Posted on 10/14/2005 7:01:46 AM PDT by NYer
This is not surprising. Before the printing press, Christians (who were all Catholic), learned Scripture through the Mass. It came as a great surprise to Scott Hahn when he attended a Catholic Mass for the first time.
"There I stood, a man incognito, a Protestant minister in plainclothers, slipping into the back of a Catholic chapel in Milwaukee to witness my first Mass. Curiosity had driven me there, and I still didn't feel sure that it was healthy curiosity. Studying the writings of the earliest Christians, I'd found countless references to "the liturgy," "the Eucharist," "the sacrifice." For those first Christians, the Bible - the book I loved above all - was incomprehensible apart from the event that today's Catholics called "the Mass."
"I wanted to understand the early Christians; yet I'd had no experience of liturgy. So I persuaded myself to go and see, as a sort of academic exercise, but vowing all along that I would neither kneel nor take part in idolatry."
I took my seat in the shadows, in a pew at the very back of that basement chapel. Before me were a goodly number of worshipers, men and women of all ages. Their genuflections impressed me, as did their apparent concentration in prayer. Then a bell rang, and they all stood as the priest emerged from a door beside the altar.
Unsure of myself, I remained seated. For years, as an evangelical Calvinist, I'd been trained to believe that the Mass was the ultimate sacrilege a human could commit. The Mass, I had been taught, was a ritual that purported to "resacrifice Jesus Christ." So I would remain an observer. I would stay seated, with my Bible open beside me.
As the Mass moved on, however, something hit me. My Bible wasn't just beside me. It was before me - in the words of the Mass! One line was from Isaiah, another from Psalms, another from Paul. The experience was overwhelming. I wanted to stop everything and shout, "Hey, can I explain what's happening from Scripture? This is great!" Still, I maintained my observer status. I remained on the sidelines until I heard the priest pronounce the words of consecration: "This is My body . . . This is the cup of My blood."
Then I felt all my doubt drain away. As I saw the priest raise that white host, I felt a prayer surge from my heart in a whisper: "My Lord and my God. That's really you!"
I was what you might call a basket case from that point. I couldn't imagine a greater excitement than what those words had worked upon me. Yet the experience was intensified just a moment later, when I heard the congregation recite: "Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God," and the priest respond, "This is the Lamb of God . . ." as he raised the host. In less than a minute, the phrase "Lamb of God" had rung out four times. From long years of studying the Bible, I immediately knew where I was. I was in the Book of Revelation, where Jesus is called the Lamb no less than twenty-eight times in twenty-two chapters. I was at the marriage feast that John describes at the end of that very last book of the Bible. I was before the throne of heaven, where Jesus is hailed forever as the Lamb. I wasn't ready for this, though - I was at Mass!
Throughout the year, Catholics hear Scripture through the Daily and Weekly Mass readings. In the span of 3 years, they have "heard and read" the entire Bible! Most Catholics do not feel a need to quote the Bible. And that is why, when confronted by a Baptist or Evangelical, they are easily persuaded to believe they are scripturally lacking. ( How I led Catholics Out of the Church )
I just wish the Baptists, Evangelicals and those from other protestant denominations, had a better appreciation of how much Scripture Catholics don't realize they actually know.
If it had been imposed three years after the Ascension it would be, however it was merely the formalization of the liturgies that had evolved organically over time. The idea that primitive = pure is a modernist fallacy i.e. Rousseau's "noble savage".
The Tridentine liturgy was a mature form of worship and the Novus Ordo was a radical departure from it, imposed on Catholics over a very short period of time.
I'm sorry that you do not understand this.
I have a question. Why are the readings in the Tridentine Mass read a) in Latin and b) facing away fom the people?
Now I have a fair idea of the theological reasons for the orientation of the altar why the priest faces the altar and away from the people during the Offerertory, Canon and consecration of the Tidentine Rite, and it makes plenty sense. However, the readings puzzle me.
Surely the readings are the Word of God and are addressed to the people. That being the case, they should be read facing the people and in a language which they can understand, yes? If I open my Bible and read the Gospels, I do so in my own language. I don't read them in Latin. Surely the same should apply at Mass and moreover, they should be proclaimed towards those to whom they are directed.
