Which Mass do you hear?

[cmotherofpirl]

Be nice people and be nice, people.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']oh, its great to sing, just dont say the responses.
[right][snapback]886623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are dialogue Masses in the Tridentine Liturgy too. I've been to a few. (I prefer the quieter Masses, such as up at St. John Cantius in Chicago, myself.)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:10 PM']no its not. Saying the responses is the altar boys' job.
[right][snapback]886640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not if you go to a regular Mass, the responses are for [i]everyone[/i].

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:10 PM']no its not. Saying the responses is the altar boys' job.
[right][snapback]886640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not anymore it's not...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MilesChristi' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:10 PM']I attend an indult "Tridentine" Mass on Sundays and the "Novus Ordo" Mass during the week.

For the edification of our brother STM and anyone who hasn't read it before, I'm going to post Cam's awesome analysis of the two Masses. All that follows is his work:

[b]Novus Ordo Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Entrance Antiphons.
Tridentine Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Psalm 42.[/b]

--The only difference is that Psalm 42 was elimnated and the Introit was moved to replace it.
--In reality they are about the same length if you take into account that (i) in the Pauline liturgy, the priest after the greeting usually takes about thirty seconds to explain the significance of the mass that day - usually a theme from one of the readings or if it is a feast day something pertaining to the feast - and (ii) in the Tridentine liturgy the priest and server usually alternate Psalm verses at low volume and quickly in a manner whereby if they said them aloud it would sound rambling. (I have served at many a Tridentine mass and in every case the priest recited Psalm 42 as if he was in a hurry.)
--As far as the usage of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass, it was added at around the eleventh century. Therefore, it cannot be considered an "essential" part of the rite as if going without it somehow made the Pauline rite in any way deficient. That is the primary point to be made here, not whether it is better to have retained it or not. (Such views are purely subjective though subjectively the author if a choice was to be made would prefer the older sequence.)

[b]Novus Ordo: Confietor
Tridentine: Confietor[/b]

--Slight change to the wording
--the Confiteor is one of three optional introductory rites, the experience of this writer is that it is used about 90% of the time and therefore can be considered the "normal usage" of the Pauline Missal by default. The second Confiteor was deleted because it gives the illusion of vastly greater length when in reality the priest and server say the Confiteor so quickly that it is practically a ramble. By contrast the Pauline liturgy has one Confiteor recited in the plural and is done slower with much better enunciation. (This is not to be condescending but to state the truth.) Since many 'traditionalists' gripe about the "necessity" of two Confiteors as if to keep some kind of separation between the priest and the people, it should be pointed out once again that a 'traditionalist' making such claims has a very myopic understanding of liturgical history.

[b]Novus Ordo: Kyrie and Gloria
Tridentine: Introit, Kyrie, and Gloria[/b]

--Introit moved to the Introductory Prayers in the Novus Ordo
--So this argument against duplicate prayers that the 'traditionalists' espouses has no historical foundation to stand on and the Pauline practice of prayers in the plural has a much earlier pedigree then the Tridentine practice which started at around the ninth century. Both are valid but if any deserves a special mention as being more faithful to the authentic liturgical tradition, it is the Pauline restoration of the plural form of the prayers.

[b]Novus Ordo: Liturgy of the Word
Tridentine: Liturgy of the Word[/b]

