Reforming The Ordinary Form With Prayers From The Extraordinary Form

[rkwright]

wow thats cool...

that choir is amazing. Why can't we have music like that instead of On Eagles Wings!?!

[qfnol31]

I don't have the opportunity to go to a Tridentine Mass all the time (and honestly I am pretty happy with the Novus Ordo at the National Shrine right now), but the last time I went I thought there were a couple things the Tridentine Mass could learn from the Novus Ordo and Liturgical movement from the middle of last century. I think that both expressions have something to offer to each other and that the old expression should be reformed slightly. I don't call for the two expressions to look like one another, but that the Tridentine Mass be reformed into a more elegant and thoughtful Mass. I for one think the calls of Vatican II to reform the Liturgy might have some merit.

The first thing I would change is the placement of the last Gospel reading before [i]Ite Missa Est[/i]. It doesn't make any sense if it is afterwards. Also, the doubling of the [i]Confiteor[/i] is superfluous.

The dialogue Mass is not a result of the 1960s (or even the 1950s) but was something discussed by theologians like Romano Guardini in the 1930s. He was a great influence on Pope Benedict's theology if you ever want to read some great works on the Mass. The songs should be sung as a part of Mass (I know a great supporter of the old Mass who thinks that the greatest thing from Vatican II was its change of the meaning of music in the Mass.

I think the readings should be in the local language (like the homily is) while the rest of the Mass remains in Latin. Perhaps, though this is a stretch, the proper prayers could be translated (though I'm not completely set on this).

I think at times Holy Communion should be distributed under both Sacred Species. There isn't a reason not to have both Species much of the time (intinction would be great and is highly regarded in the East and is a part of our larger tradition).

There were a few more things I thought could be changed into a better Mass, but I've forgotten them at this time.

I'll post some of the things I think should be changed with the ordinary expression of the Mass later.

[TNSeminarian]

Now, I must admit that I didn't make it through reading all of the posts that were on this forum, so I apologize if I am reiterating what may have been written before. Normally I would refrain from posting, but I feel a need to at present, so hopefully what I put won't be misunderstood or incite others to sin.

I think this topic is ridiculous. While I agree that there are points where the [i][/i]celebration[i][/i] of the Novus Ordo must be improved - i.e. more Latin, facing east, reinstallation of altar rails, among other things - I think that for laymen to undertake such discussions is dangerous. We already have a crisis among the laity thinking that they are on par with priests, we don't need it in the opposite direction wherein we say that we havn't the dignity of the ontological change of the priest, but we have greater knowledge than him as well. It can bring about an incredible amount of sinful hubris. As a seminarian I am one of those who is most susceptible to such leanings, especially learning more about the Sacred Liturgy and its glorious history. However, I think that better time could be spent praying for proper changes in the Mass to happen, rather than talking about it incessantly online. Many well thought responses were put, and very educational (I often learn much from these posts), but constant talk about such things is dangerous as it may incite many to become disillusioned with Holy Mother Church and fail to see that despite some of the inappropriate occurances in the Sacred Liturgy, she is still alive and well and acting in the lives of her faithful.

I suppose in the end I am simply asking that these topics which arrogate themselves the place of liturgists, seeking to put forth opinions, or elicit opinions, stop, because they are dangerous. If perhaps they would take the form of explanation, rather than inspiration, or revolution (however small) it would be worlds better. I learn a lot from many things that are posted here, but I think that putting opinion is dangerous and that we as a Church need to be careful of editorializing too much at the expense of misinforming those who may not know, or may be led astray by what are simply opinions, and not the teachings or practices of the Church.

[qfnol31]

Unfortunately I have only known about 5 Priests (outside of FSSP/SSPX) in my life who have taken an interest in this topic.

The majority of the seminarians I know are either indifferent or against the extraordinary expression of the Mass, and that makes me really sad.

I am a graduate theology major right now and know that one day I will be teaching seminarians training for the Priesthood and I take a great interest in issues that revolve around the Liturgy.

I agree that this is most properly left for the Priests, but unfortunately most I have known will not speak out in favour of the tradition.

