Why Traditional Liturgy?

[deogratias]

Crusader:

A handful of ways in which the Mass of the Apostles differs from the Tridentine Mass:

• Holy Communion in hand.
• Flemish/Gothic chausables and not Roman chausables [AKA bulletproof vest(ments)].
• No bells.
• Use of the Vernacular.
• No use of Roman Canon or similiar EP.
• Celebrant faced the people. BOTH ad orientem AND ad populum are SIMULTANEOUSLY possible.
• Not all altars of sacrifice contained relics.
• No pews.
• No segregation of men and women.
• Women not “banned” from sanctuary.
• Likely use of lay Eucharistic ministers during some Masses.
• No pipe organs.
• No Gregorian Chant.

I’ll keep adding to the list…

Sources please

 

[JNB]

deogratias:

Sources please

He never quotes any sources. Also Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Fessio, two men far more educated on the subject of liturgy would disagree with crusader.
The thing is that the initial push behind the Novus Ordo was to reduce the number of Gallacian influences in the mass, and to restore a purified "roman rite". One could say that the Novus Ordo celbrated in Latin, Ad Orientem, with Tridentine Rubrics such as use of an altar rail, and a sanctuary with altar rails or rood iron screens, be celebrated using the confetior and the Roman Canon(EP I) might resmble the pre Gallacian influence Roman Rite, but sadly it is usually not celebrated in this manner. Maybe a few dozen parishes in the world celebrate it in this manner.

 

[Podo2004]

Crusader:

I prefer my Mass to be similar to the Mass known to the Apostles nearly 2000 years ago. In brief, the Novus Ordo Mass and not the Tridentine Mass.

Podo

 

[Crusader]

We have to keep in mind that, save for some fragmentary details, we don’t know a lot of the details behind early-Christian worship. Items like vestments, bells, candles, and incense, were all employed by the Jews in their worship, and so it’s not so far-fetched to believe that Christians employed these, in some capacity, in their own primitive worship.

We know a great deal about the use of bells within Christianity from archaelogical sources – check the Catholic Encyclopedia as just one basic guide. We also know that chasuables in the early church sure didn’t look like those funny looking Roman bulletproof vest(ments.)

And even if they didn’t, how can that possibly be an excuse for deliberately doing away with them (it’s one thing if it’s out of necessity)? What could posess a pastor, for example, for him to deliberately do away with, say, bells, something universally known throughout the Latin Church for centuries?

The use of Sanctus Bells was made optional with the release of the Novus Ordo Mass. In brief, it’s the pastor’s call. Many suggest the use of the Sanctus bells hurts the “continuity” or “linearity” of the Mass – or a dozen other things. I do not personally agree, but it’s not my call – it’s up to my pastor.

Why would a priest want to do away with tradition? It might not be, strictly speaking, “illegal” for him to do so, but wouldn’t this strike anyone with a Catholic soul as being against the “spirit” of true liturgical reform?

See above. Quite the contrary. Many progressives would suggest that stripping away superfulous things (their words, not mine) like Sanctus bells actually helpes us to focus on Jesus, and this stripping-away is a prime tool of liturgical reform. While I strongly disagree, what makes me position correct and the other incorrect?

That would be like me deliberately breaking with several of my own family’s traditions, like how we do Christmas or how we eat lentils on New Year’s (a Sicilian thing). Why would I deliberately violate these traditions, unless I had an animosity towards them (again, I’m not talking about necessity)?

No comment.

Is it healthy for a Catholic priest to do away with incense and bells, even if it is his “legal” right to do so? Is Catholic spirituality supposed to be minimalistic?

I personally don’t believe so, but again, it’s not my call. I know some priests that have done away with incense because it carcenogenic as just one example.

While I truly love the “smells & bells” I don’t think it’s evil or necessarily wrong for a pastor to do away with both if the Church allows him to.

 

[Crusader]

JNB:

He never quotes any sources. Also Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Fessio, two men far more educated on the subject of liturgy would disagree with crusader.

The thing is that the initial push behind the Novus Ordo was to reduce the number of Gallacian influences in the mass, and to restore a purified “roman rite”. One could say that the Novus Ordo celbrated in Latin, Ad Orientem, with Tridentine Rubrics such as use of an altar rail, and a sanctuary with altar rails or rood iron screens, be celebrated using the confetior and the Roman Canon(EP I) might resmble the pre Gallacian influence Roman Rite, but sadly it is usually not celebrated in this manner. Maybe a few dozen parishes in the world celebrate it in this manner.

I sure don’t see many footnotes for the nightmares you bring us…

 

[Iohannes]

Read this article by Fr. Romano Thommasi, a writer for The Latin Mass Magazine:
seattlecatholic.com/article_20031027.html

Unlike other writers (including me), he does not call the New Mass the Novus Ordo but simply the New Mass.

The entrance procession, consecration, and recessional of the new Mass prescribe a genuflection in the presence of the Ss. Sacrament. As any liturgist knows, the genuflection is a late medieval addition to the liturgy which did not become predominant in the Mass until the 14th century, and then only in certain western liturgies. Here we see a medieval element in this so-called “patristic” liturgy. Furthermore the celebrant enters and begins Mass, following an entrance song, with the sign of the cross. This practice too is a late 14th century addition which was scheduled to be eliminated by the Consilium, but was retained by the express desire of Paul VI.