This is one of my main problems with the Tridentine Rite. Only one Epistle, in Latin and "mumblemumblemumble"....back wall of Church.
In my opinion, the way the readings were/are treated at Tridentine Masses had a lot to do with the widespread Catholic indifference and almost illiteracy with regard to the Scriptures and the common cliche among Protestants and even many Catholics that we don't bother ourselves with that "Scripture stuff."
So......when the appropriate Vatican Curia calls me........y'all are going to be getting a hybrid Mass, with Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Word including two readings plus a Gospel and Traditional Eucharistic Liturgy, with altar rails and Latin and stuff......
That is all. Carry on.
Lovely, when THAT happens, let me know. I am familiar with Sacrosanctum Concilium and have been to several Novus Ordo Masses at several different parishes. I have yet to find ONE that honors the articles that reference latin and Gregorian chant being retained in the Mass.
Yeah, but they have an abridged edition.;-)
I could live with that. And that, by the way, is all that Vatican II called for.
I have seen some interest in the Missal of 1965 as the true reform Mass of Vatican II. I think that this, with the new Lectionary, should be explored by those in authority in the Church.
Just as the official Novus Ordo differs from its actual application, a similar, but less obvious, distinction can be made between the Official TLM vs. the actual TLM.
The normative form of the TLM is the Solemn High Mass. However, the Low Mass and to a lesser extent, the Missa Cantata, make up 99% of all TLMs celebrated in actuality.
As for the proclamation of readings, there is a reasoning behind where they are done. The Epistle side of the altar (right side) faces South if the Church is correctly facing East. The South symbolizes the faithful, those to be instructed. The Gospel side, on the other hand, faces North, a symbolic direction of the pagans, the ones in need of conversion (i.e. the Gospel).
At a Solemn High Mass, the Deacon sings the Gospel facing North, but either at the foot of the Sanctuary or in the midst of the faithful from the center aisle.
The mumble-mumble Low Mass was something that the great pre-V2 Liturgical Movement was slowly but surely eradicating. A goodly number of TLMs today have moved well past that, whereby the Masses are audible and there is vocal participation on the part of the people.
Furthermore, it would be an ideal that today's "educated" Catholics be able to follow and understand the readings in the Latin language. The devout Jews can do the same for Hebrew, so why not the Catholics for Latin?
There's no other way around it. You cannot throw out the Novus Ordo without throwing out the whole of Apostolic authority within the Catholic Church,
Then why does that rule not apply to the Tridentine? Was it not unblemished? Was the Apostolic authority of every Pope from Pius V to Pius XII faulty?
That is the problem I have with the anti-Traditionalists.
To criticize the Novus Ordo Mass is to say that Christ lied and that the Church failed to protect what was most Sacred
Pope Benedict XXI as Cardinal Ratzinger has said:
[describing the de facto suppression of the traditional Latin Mass Pope Paul VI]-“a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.”
He has also said,
“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
and also referred to the NO as:
“fabricated liturgy… a banal, on-the-spot product.”
So, are you accusing the pope of "say[ing] that Christ lied and that the Church failed to protect what was most Sacred"?
To say that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church is to say that In The End, GOD wins. Not that the Church will sail through history unmolested. Popes have acknowledged the need for reform from time to time as a remedy for dreeping secularism. Here we have a reform that embraces secularism and it shows. Christ, whom we all claim as Lord said that you CAN judge a tree by its fruit. Yet when we listen to Him and judge accordingly, you say No, no, ignore that or we are somehow wrong for obeying Christ in this regard. When Christ's words are changed from "for many" to "for all", one has to wonder why the Words of Christ have been changed? Is that seriously Guarding the deposit of Faith?
What we need is a Theologician.
Just to clarify. My "mumblemumble" comment wasn't directed at the Tridentine Liturgy as a whole. Just the Epistle and Gospel.
Generally, I don't have a problem from the homily forwards.
Bogus argument bordering on suggesting a promise of impeccability.
To suggest that the TLM is superior is not to claim that the NO is invalid or improper.
Polls show that about two thirds of Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation and about ninety percent practice birth control, are they "really" there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.