[Seven77]

I think that the VII cycle of Scripture Readings could enrich the EO Form. a new cycle for both forms? the passages that are not in the VII cycle being included.

[Resurrexi]

As author of this thread, I'd just like to remind everyone that this thread is about reforming the Ordinary Form with the Extraordinary Form, not vice versa. I therefore ask that if you wish to discuss reforming the Extraordinary Form with the Ordinary Form, please make another thread.
Thank you!

[qfnol31]

I think this question is relevant to the current thread, but if it's not, then I apologize.

This also isn't a response to you as much as your comment raised this question in my mind.

Is reforming the ordinary form of the Mass more important/necessary and better than reforming the extraordinary form of the Mass?

[Resurrexi]

My opinion (which after all doesn't count for much) is that yes it is more important and necessary. Looking at the probable future of the Roman Rite, they will probably both be reformed and made into one form, and I just hope the Extraordinary Use isn't altered to the point where it is no longer seems to be the the same Mass which was used in the Roman Rite for more than 400 years.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 03:05 PM']Some other questions I would have asked is I could have added more than three questions on the poll:

Should Psalm 42 and the prologue to the Gospel of St. John be allowed at the beginning and end of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, respectively?

Should the prayer "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem..." be a part of the offertory prayers before the "Orate Fratres..." in the Ordinary Form?

Should the parts that are now optional (e. g. the listing of the names of the various Saints) in the Roman Canon when the Ordinary Form is used be made mandatory?

Should the Words of Consecration in the Ordinary Form be changed to be the same as those of the Extraordinary Form (i. e. should "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR." be changed to "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM."? And should "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM." be changed to "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDEI:QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTURIN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM." with the words "Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis." being said after the Consecration of the Chalice and not part of the Consecration itself?)

Should the Memorial Acclamation be abolished?[/quote]
[b]
YES to all questions above and to all poll questions.[/b]

[qfnol31]

Part of my reason for posting the way that the Tridentine Mass can be reformed was an extended way of saying in what ways I [i]don't[/i] think the new Mass should be reformed, or if it is reformed, what things I think should stay.

I don't think you can just add the Gospel after the [i]Ite Missa Est[/i], but think that a new way should be used. (Here I'm talking about the Ordinary Expression of the Mass, slowly answering the original question).

[qfnol31]

L_D, I hope you come back to read my question.

Have you read Louis Bouyer's understanding of the [i]berakah[/i] in context of Ecclesiology?

He had some really interesting things to say in his book [i]The Church of God[/i]. It was much less Protestant than I would have expected. He seemed to make some good points for the whole understanding of the People of God too.

[qfnol31]

Oops - double post.

Edited January 28, 2008 by qfnol31

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1451730' date='Jan 27 2008, 10:19 PM']L_D, I hope you come back to read my question.

Have you read Louis Bouyer's understanding of the [i]berakah[/i] in context of Ecclesiology?

He had some really interesting things to say in his book [i]The Church of God[/i]. It was much less Protestant than I would have expected. He seemed to make some good points for the whole understanding of the People of God too.[/quote]
Hey dude.
I haven't read [i]The Church of God[/i] but Bouyer lays it out pretty good in [i]Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer[/i]; I owe a lot to this text actually. Out of all the scholars who actively participated in the liturgical reform after the Council I would say that Bouyer is without a doubt one of my favorites. He is surprisingly level headed on a number of controversial issues even if I've read a few things here and there that strike me as asinine. [i]Eucharist [/i]is a real gem as is [i]Liturgy and Architecture[/i]; I'd like to read more Bouyer when I can find the time so perhaps I should consider [i]The Church of God[/i].
Was there a previous post that you want me to check out? For the record I think the [i]berakoth [/i]traditions are interesting and certainly valuable in understanding Christian liturgy, but I don't believe that this scholarship affords much in the way of orthodox principles for liturgical renewal and the like. One of the problems I have is when neat scholarly findings become occasions for liturgical reengineering. To the best of my knowledge there is no way of adequately justifying that which replaced the offertory in the “reformed” Mass. Is this issue the reason why you brought up the [i]berakah[/i] subject?

