Posted on 06/14/2007 11:25:30 AM PDT by NYer
I hate shopping :)
Seriously, I find the whole exercise tiring. I think there was time when there was one Presbyterian Church, and it was pretty much the same wherever one went. Today I'm actually leery of entering one, because I have no idea what they believe.
I do. I always enjoy (appreciate) it, but I don't go as often as I'd like because I'm not Catholic.
Thanks. I found this, and will probably visit soon:
SAINT LAWRENCE
Church: 6222 Franconia Rd. *703-971-4378
Fax # 703-971-0331
Rectory: 6222 Franconia Rd. 703-971-5363
Alexandria, VA 22310
Email: stlawrence@cox.net
Pastor: Rev. Christopher J. Mould
Parochial Vicar: Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky
In residence: Rev. James G. Mercer
Mass Schedule:
Saturday: 9 a.m.; 5 p.m. (Vigil Mass)
Sunday: 7:30, 9, 11 a.m., 12:30 (Tridentine Latin Mass)
Weekdays: Monday-Friday: 9 a.m.
Holy Days: 6:15, 9 a.m.; 12 Noon, 7:30 p.m.
Eucharistic Adoration: Wednesday: 9:30 a.m.-8:30 p.m.
Holy Hour with Benediction: Wednesday: 7:30 p.m.
Novena to Our Mother of Perpetual Help: Monday: 7:30 p.m.
Confession: Wednesday: 7:15 p.m.
Saturday: 3:30 p.m.
One thing I can say at least about our Catholics around here is, no matter how goofy they may be I have always received a warm welcome!
Kosta,
You wrote: “Well if that is so than all he had to do is say the Roman Mass was obligatory and be done with it. No new Missal would have been needed.”
Actually a new missal was needed in the late 16th century for the following reasons:
1) To stamp out abuses of the traditional liturgy.
2) To bring more uniformity to liturgies in very different locations. This made sense at the time. The Church knew that uniformity was a good goal to shoot for in an age where the Church’s liturgy was under attack from the outside by Protestants (who a few years earlier were Catholics) and from within the Church by lazy priests who committed abuses with the liturgy. In hindsight, this may have been necessary, but was also unfortunate because it meant the sweeping away of some fine liturgical traditions in some areas in the interest of uniformity.
3) To codify the liturgy in order to deal with the mess brought about by the Protestant Revolution. We forget today just what a confusing mess the 16th century was. What liturgy were Catholics supposed to use in England AFTER the Protestant Revolution? Native trained priests usually used the Sarum Rite, but the Jesuit missionaries used the Pius V missal because was not only their training but it also showed attachment to Rome, to the Catholic Church. A new, and universal, Missal for the Roman Rite was most definitely needed.
Now, about the age of the TLM: Yes, the TLM was codified by Pius V. Its roots go much further back, with few substantial changes.
As Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, “From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.” Fortescue, THE MASS: A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY, 1912, page 173.
The canon of the Mass dates back, in books that is, to at least the 4th or 5th century as we know from the great sacramentaries of Pope St. Leo (440-461), Pope Gelasius (492-496) and Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604).
Anyone interested in knowing all the ins and outs of the Roman Rite might want to buy a copy of Joseph A. Jungamnn’s The Mass of the Roman Rite, (2 vols.). It’s old, but a classic.
Thank you, Vladimir. That was my impression. While it is true that most of Western Europe used Roman Latin-Rite Mass, there were medieval variants of it, even though the liturgical canon was settled by the 7th century (save maybe for inclusion of the Creed in the 11th).
But the same cannot be said of the earlier centuries, which were characterized by two aspects: lack of information about the Mass and canonical flux. I think it is safe to say that modern-day Catholics would recognize the Mass of the 7th century as their own.
Now, about the age of the TLM: Yes, the TLM was codified by Pius V. Its roots go much further back, with few substantial changes.
Yes, it seems that way.
“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”
Ciorrect.
The canon of the Mass dates back, in books that is, to at least the 4th or 5th century as we know from the great sacramentaries of Pope St. Leo (440-461), Pope Gelasius (492-496) and Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604).
Yes, but the two centuries (5th and 6th) were the period when the Mass was undergoing most radical changes especially in canon. It was +Gregory I who basically settled the liturgical canon.
But I stand corrected: the TLM antiquity has bene in use since the 7th century (not quote 1,600 years but close!)
You say you don’t go as often as you like because you aren’t Catholic.....that is no problem.....every Church almost has a daily Mass and many on weekends from Sat. nite to Sunday nite!! NO EXCUSES :)...and you should really pray about turning Catholic so that you can joinin the FULLNESS of the Mass by receiving Holy Communion!!! Praying for you.
You've gone straight to the heart of the matter. Thanks.
No, there was never ‘just one’ Presbyterian Church. They have a rich history of splitting and re-uniting. Basically the major players today are the PCUSA - organizationally liberal to heretic, but with a few moderates left. Evangelical Presbyterian Church - Moderate (orhodox except for permitting, but not requiring the ordination of women). Presbyterian Church in America - conservative to moderate. Orthodox Presbyterian Church - conservative. Associate Reformed Presbyterian - conservative to moderate. Cumberland Presbyterians are liberal and theologically distinct in their beliefs.
See you in Church on Sunday!!
This existence of local development and variations between missals prior to their mass production by the printing press should not be source of scandal. I dear say that the situation in the Byzantine Rite at the time was similar. 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. Even today there are differences in usages between the Greeks, Serbs, Russians, etc.
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.
I will take your warning into consideration. But I will forge onward nonetheless. :)
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.
I happen to think that Patriarch +Eutychius was correct in saying that the pre-sanctified Gifts are bread and wine, not dismissing the fact that they have been blessed. But until their change by the Holy Spirit they are material bread and wine.
The idea that angelic hosts and saints enter the church before them is beautiful, but it makes one wonder why did the Church then decide to prepare them inside. It is this kind of innovation that makes me very suspicious that much of this is man-made.
Take, for instance, the fasting rules in the East. No "animal" products such as milk, but shrimp is okay. Some say, animal products represent passion foods. And lobsters don't? It's not the food itself, but the attitude we take towards it that determines if we are fasting or not.
Thus, we can see how the "holiness" of some things in the Church increased as time progressed.
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.
None of it is taken as criticism, Father.
Dear kosta, I am neither a writer nor an historian. I freely admit that I don’t express myself well. That is why I flagged vladimir to the discussion and he was able to bring clarifying details.
One of the newly ordained priests will be heading to this neck of the woods in the near future.
Does that mean the ICKSP is getting an apostolate on the East Coast somewhere? That would be great!
No need to explain, dear ELS. You did just fine. Vladimir and Petrosius made their comments, and I learned a lot from them. See my post #54. God works in mysterious ways. :)
May I suggest that in the meantime, you can make a spiritual communion? When I was a Piskie and unable to receive, I found this quite comforting.
-A8
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.