The Mass Of All Time?!?

[mark4IHM]

No sooner had I said that I had no more time to spend on this thread than I

got a private e-mail from a poster, asking me to look at the latest

postings.

By now many of you are probably aware that I don't change my mind easily.

But in deference to the author of the private e-mail (no, it wasn't Donna),

and against my better judgment, I gave the new postings a once-over.

Regarding the information stating the Roman Rite did not extend back to the

Apostles, I found portions articulate and plausible; other parts

were unconvincing. I have no problem agreeing with those portions

that conform to the following definition of the Roman Rite in the Catholic

Encyclopedia:

"The Roman Rite evolved out of the (presumed) universal, but quite fluid,

rite of the first three centuries during the (liturgically) almost unknown

time from the fourth to the sixth... How and exactly when

the specifically Roman qualities were formed during that time will, no

doubt, always be a matter of conjecture."

We may never know in our earthly lifetimes the exact form of the first

Christian Masses. Obviously popes changed portions of the Mass like the

Propers and the Saints calendar, and most likely some of the priest's

"private prayers" (ie, the offertory and the prayers at the foot of the

altar) developed over time and were subject to variation by locality and custom.

What appears to have remained unchanged was the Order of the Mass, what we

call the Canon. According to Msgr. Gamber, this is what popes always guarded

zealously, many of them asserting that this "essence" of the Mass originated

with the Apostle Peter.

And if you think about what Tradition is, this makes sense. Tradition is the

vehicle by which the Church has safeguarded and transmitted Divine

Revelation, as it was handed orally from Our Lord to the first Apostles.

This is the origin and mechanism of the Church's infallible Magisterium.

If we believe that there has been no error of transmission with dogmatic

truths, the same applies, I believe, with respect to the Canon of the Roman

Rite, which embodies dogmatic truth. Since the Mass would have been treated

with at least as much care as revealed dogmas, it is reasonable to conclude

that what became known as the Roman Rite was in its essence identical to the

first Masses.

The term "The Mass of All Time" implies an extension not merely back in

time, but forwards as well, to our present lives, and into the future. That

is the best vocabulary we have to describe "the eternal Sacrifice." Inside

the Vatican called it "the immemorial Mass." Immemorial is defined as "Reaching beyond the limits of memory, tradition, or recorded history." (American Heritage Dictionary)

The Mass was prefigured by Melchisedek's offering of bread and wine

in the Old Testament. If we believe God gave his Church the ability to

faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith, we may also reasonably believe

that the essence of the Eternal Sacrifice remained unbroken from Melchisedek

to The Last Supper to the Roman Rite.

Tradition is all of one piece, and to disregard or contradict part of it

leads to a disregard and contradiction of the whole - which is what we are

living through today. For what appears seamless to us in retrospect was in

fact the working out of salvation of every saint and pope who labored over

the Mass, under the slow, steady influence of the Holy Ghost. Thus the Faith

and the Mass developed over the ages without losing their essential

character and meaning.

That's all, folks. I'm back to the real world.

[Good Friday]

Finally Mark, we agree on something. I agree with you that the essence of the Mass has not changed, but I'd imagine we disagree again in that I believe the Novus Ordo Mass still contains the essence of the Mass, as you call it. I believe all that's changed in the Novus Ordo Mass are disciplines, which have changed in Masses before.