--Inclusion of OT readings. Replacement of Gradual, Tract, or Sequence (in some instances) with Responsorial Psalm. However, this is a misnomer, because there are Graduals for the Novus Ordo. They are simply deferred in favor of the Responsorial Psalm.
--The extra length of the Tridentine liturgy is somewhat deceptive since the priest-server dialogue parts are done in about thirty seconds total. (Almost as a mumble actually.) While an argument could be made that the elimination of the Introit Prayer preceding the Gloria was not a good idea, it can also be argued that the Entrance Antiphon in essence takes the place of the Introit albeit being recited earlier in the Mass than the Introit was. The Pauline Rite Kyrie and Gloria maintain the substance of both prayers intact. Remember, brevity in spots for the sake of maintaining focus on the object (worshipping God) cannot be said to be a bad (or "invalid") feature anymore than repetition of a prayer is necessarily "vain" or an exercise in Pharisaical "external" emphasis with a lack of proper internal intention. Claiming that either method is "wrong" or "objectively inferior" is demonstrating an arbitrary exercise in personal private judgment. (Though there is merit to the assertion that using two responses makes liturgical dialogue more fluid, the author still feels that the Kyrie should have retained the three repetitions in part because it better affords for singing this part in the non-vernacular with the ancient hymnology.) The Pauline prayer after the Confiteor does not mimic the priest’s prayer of absolution from the confessional which is important because the priest is not absolving people of sin during the Mass; however it can appear that way in the Tridentine Mass since the wording is the same as that used in the confessional. This is another important part of the liturgy that the Pauline Mass restoration corrected.
--In essence the Pauline "Opening Prayer" and the Tridentine "Prayer" are synonymous. There is perhaps a bit more outward reverence in the Tridentine approach but this may be deceiving because of the Latin language which has a certain quality to it that the English language does not have. There are Pauline Rite Masses which display a similar aura as the Tridentine - where Latin is used in the common prayers as Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned (cf. SC §54). One of the areas where the Pauline Rite definitely has it over the Tridentine Rite is in the allotment of Scripture readings. There is more Scripture read and the readings are alternated so much more of the Bible is covered in a liturgical year including the Old Testament which is not often read in a Tridentine Mass during Sundays and Feast Days in accordance with the pre-1962 Liturgical rubrics. This was a good improvement over the Tridentine Rite and should definitely be noted as a positive change for the better.

[b]Novus Ordo: Nicene Creed
Tridentine: Nicene Creed[/b]

--The only major change is in posture. A profound bow replaces a genuflection.
--The Tridentine Creed has the genuflection whereas the Pauline Creed replaces it with an reverent bow. (Arguments about the latter or former being more "proper" are purely subjective.) The Tridentine Rite has just the priest saying the Nicene Creed while the Pauline Rite version of the Credo is verbally smoother for the most part and is said or sung by both the priest and the people simultaneously. As was shown earlier, the plural prayer form is far more ancient then the Tridentine practice of segregating the main liturgical parts. (With the exception of course for certain parts of the Canon which only the priest is allowed to pray.) Thus this aspect of the Pauline Rite Mass is a good addition and an example of correction from within the liturgical tradition.

[b]Novus Ordo: Offertory Rite
Tridentine: Offertory Rite[/b]

--Offertory, offering of the Host and Chalice, the Lavabo, and the Orate Fratres remain the same. The Secret is replaced with the Prayer over Gifts.
--A good argument could be made here that the Pauline Rite may have simplified this portion of the Mass too much but that view is irrelevant in examining the Mass differences in terms of looking for characteristics that render the Mass’ licitness as questionable. (Or even changes that could be termed "invalidating", "illicit", "doubtfully valid", "sacrilegeously valid", or even "objectively inferior".) Considering that "[a]ll the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century...before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers" (Fr. Adrian Fortescue: "Liturgy of the Mass"), the addition of these prayers to the Tridentine liturgy was a very late addition indeed. There is also the problem of the older Offertory prayers appearing to offer the unconsecrated elements as sacrifice. (This writer replaced the word "host" with "victim" above because the Latin hostiam is a derivative of hostia which means "victim" in Latin.) So the text of the prayer at this point could easily be misunderstood as an offering being made at that point in time. Whatever one wants to say about the Offertory Prayers of the Pauline Missal, at the very least they do not have this difficulty but instead indicate that at the time of the Offertory that they are bread and wine. The language is indisputably more "directly anticipating" of the consecration then the Tridentine liturgy Offertory is.
--With regards to essentials, nothing in the changes made to the Mass in the Revised Missal effects the essence of the Mass itself. Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with 'tradition' but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity. (This was due to the type of bread being used in earlier days getting on the fingers of the priest.) The addition of the Psalm at this time was to give the priest something to say when he was washing his fingers and Psalm 25 was of course very fitting. Eventually the action became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to thoroughly wash fingers was no longer there (and it no longer is). The "Secret" is synonymous with the "Prayer Over the Gifts."