[qfnol31]

I was reading his section on Israel as the "People of God" earlier today for my Ecclesiology class and he made a few comments that brought me back to your earlier post. I'm not sure what I think about the [i]berakah[/i] in the Liturgy, though he made me think for a few minutes.

I am going to try and post a synopsis of the chapter and more context when I get a chance.

The chapter of the book is a little long and the translation isn't exactly wonderful...

[quote][He references the Passover before this begins]
Hence the special prayer of Israel: its act of thanksgiving for the past, for creation, accomplished once at the beginning and preserved and unceasingly continued, and therefore--even more--for the work of salvation, for which God in person gradually came into this history of man and the world, which had begun by being the history of the fault and the fall. Hence this supplication in which the thanksgiving is spontaneously extended: that God will renew his great deeds of the past--rather, that he will revive them, follow them through, and lead them to their eschatological term. Then, his work, perfect in unity; his Name, revealed to all; and he himself, known by his People as he knows them, will be glorified forever.

The heart of this prayer is the "memorial," which gives its meaning and substance to the worship of Israel: this ritual of the covenant, sacrifice, fellowship meal, in which the People touch, so to speak, the token that God himself left them of his past actions, of their enduring permanence, so that the People can present the token to their god and, with the assurance of obtaining it, invoke the fulfillment in themselves of the divine work to which, at the same time, they once again unceasingly consecrate themselves.

This prayer is already eucharistic, since [i]eucharistia[/i] will be, first, the translation of [i]berekah[/i], by which Hebrew designates it, and because the Christian Eucharist will retain its schema. It is in this prayer that we can best see how the Word that has come down to man fecundates his wisdom and therein gives rise to the apocalyptic hope. For the aim of the Word was finally to penetrate the whole man, the whole conscious and reflected expression in which he gradually discovers himself by actualizing himself. It was to lead man into a total and unique experience, which constitutes the tradition of Israel, in which the People of God were formed, to go beyond itself, to transcend itself, through obedient faith, conformation to the divine plan, and union with God, so that this perfect "knowledge" might come, in which the knower and the known are one.

[...]This section I skip is a page long and all very important for what follows[...]

According to rabbinical theology, synagogue worship, with its prayers, is only an extension of this last assembly of Ezra, of this latter-day [i]ekklesia[/i], in which the People of God succeed in forming themselves by preparing for the eschatological revelation. In the apocalyptic groups, like that of Qumran, the community meals, with their own [i]berakoth[/i], will appear (beyond the ancient sacrifices, which were only preparatory) as an anticipation of the messianic banquet in which (according to the liturgical formula already mentioned) the memorial of the Messiah, and of the People as well, "will rise up and come so that he will arrive, be seen, accepted, heard, recalled, mentioned before God, for deliverance, blessing, grace, compassion and mercy" on this day of days!

Thus Jesus, by celebrating the last [i]qahal[/i] of ancient Israel at his Last Supper with his disciples, after his last conversation with them, at the same time that he put his Eucharist in the forms of the supreme Jewish [i]berakah[/i], substituted the memorial of his death for all the simply preparatory sacrifices, separated his Church, the [i]ekklesia Theou[/i] of the latter days, from the People of the sons of Abraham.[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Sweet quote! I'll have to scoop up a copy of that text.
It is quite phat how [i]berakah[/i] foreshadows Christian worship. This reminds me of something I typed up for STM a while back from one of Ratzinger's books on the liturgy. It essentially talks about the form or [i]gestalt[/i] of Christian worship as distinct from sacred meals and worship within the Jewish matrix. The basic insight that Ratzinger made in this book ([i]Feast of Faith[/i]) is sadly lacking in a lot of the scholarship of the 60's and 70's. These basic misunderstandings of the essence of Christian worship often lead to false and even heretical understandings of the meal aspect of the Mass and/or the relationship between Christian and Jewish worship. I see this as related to the [i]berakah[/i] subject (at least insofar as this pertains to liturgical revisionism) because in my opinion misapplications of this rich concept are often related to a combination false assumptions about the history of the Roman canon in particular and misguided ideas about the relationship between Christian liturgy and Jewish ritual meals in general.

