A thought on the Liturgy

[qfnol31]

What would you say is different between that and Trent though?

[amarkich]

Are you speaking of Trent or [i]Quo Primum[/i]? All [i]Quo Primum [/i]did was state that the Mass was promulgated for the whole Latin Rite and that it would last in perpetuity. This essentially just normalized the Traditional Latin Mass as the only acceptable rite of Mass. As far as Trent is concerned, I do not know the specific changes, if any, that were made by Trent. As far as I know, Trent simply served as a means of making the Mass universal under the same form, not inorganically changing the Mass. Also, at that time, there was more than one rite within the Latin Rite. It did not simply exterminate (for all purposes) the only acceptable Mass and then promulgate a new one (N.B., the Old Mass was never abrogated, but it was essentially discarded upon the promulgation of the new Mass). In other words, Trent made the Mass universal; it did not sit down with a committee and re-write a liturgy as was the case with post-Vatican II conventions. This is the main problem making it inorganic--it was made by a committee, not by developed traditions.

[qfnol31]

A lot of the Novus Ordo parallels directly with the Tridentine Mass.

In both the Priest should face the same direction (according to Ratzinger). They both have the same Concecration prayer (the Novus Ordo takes Concecration prayers from other rites as well, one of which is 1400 years or more old). They both have the Scripture. They both are supposed to be in the same language for the most part. They both should have the same music...

[popestpiusx]

The consecration prayer was changed in the N.O. That is something that had never happened, as far as anyone knows, since the first centuries. What are you referring to that is 1400 years old?

[amarkich]

Qfnol, I agree, the Latin Novus Ordo is very similar (at least to the untrained eye) to the Traditional Latin Mass, but they are inherently different rites. One is a sort of conglomerate of older parts of different Masses (including a Jewish table prayer for the Offertory, which apparently was used in some rites in the 6th century--not much of a reason to abandon the Offertory of the TLM, though), and one is a Mass that has developed organically throughout the history of the Latin Rite. One is an invention of a committee, the other a development. One is an abandonment of the Prayers, which had been around for 1500 years, the other a guardian of them. The one is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite, the other the epitome of tradition. As far as aesthetics are concerned, the two appear similar, but they are really not very similar. You should read two short little books: [i]The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass [/i]by Fr. Anthony Cekada (published by TAN) and [i]The Problems with the New M[/i]ass by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S (I think this might be from TAN also). The first deals with the problems in the Propers of the Mass, the second with the Ordinary.

[qfnol31]

Well, the Tridentine cut out Eucharistic Prayer II. That's the one written by a Pope at least 1400 years ago.

Where was the Eucharistic Prayer changed? I looked at Eucharistic Prayer I, the prayer of choice, and it looked the exact same as before. I don't see a difference. I have a missal from current times and one from 1940-something.

Edited November 30, 2004 by qfnol31

[theculturewarrior]

First, we need to distinguish between "Eucharistic Prayer," and "Prayer of Consecration." I don't have my missal handy, but I think there is a difference.

I would be more interested, however, in defining organic and "inorganic" development. Preferably the Church's definition.

[qfnol31]

I believe the Eucharistic Prayer is the whole prayer, while the Prayer of Concecration (which has not changed) is the words of Christ said by the Priest. "On the night He was betrayed...Hoc est enim Corpus Meum..." etc.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 30 2004, 02:03 AM'] Well, the Tridentine cut out Eucharistic Prayer II. That's the one written by a Pope at least 1400 years ago.

Where was the Eucharistic Prayer changed? I looked at Eucharistic Prayer I, the prayer of choice, and it looked the exact same as before. I don't see a difference. I have a missal from current times and one from 1940-something. [/quote]
"Eucharistic Prayer II" was not "cut out" by Trent... it was not used. The Traditional Mass codified in Quo Primum is what everyone was already using at the time. That prayer had not been used since the early Church. The Canon of the Mass was first found with St. Ambrose, and that was adopted nearly exclusively throughout the Church (at least the Latin Rite), especially by the time of Trent. What you are doing is antiquarianism: "we have a 1400-year-old prayer that isn't being used in the TLM". Yes, well with that logic, we should go back to the first Masses which only had some parts of the Mass being consistent every time... some of it was completely an improvisation (if that is the correct term). That, of course, is a ridiculous proposition and one, which has been mentioned many times yet time and again ignored, that was condemned outright by Pius XII in Mediator Dei, in which he lists many things specifically that the Novus Ordo has adopted.

[qfnol31]

No, my point was that by your logic we should only be using stuff that comes from around the time of the early Church.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:15 PM'] No, my point was that by your logic we should only be using stuff that comes from around the time of the early Church. [/quote]
No, my logic is: the Liturgy developed organically. The use of "Eucharistic prayer II" (an under-developed Canon, so to speak), was dropped, and the Canon was accepted throughout the Latin Rite. That was an organic development. The entire Liturgy organically developed. My logic is to stick to what is organic, and throw out what is inorganic (Novus Ordo).

[p0lar_bear]

First, the "Tridentine" rite Mass was based on a formula "made up" by Alcuin (during the reign of Charlemange (sp)) from combining a bad copy of papal liturgical rites, gallican elements, and things he quite simply made up. If you can't accept the "innovations" of the current missal, ho can you Alcuin's innovations?

Second, I think the current missal looks a lot more like the liturgies we find in Hippolytus and Justin Martyr than the missal of Pius V...if one is going to argue that the current missal isn't an organic development from the Pius V missal because it looks different, than you will have to admit that the Pius V missal is not an organic development of the liturgical rites in the early Church.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:23 PM'] First, the "Tridentine" rite Mass was based on a formula "made up" by Alcuin (during the reign of Charlemange (sp)) from combining a bad copy of papal liturgical rites, gallican elements, and things he quite simply made up. If you can't accept the "innovations" of the current missal, ho can you Alcuin's innovations?

Second, I think the current missal looks a lot more like the liturgies we find in Hippolytus and Justin Martyr than the missal of Pius V...if one is going to argue that the current missal isn't an organic development from the Pius V missal because it looks different, than you will have to admit that the Pius V missal is not an organic development of the liturgical rites in the early Church. [/quote]
The reason NO isn't an organic development has nothing to do with how it looks. If something develops, that means it changes somewhat or at least grows in a way. To say something is different 1500 years late is a given, considering that it developed. The difference is when you sit down with a committee (run by masons [the head of it] and protestants at least to some extent) and completely protestant-ize a Liturgy that had organically developed over the Church's history.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 11:34 AM'] The difference is when you sit down with a committee (run by masons [the head of it] and protestants .... [/quote]
you keep saying this and i keep asking you to back it up. I don't mean it as a challenge, but if you really have something, i'd like to see it.

[p0lar_bear]

Protestant-ized it to be more like the liturgies of the early Church? So...maybe the Prots who tell me that the Catholic Church was a later corruption are right....

Oh, and unless you have actual proof of the whole freemason conspiracy thing, stop stating it as fact.