[b]Novus Ordo: Canon Preface and Sanctus
Tridentine: Canon Preface and Sanctus[/b]

--The only major change is that the preface now changes with the Given Mass (ie. Mass of Ordinary time, Mass of Easter, etc....), whereas in the Tridentine there is only the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity.
--The Pauline Rite version is slimmer but is lacking no noticeable differences substantially from the Tridentine Rite and certainly nothing that would at all render it defective or illicit, etc. There is a greater variety of Preface prayers which helps keep the liturgy more "vibrant" to some extent as well as introducing different themes from salvation history into the mix. This is a necessary quality much as the diversity of Eucharistic Prayers (which we will get to shortly) accomplishes the same purpose. Considering that there were 267 Preface prayers in the Leonine Sacramentary from the mid fifth century, the self-styled 'traditionalist' who gripes about a variety of Preface prayers as "against tradition" demonstrates by this example a poor grasp of these issues.

[b]Novus Ordo: Canon of the Mass
Tridentine: Canon of the Mass[/b]

--The only major change is that three more canons were composed for the Novus Ordo. However, in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) there is no difference whatsoever.
--the Tridentine Canon is still used in substantial form as Anaphora 1 of the Pauline Rite. In this prayer, the offering made is referred to as a sacrifice four times explicitly and arguably two more times implicitly.
--Speaking to Anaphora 3, It is a new prayer based on the old Spanish Mozarbic anaphoras. It mentions the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering explicitly twice, implicitly as a "perfect offering" twice, and Our Lord as the "victim" being offered once: NO sacrificial overtones there right???

[b]Novus Ordo: Pater Noster to the Dismissal
Tridentine: Pater Noster to the Dismissal[/b]

--In the Pater Noster, there is no change. The Kiss of Peace is now extended to the faithful, whereas in the Tridentine it is for those in the Sanctuary only. Agnus Dei is the same. At the Communion, the priest now shows the consecrated Host to the faithful and implores a response. This was not done in the Tridentine Rite. Priestly Communion, Communion of the Faithful. The Novus Ordo has a Post Communion Prayer whereas the Tridentine did not. The final Blessing is the same and the Dismissal is the same.
The two rites have a number of similarities to them primarily in structure. There are areas where the Pauline Mass is more truncated than the Tridentine Rite but there are also areas where the Tridentine Rite could be said to be redundant where the Pauline Rite is not. What was not included in this comparison the prayers after Mass in the Tridentine Rite because they were added by Pope Leo XIII and were not a part of the original 1570 Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Also, the parts of the Pauline Rite that emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass were highlighted to show explicitly that the claims that the Mass is "Protestatized" or that the Mass is not viewed as a sacrifice (the standard 'traditionalist' claims about the Pauline Rite) are from a macro standpoint at least - demonstrably false.

Ok, that was long and involved. I have had to pull out notes from school, yet again, however, it is good for me to start looking at this stuff again. (See, hot stuff, I did get pretty deep in this stuff at the Mount.)

I need to give some props, first to Fr. Gross and Fr. Echert they were liturgy professors (Gross from the Mount and Echert from UST), Also to Msgr. Schuler from St. Agnes, Fr. Zushlsdorf (also the webmaster for CatholicOnline) from the diocese of Velletri-Segni (Roma), and my friend Allen, who is the Sacristan at St. Agnes. These are the main instructors both formal and informal that I had on the subject. Ok, now I can breathe.
[right][snapback]886639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do we have this over at Word Board?

[Cam42]

Yep.

[cmotherofpirl]

[rkwright]

is there any reason why there is a difference in which Eucharistic prayer is used in the mass? I have 2 priests at my Parish, one consistantly uses the 'Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness' (I think this is number 2?) , the other uses a variety.

Is there any significance in this? Or just Priest's choice? Why are there so many choices in the poll relating to it?