Here is the snippet that I typed up on this thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74607"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74607[/url]

Very cool stuff...

[b]The Growth of the Church and the Development of the Eucharist[/b]

The work of H. Schurmann has been of decisive importance in shedding light on the transition from the Last Supper of Jesus to the Church’s Eucharist. Here we cannot enter into the endless controversies which surround the Eucharistic tradition: we are deliberately restricting our enquiry to the structure [Gestalt] and its development, and in this regard Schurmann has identified three stages: 1. the Eucharist at the Last Supper of Jesus; 2. the Eucharist in connection with the apostolic community meal; 3. the celebration of the Eucharist in post-apostolic times, separated from the community meal.
Unfortunately there is not space here to reproduce the details of the process; we can only mention the critical transitions and examine their inner significance.
As far as the Eucharist at the Last Supper of Jesus is concerned, it is possible to reconstruct the locus of Jesus’ Eucharistic actions fairly precisely through recourse to the Gospels and Jewish meal customs. Assuming that the meal in question was a Passover supper, it had a fourfold structure encompassing a small preliminary meal, the Passover liturgy, the main meal, and the concluding rites. The breaking of bread took place therefore before the main meal itself; the giving of the cup follows the main meal, as Luke expressly says: “after supper” (22:20).
Schurmann concludes two things from this: “1. At the Last Supper the Eucharistic action was an integral and constitutive part of a meal-structure… 2. At the Last Supper the Eucharistic action had a relatively autonomous existence and significance in contrast to the meal event.”
What the Lord is doing here is something new. It is woven into an old context – that of the Jewish ritual mean – but it is clearly recognizable as an independent entity. He commanded it to be repeated, which implies that it was separable from the immediate context in which it took place.
There is nothing fortuitous in this interplay of old and new. It is the exact and necessary expression of the existing situation in salvation history. Jesus prays his new prayer within the Jewish liturgy. The crucifixion has not yet taken place, even though, in a way, it has begun. Jesus has not yet become separated from the Jewish community, i.e., the Church as Church has not yet come into being; “Church” in the narrower historical sense does not come about until the attempt to win the whole of Israel has failed. Since, as yet, there is no independent Christian reality, but on an open-ended form within Judaism, there cannot be an independent and specifically Christian form of liturgy. The real mistake of those who attempt uncritically to deduce the Christian liturgy directly from the Last Supper lies in their failing to see this fundamental point: the Last Supper of Jesus is certainly the basis of all Christian liturgy, but in itself it is not yet Christian. The act constituted the Christian reality takes place within the Jewish framework, but it has not yet attained a form, a structure [Gestalt] of its own as Christian liturgy. Salvation history is still open-ended; no definitive decision has been made as to whether the Christian phenomenon will or will not have to separate itself from its Jewish matrix as a distinct reality.
Indeed, we could make the issue clearer by taking the earlier suggestions of the liturgical movement and turning them upside down: the Last Supper is the foundation of the dogmatic content of the Christian Eucharist, not of its liturgical form. The latter does not yet exist. As her separation from Israel became unavoidable, the Church had to discover an appropriate form of her own in which to express the reality bequeathed to her. This is a necessity arising out of the situation, not a decline. The seems to me to be a crucial point, not only for the debate about the liturgical form, but for a genuine understanding of the Christian reality. The idea that, after Jesus, there was an immediate decline in primitive Christianity, resulting in the hiatus between Jesus and the Church which still persists today, [footnotes direct attention to Hans Kung’s On Being a Christian] rests on a failure to take these facts into account. If this is the case, there can be no direct continuity between Jesus and the Church; this is also why the proclamation of the word has moved its center of gravity from the “Kingdom of God” to Christology. In this situation, unity with Jesus has to be sought in that discontinuity which is manifested where the proclamation of the Kingdom to Israel is left behind and the Church of the Gentiles is embraced.
