I think it would be fair to say that I denied the extent of antiquity of the traditional Mass, to which the history of Mass leads us. But I was definitely wrong in believing that the traditional Mass was of a much more recent origin. All indications are that the Roman Rite Mass has been set canonically for all practical purposes by the 7th century, which represents a "pedigree" of 14 centuries vs 16; insignificant difference indeed.
It should be remembered that the Great Entrance, that hallmark of the Byzantine liturgy, did not become current in Constantinople until the 6th/7th century
No doubt, things have been added and changed in all liturgical forms; the essential point is to establish at what point a Divine Liturgy/Mass would be recognizable and familiar to present-day laity.
In the case of Eastern liturgies, clearly the one of +John Chrysostom and +Basil (going back to late 4th and early 5th centuries) would be, despite minor changes, as they are served to this day on a regular basis (the latter about a dozen times a year).
The Divine Liturgy of St. James (the Just) contains many of the elements of the DLs of +Basil and +Chrysostom, but is obviously not the same liturgy (which also contains many OT references and prayers).
According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the clear line between the Mass as is known today is seen with Pope +Gregory I and why:
"We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory (590-604). Gregory knew the Mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him...
"We may say safely that a modern Latin Catholic who could be carried back to Rome in the early seventh century would – while missing some features to which he is accustomed – find himself on the whole quite at home with the service he saw there."
The Great Entrance is a modification of the praxis of earlier days when the Gifts were prepared outside the church and were brought in to the altar. Today, they are prepared on a separate table near the altar and the priest walks them around the church simulating their being brought in.
The hallmark is the appearance of the Gifts, not the manner in which they are presented to the congregation.
But I am surprised you mention the Great Entrance modification and neglect to note the true Byzantine innovation of mixing the Body with the Blood in the Cup and distributing it via a small golden spoon for Holy Communion!
Even today there are differences in usages between the Greeks, Serbs, Russians, etc
Yes, of course. One very obvious difference is that Slavonic Divine Liturgies have Beatitudes in the Third Antiphon and the Greek doesn't. There are external variations as well, but none of these are canonical.
My objection to the 1,600-year-old antiquity of the traditional Latin Mass was off. I was under the wrong impression that it was of a more recent origin and, while I guess it would be easy to blame liberal Catholics for creating this impression, I will just blame my ignorance and be contant to confess my error.
It is clear that the traditional Latin Mass has been in use for about 1,400 years. It is equally clear that two centuries prior to that include significant canonical changes as the Mass evolved from being essentially Eastern and not something modern-day Catholics could be "quite at home with," into a Western form that is canonically unchanged until today.
I think it would be fair to say that I denied the extent of antiquity of the traditional Mass, to which the history of Mass leads us. But I was definitely wrong in believing that the traditional Mass was of a much more recent origin. All indications are that the Roman Rite Mass has been set canonically for all practical purposes by the 7th century, which represents a "pedigree" of 14 centuries vs 16; insignificant difference indeed.
Be careful my dear Kosta, these kind things you are saying about the Latins could start to become a habit. : )
The Great Entrance is a modification of the praxis of earlier days when the Gifts were prepared outside the church and were brought in to the altar. Today, they are prepared on a separate table near the altar and the priest walks them around the church simulating their being brought in.
Actually, there has been quite a change in the meaning of the entrance with the gifts. In the time of St. John Chrysostom the gifts were brought to the altar without ceremony and without any particular significance, being a purely utilitarian action. As late as the 6th century Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople wrote concerning the Great Entrance:
They act stupidly, who have taught the people to sing a certain psalmic chant when the ministers are about to bring up to the altar the bread of oblation and the recently-mixed chalice. In this hymn, which they consider suitable to the action being performed, the people say that they bear in the King of glory, and refer in this way to things being brought up, even though they have not yet been consecrated by the high-priestly invocation - unless perhaps what is sung means something else to them. For as Anthanasius the Great says in his sermon to the baptized: "You will see the Levites (i.e. the deacons) bearing in bread and a chalice of wine putting them on the table. And as long as the supplications and prayer have not been completed, it is nothing but plain bread!"Compare this with Patriarch Germanos I in the 8th century:
By means of the procession of the deacons and the representation of the fans, which are in the likeness of the seraphim, the Cherubic Hymn signifies the entrance of all the saints and righteous ahead of the cherubic powers and the angelic hosts, who run invisibly in advance of the great king, Christ, who is proceeding to the mystical sacrifice, borne aloft by material hands. Together with them comes the Holy Spirit in the unbloody and reasonable sacrifice. The Spirit is seen spiritually in the fire, incense, smoke, and fragrant air: for the fire points to his divinity, and the fragrant smoke to his coming invisibly and filling us with good fragrance through the mystical, living, and unbloody service and sacrifice of burnt-offering. In addition, the spiritual powers and choirs of angels, who have seen his dispensation fulfilled through the cross and death of Christ, the victory over death which has taken place, the descent into hell and the resurrection on the third day, with us exclaim the Alleluia.None of this is presented as a criticism but only to show that there were developments in the liturgy in both the East and the West.
It is also in imitation of the burial of Christ, when Joseph took down the body from the cross, wrapped it in clean linen, anointed it with spices and ointment, carried it with Nicodemus, and placed it in a new tomb hewn out of a rock. The altar is the image fo the holy tomb, and divine table is the sepulchre in which, of course, the undefiled and all-holy body was placed.