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Why are there so many choices in the poll relating to it?[/quote]

Because, I perfer the Eucharistic Prayer I if I MUST attend a NO Mass (and I MUST attend a NO Mass about half the time)

[quote]The only major change is that three more canons were composed for the Novus Ordo. However, in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) there is no difference whatsoever.[/quote]

And I am sorry, but, the Eucharistic Prayer I is not exactly the same.

I alwasy follow along in my Angelus Press 1962 Missal when I go to a NO Mass, and I've been to one that used Eucharistic Prayer I and it was not the same. A lot of important prayers were omitted, and it omitted the "For" in "For this is my body" and it added after that "which will be given up for you". It also used different words of the concecration of the wine. It used "cup" for "chalice" and it ommitted "the mystery of faith" in the Concecration of the wine, posponing it to "let us proclaim the mystery of faith..." and it used "all" instead of "many". Now those concecration differences are present in all NO Masses, so you cant say they that there is no difference whatsoever between the Canon and EPI.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 11:27 PM']Because, I perfer the Eucharistic Prayer I if I MUST attend a NO Mass (and I MUST attend a NO Mass about half the time)
And I am sorry, but, the Eucharistic Prayer I is not exactly the same.

I alwasy follow along in my Angelus Press 1962 Missal when I go to a NO Mass, and I've been to one that used Eucharistic Prayer I and it was not the same. A lot of important prayers were omitted, and it omitted the "For" in "For this is my body" and it added after that "which will be given up for you". It also used different words of the concecration of the wine. It used "cup" for "chalice" and it ommitted "the mystery of faith" in the Concecration of the wine, posponing it to "let us proclaim the mystery of faith..." and it used "all" instead of "many". Now those concecration differences are present in all NO Masses, so you cant say they that there is no difference whatsoever between the Canon and EPI.
[right][snapback]886770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Careful to use Latin to argue and not English. The English is terrible!

[quote]Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; in primis quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica; quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.,et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et aostolicae fidei cultoribus.
P. Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus. vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se, suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis, et incolumitis suae; tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.
(This next prayer has special beginnings for certain feasts. This is the usual version.)
P. Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genitricis Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi: sed et beati Joseph ejusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Jacobi, Joannis, Thomae, Jacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis, et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Joannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani, et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
P. Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias, diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum jubeas grege numerari. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
P. Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris,. ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiatdilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
The Consecration
P. Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in coelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, diditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite,et manducate ex hoc omnes:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.
P. Simili modo postquam coenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum Calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas. item tibi gratias agens, benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens. Accepite, et bibite ex eo omnes:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI:
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.
(The Blood of Christ is lifted up for worship).
P. Unde et momores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae Passionis, nec non et ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in coelos gloriosae Ascensionis. offerimus praeclarae majertati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae.
P. Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris; et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, et sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
P. Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu dininae majertatis tuae: ut quoquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrocanctum Filii tui Corpus, et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
P. Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, utindulgeas, deprecamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
P. Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam, et societatem donare digneris, cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus, cum Joanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasis, et omnibus Sanctis tuis, intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meritim sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
P. Per quem haec omnia Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis.
The Elevation
P. Per ipsum,
et cum ipso,
et in ipso,
est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti,
in unitate Spiritus Sancti,
omnis honor et gloria,
per omnia saecula saeculorum.
S. AMEN![/quote]

[quote]Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas + haec dona haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.  Memento, Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus: pro redemtione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.
Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genetricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, (Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ionnis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani) et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio.
(Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias: diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari.
(Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemquw facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.
(Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
Qui, pridie quam pateretur,
accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas,
et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:
Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est,
accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, item tibi grtias agens benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:
Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
Mysterium fidei.
A. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.
Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, eiusdem Christi, Filii Tui, Domini nostri, tam beatae passionis, necnon et ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in caelos gloriosae ascensionis: offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctam vitae aeternae et Calicem salutis perpetuae.
Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, siculti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae; ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus,
omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur,
(Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, et dormiunt in somno pacis.
Ipsis, domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur.
(Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus: cum Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba, (Ignatio, Alexandro, Marcellino, Petro, Felicitate, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnete, Caecilia, Anastasia) et omnibus Sanctis tuis:
intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte.
Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis.
Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum.
Amen.[/quote]

I read/skimmed most of that. I caught two words of difference.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:30 PM']Ad Orientum is superior and Versus Poplum is inferior.
[right][snapback]886550[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
can you elaborate?

can someone explain what the differences are between all these eucharistic prayers?

