was set in order to receive from the Cup I will leave to other scholars. But as a pracitical matter, it is difficult to receive the Cup at an altar rail without banging your elbows into it.
No, off the top of my head I don’t. Perhaps others in the thread do.