Following the greeting and introductory remarks, there is the Confiteor or “I confess to Almighty God, etc.” This new Mass version is based on the medieval Dominican form of the Confiteor which was a prayer found in the Gallican, or non-Roman, liturgies of medieval northern Europe, which have been demonized by liturgical reformers. The original Roman practice, according to the Ordines Romani, is that the celebrant simply prostrates himself on the ground in private preparatory prayer. The Misereatur or “May almighty God have mercy on us, etc.” is a medieval absolution formula used probably in sacramental confessions of that period. Liturgists of great note have criticized these formulas as giving the impression of granting sacramental absolution at the Mass. This formula is not in accord with the patristic usage of the ancient Roman Church.

 

[Iohannes]

At the Collect (opening/closing prayer), and at other times, the clergy in the sanctuary are instructed to hold their hands in the traditional position of palms facing inward with fingers extended, a Gallican prayer and medieval fealty pose not in keeping with a puritanical concept of a Roman type Mass.

The Creed, recited only since the 11th century, is a medieval introduction which interrupts the flow of the liturgy according to modern liturgical understanding and yet persists as an obligatory element in the new Mass. In the Roman rite only the Apostle’s Creed historically had a place of honor in liturgical worship and principally only during specific ceremonies of the liturgical year. Thus another element is left unrestored in comparison to the ritual of the Fathers.

I wonder too, if we should get rid of the Creed, because it was not in the Ancient Mass?

The Prayer of the Faithful, or petitions, is of doubtful existence in the early church of Rome or even the medieval church. It is likely that it has never existed in the Roman rite, except for intercessions contained in the Roman Canon. This is not a restoration, but a hypothetical introduction of an ancient prayer which original form is completely unknown to us. It is difficult to restore something if one does not know what it originally looked like.

 

[Iohannes]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Iohannes, by your logic the pre-Gregorian Mass was an essentially different rite from what followed. Changing a couple of phrases from a Eucharistic prayer does not essentially change the rite. Don’t be ludicrous.

The Church is under no obligation to leave any prayer untouched for 1700 years. Since she invented it, it’s within her rights to alter it however she sees fit.

And some of the
B58
things you list for “Mass of the early Church” really aren’t true. For example, not all Masses were celebrated in catacombs, over relics, and ther was no requirement this should be done. Second, we don’t know what they had in the way of “sanctuaries” and whether or not women were allowed in them. They certainly would not have used the Roman Canon. The Eucharistic prayer would probably have been mostly improvised. And the chasubles (which would’ve been worn by everyone present, not just clergy, would also have been “Gothic” (i.e. free-flowing" not at all like the liturgical bibs that pass for “Roman” vestments; not that I don’t like them. I prefer them, except when they get rediculously small).

That having been said, Iohannes is absolutely correct in saying that true development is always organic. Do you disagree Crusader?

And Crusader, what say you about the points I brought up:

Ok, lets agree to disagree, you claim the New Mass was organic, I say it is inorganic.

 

[Michael_Welter]

deogratias:

May I ask what is the local culture of your area of California that makes it unique and different than that of the rest of the U.S.?

California isn’t really different, culturally, than the rest of the country. However, it is significantly different, culturally, than, say, Argentina.

drforjc:

Quote:
That’s why the Pope said that the music for Mass should music in a style that is common to the local culture.
Where did he say that?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of time right now to do much research. However, I will give this one quote from the Chatechism:

1158 The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness of the People of God who celebrate.

I’ll try to do some more research if you like. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

I have a friend who is a Lutheran Theologian. He lives in a large metropolitan area, and he and his wife are on close friendly terms with clergy of several Christian faiths, including Roman Catholic.

He related a little story about how he and his wife, each Saturday evening, spend time discussing what church they will attend the next morning.

They discuss the service, it’s liturgy or lack thereof, the preaching, the music, the bells, the smells. etc…

I suppose some folks would argue that their faith is rather shallow if they are willing to share it with any old Christian church.

But I see them as being just the opposite. The church they attend each Sunday is important to them because God is important to them, and they want their worship experience to be as pleasing as possible to God as well as to themselves.

No, they sure don’t do business they way I do it. But I can at least see their motives in their behavour: they want to feel that they are truly worshiping God as best they can, each time they do it.

And for them, if that means some week to week variety, so be it.

The fact that you too have preferences marks you as someone who takes their faith seriously, and being filled with a sense of God’s presence in worship is important to you.

You go enjoy the services that mean most to you, and I’ll do the same. And God will be pleased with both of our worship because it was He who made us different in the first place.

 

[Crusader]

dominosNbiscuts:

I have a friend who is a Lutheran Theologian. He lives in a large metropolitan area, and he and his wife are on close friendly terms with clergy of several Christian faiths, including Roman Catholic.

He related a little story about how he and his wife, each Saturday evening, spend time discussing what church they will attend the next morning.

They discuss the service, it’s liturgy or lack thereof, the preaching, the music, the bells, the smells. etc…

I suppose some folks would argue that their faith is rather shallow if they are willing to share it with any old Christian church.

But I see them as being just the opposite. The church they attend each Sunday is important to them because God is important to them, and they want their worship experience to be as pleasing as possible to God as well as to themselves.

No, they sure don’t do business they way I do it. But I can at least see their motives in their behavour: they want to feel that they are truly worshiping God as best they can, each time they do it.

And for them, if that means some week to week variety, so be it.

The fact that you too have preferences marks you as someone who takes their faith seriously, and being filled with a sense of God’s presence in worship is important to you.

You go enjoy the services that mean most to you, and I’ll do the same. And God will be pleased with both of our worship because it was He who made us different in the first place.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a “service” – it’s heaven on earth.