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 11:05 PM']oh, its great to sing, just dont say the responses.
[right][snapback]886623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
it's great to obey the Pope.

[photosynthesis]

I prefer the Catholic Mass myself

[qfnol31]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Feb 14 2006, 12:58 AM']can you elaborate?[/quote]

I can, if you want to read it.

[quote name='http://www.adoremus.org/0500-Ratzinger.html']In Chapter Three, presented here, Cardinal Ratzinger lays out the case for reconsidering the direction the priest faces during the celebration of Mass -- toward the liturgical East ("ad orientem"). Please note that this was a pre-publication preview, exclusively available to Adoremus members. This was posted while the translation of Cardinal Ratzinger's text was still being edited, so there may be some minor changes in the published version. Also, we have edited the text slightly (indicated by ellipses), and added textheads and paragraphing to facilitate reading in this format.

Chapter 3

The re-shaping so far described, of the Jewish synagogue for the purpose of Christian worship, clearly shows -- as we have already said -- how, even in architecture, there is both continuity and newness in the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. Expression in space had to be given to the properly Christian act of worship, the celebration of the Eucharist, together with the ministry of the Word, which is ordered toward that celebration.

Plainly, further developments became not only possible but necessary. A place set aside for Baptism had to be found. The Sacrament of Penance went through a long process of development, which resulted in changes to the form of the church building. Popular piety in its many different forms inevitably found expression in the place dedicated to divine worship. The question of sacred images had to be resolved. Church music had to be fitted into the spatial structure. We saw that the architectural canon for the liturgy of Word and Sacrament is not a rigid one, though with every new development and re-ordering the question has to be posed: what is in harmony with the essence of the liturgy, and what detracts from it? In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression.

Posture and God's universality

Modern man has little understanding of this "orientation". Judaism and Islam, now as in the past, take it for granted that we should pray toward the central place of revelation, to the God who has revealed Himself to us, in the manner and in the place in which He revealed Himself. By contrast, in the western world, an abstract way of thinking, which in a certain way is the fruit of Christian influence, has become dominant. God is spiritual, and God is everywhere: does that not mean that prayer is not tied to a particular place or direction? Now we can indeed pray everywhere, and God is accessible to us everywhere. This idea of the universality of God is a consequence of Christian universality, of the Christian's looking up to God above all gods, the God who embraces the cosmos and is more intimate to us than we are to ourselves. But our knowledge of this universality is the fruit of revelation: God has shown Himself to us. Only for this reason do we know Him, only for this reason can we confidently pray to Him everywhere. And precisely for this reason is it appropriate, now as in the past, that we should express in Christian prayer our turning to the God who has revealed Himself to us. Just as God assumed a body and entered the time and space of this world, so it is appropriate to prayer -- at least to communal liturgical prayer -- that our speaking to God should be "incarnational", that it should be Christological, turned through the incarnate Word to the Triune God. The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of Divine Revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.

The Church's living altar

But what about the altar? In what direction should we pray during the Eucharistic liturgy? In Byzantine church buildings the structure just described was essentially retained, but in Rome a somewhat different arrangement developed. The bishop's chair was shifted to the center of the apse, and so the altar was moved into the nave. This seems to have been the case in the Lateran basilica and in Saint Mary Major well into the ninth century. However, in Saint Peter's, during the pontificate of Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), the altar was moved nearer to the bishop's chair, probably for the simple reason that he was supposed to stand as much as possible above the tomb of Saint Peter. This was an outward and visible expression of the truth that we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Lord in the Communion of Saints, a communion spanning all the times and ages.

The custom of erecting an altar above the tombs of the martyrs probably goes back a long way and is an outcome of the same motivation. Throughout history the martyrs continue Christ's self-oblation; they are like the Church's living altar, made not of stones but of men, who have become members of the Body of Christ and thus express a new kind of cultus: sacrifice is humanity becoming love with Christ.

