I don’t know but didn’t Christ author the Mass?
In one sense, yes, of course, this is true of every valid liturgy. But in another sense, neither the TLM nor the NO are purported to be direct approximations of, for instance, the breaking of bread after the Resurrection and prior to the Ascension, nor even of that which took place directly following Pentecost. There has been an evolution of liturgy since the first Masses, and this is not denied by anyone.
Thanks for the update. My quarrel is with neither the NO nor TLM. My quarrel is with those who abuse the right to post on CAF by attacking their “brethren”…most of these abuses have occured on posts regarding the NO and TLM. Now that is a darn shame, to argue about the Lord’s Supper. And we are supposed to be the guardians of the true Faith.
I have heard so many arguments on both sides. I think that what uncharity there is to be found in these posts is not meant as such. We are zealous to rejoice in the truth, and we forget ourselves, or we are anxious to be patient and kind, and forget our obligations to the truth. This is not to say that all have fallen into one of these errors or the other, but these are frailties which we all share at one time or another. Unfortunately, the two ways of failing love can exacerbate each other, if we are not very careful.
Your point reminds me of this passage: “What I now have to say is not said in praise, because your meetings are not profitable but harmful. First of all, I hear that when you gather for a meeting, there are divisions among you, and I am inclined to believe it.” 1 Cor. 11:17-18
He goes on to say, “He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgement on himself…therefore, my brothers, when you assemble for the meal, wait for one another.” (1 Cor. 11:29, 33) and then later goes on to say, “The body is one and has many members, but all the members, many though they are, are one body; and so it is with Christ…You then, are the body of Christ. Every one of you is a member of it.” (1 Cor. 11:12,27)
I think it is clear from this, then, that your point is valid: willful indulgence in strife over the Mass is itself a liturgical abuse, a sin against the body of Christ. This is not to say that there cannot be discussions or opinions, but that if we do not maintain an attitude of charity within that, we defile the Eucharist itself. You cannot abuse your brother in Christ and yet not abuse Christ. Once you give yourself that permission, IMHO, mind you, you are,
in the effect of your actions, apostate, even if you are anything but apostate in the strict meaning of what you say. “If anyone says, ‘My love is fixed on God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. One who has no love for his brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:20-21)
Of course Paul is famously clear about what he would expect of the allowable sort of discussion: that those in it be patient, kind, not jealous, does not put on airs, not snobbish, never rude, not self-seeking, not prone to anger, not brooding over injuries, not rejoicing over what is wrong but rejoicing in the truth, without limit in forbearance, trust, hope, and power to endure.
Now that describes one extremely civil conversation, wouldn’t we all agree? And if we do not love as Paul describes love, in what sense can we claim that we love our brother? If we are rude, impatient, snobbish, or rude, even about the truth, can we go before God and protest how loving we are, how we have observed the commandments? If we do not clearly speak the truth, either, how can we say we love? Surely when we catch ourselves doing these things, we would repent and ask for forgiveness, rather than attempt to defend ourselves.
All but a very few of us have done it, though, and so I think we all would try to be compassionate on that account…those who have not done it being those most likely to be compassionate, in the first place!
Yes aren’t some of the discussions edifying?
Peace.