Arrangement of Saint Peter's copied

The ordering of Saint Peter's was then copied, so it would seem, in many other stational churches in Rome. For the purposes of this discussion, we do not need to go into the disputed details of this process. The controversy in our own century was triggered by another innovation. Because of topographical circumstances, it turned out that Saint Peter's faced west. Thus, if the celebrating priest wanted -- as the Christian tradition of prayer demands -- to face east, he had to stand behind the people and look -- this is the logical conclusion -- toward the people. For whatever reason it was done, one can also see this arrangement in a whole series of church buildings within Saint Peter's direct sphere of influence.

The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of the Liturgy. The Eucharist, so it was said, had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar -- as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter's -- had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone, so it was said, was compatible with the meaning of the Christian Liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper.

These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about "turning to the people") new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II's liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the Liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the Liturgy -- the Liturgy as a communal meal.

Misunderstanding of meal symbolism

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

    The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table (54f).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the 'shape' of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term 'meal'. True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.

Not from the meal alone

Thus it came to pass that the synagogue Liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ's Death and Resurrection to become the 'Eucharist', and precisely thus was fidelity to the command "Do this" fulfilled. This new complete form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal, but had to be defined through the interconnection of temple and synagogue, Word and Sacrament, cosmos and history. It expresses itself in the very form that we discovered in the liturgical structure of the early Churches in the world of Semitic Christianity. It also, of course, remained fundamental for Rome.

Once again let me quote Bouyer:

    Never and nowhere before (that is, before the sixteenth century) is there any indication of the slightest importance being attached, or even attention given, to the question of whether the priest should celebrate with the people behind him or in front of him. Professor Cyril Vogel has proved that, "if anything was stressed, it was that the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, like all other prayers, turned towards the East Even when the orientation of the church allowed the priest to pray facing the people, we must not forget that it was not just the priest who turned to the East, but the whole congregation with him" (p. 56).

"Unprecedented clericalism"

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practice of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labeled as "celebrating towards the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal -- even in modern pictures -- became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians.

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest -- the "presider", as they now prefer to call him -- becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.

Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make a contribution of their own". Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern".

The self-enclosed circle

The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a "celebration toward the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together "toward the Lord". As one of the fathers of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy, J.A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not lock themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us....

But is this not all romanticism and nostalgia for the past? Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our own times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made possible the recovery of the tradition of the altar at the crossing, the meeting-point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the strictly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the Psalm the hearer digests what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

Turn to the East is essential

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer....

The image of God in man

[An] objection is that we do not need to look toward the East, towards the crucifix, that, when priest and faithful look at one another, they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing one another is the right direction for prayer. I find it hard to believe that the famous reviewer thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The "image of God" in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, but only with the new seeing of faith. We can see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humility, love -- everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for....

The sign of the Son of Man

A more important objection is of the practical order. Are we really going to re-order everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the Liturgy than constant changes, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.

I see a solution to this in a suggestion I noted at the beginning in connection with the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces Our Lord's Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior "East" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.

In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum, "Turn to the Lord!" In this way we look together at the One whose Death tore the veil of the Temple -- the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in His arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord?

This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the Suffering Lord who for us let His side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of Our Lord's Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the One Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and for ever (Heb. 13. 8).[/quote]

[quote]can someone explain what the differences are between all these eucharistic prayers?[/quote]

Mostly their history, but Eucharistic Prayer I is the Roman Canon from before the Novus Ordo.

It is, in my opinion, the most poetic and fullest of the four (and there are more, but these are the most common). It is by far the longest, but it's so pretty!

[quote]it's great to obey the Pope.
[right][snapback]886829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but in clarification, I don't think it's required for anyone to say the responses.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Feb 14 2006, 12:58 AM']I prefer the Catholic Mass myself
[right][snapback]886831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As opposed to...?

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 13 2006, 08:51 PM']And the Tridentine is not superior to the Novus Ordo.
[right][snapback]886586[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Tridentine Mass is superior in the sense that it is a clearer presentation of Catholic dogma and is aesthetically more pleasing.