Now let us turn to the second phase of the development traced by Schurmann, the apostolic Eucharist connected with the community meal. For the sake of brevity I go straight to the core of Schurmann’s description of this phase: “The primitive Christian community meal was not a repetition of the Last Supper of Jesus (which is not what Jesus commanded to be repeated); it was the continuation of Jesus’ everyday table fellowship with his disciples… Faced with the issue of incorporating Jesus’ twofold Eucharistic action into this community meal, the more obvious course was to insert the two actions together rather than to place them before and after their usual meal.” Two things here are important for our present consideration: first of all it is clear that Jesus’ command to repeat the action does not refer to the Last Supper as a whole at all, but to the specifically Eucharistic action. Thus the Last Supper was not repeated, and this is in itself caused a change in the overall structure and gave birth to a specifically Christian form. An ordinary meal precedes the Eucharistic celebration; the Eucharistic acts, now joined together, follow in the form of a distinct action, framed and heightened by the prayer of thanksgiving, eucharistia. This sequence is clearly visible in I Corinthians 11:17-34, but it is also perceptible in the way Matthew and Mark “match” the words spoken at the giving of the bread and of the cup. At one point, however, we must disagree with Schurmann. His thesis, that the apostolic Eucharist is a continuation of Jesus’ daily table fellowship with his disciples, was limited to the question of the structural origin of the celebration, but it is used by many people who wish to deny that anything was “instituted” at the Last Supper and who assume that the Eucharist originated more or less exclusively in Jesus’ meals with sinners. This view identified the Eucharist of Jesus with a strictly Lutheran doctrine of justification, namely, the pardoning of the sinner; ultimately, among those who see Jesus’ eating with sinners as the only solid fact about the historical Jesus which has come down to us, the whole of Christology and theology is reduced to this one factor. It results in a view of the Eucharist which has nothing in common with primitive Christianity. Whereas Paul says that those who approach the Eucharist in sin “eat and drink judgment” upon themselves (I Cor 11:29) and pronounces an anathema to protect the Eucharist from abuse (I Cor 16:22), proponents of this view see it as the essence of the Eucharist that it is available to all without distinction and without conditions. It is interpreted as the sign of the unconditional grace of God, offered directly to sinners and even to unbelievers – but at this point it certainly has little in common with Luther’s understanding of the Eucharist.
The fact that this thesis contradicts the entire Eucharistic inheritance of the New Testament indicates the wrong-headedness of its basic assumption: the Christian Eucharist was not understood in the context of Jesus’ eating with sinners, nor can it be seen simply as a continuation of his daily table fellowship with the disciples. There are two reasons for this.
a. First, as Schurmann himself observes, there is the festal quality of the Eucharist. Through the provisions of wine, it was lifted from everyday ordinariness and shown to be a festal celebration. There is no evidence that the Eucharist was celebrated daily in apostolic times, as Schurmann’s thesis would suggest. We must assume a weekly celebration; indeed, as Revelation 1:10 (cf. Acts 20:7; I Cor 16:2) indicates, a Sunday Eucharist.
b. The second reason against this interpretation is the firm outline of the Eucharist, based on the Passover ritual. Just as the Passover meal was celebrated in a clearly defined household, the Eucharist too, from the beginning, had definite conditions for admission. From the start, Eucharist was celebrated in what one might call the household of Jesus Christ, and thus it built the “Church”.
The situation, then, is highly nuanced. As such, the Christian Eucharist is not a repetition of the Last Supper (which was in fact unique). If the latter was a Passover meal, for which there is much evidence, it cannot have been repeated, for Passover occurs once a year according to the lunar calendar, whereas the Eucharist is celebrated weekly. On the other hand the Eucharist does take over substantial elements from the Passover tradition, not least the festal atmosphere and the precise admission conditions. Right from the apostolic period it clearly begins to construct its own special form. We might put it like this: the Eucharistic actions are taken out of the context of the Passover and are placed within the new context of the “Lord’s Day”, i.e., the day which marked the first meeting with the Risen Lord. The appearance of the Risen Lord to those who are his is the new beginning, causing the Jewish calendar of feasts to be left behind as obsolete and situating the gift of Eucharist in its new setting. To that extent Sunday, the first day of the week (also regarded as the first day of creation and now marking the new creation) is the real inner locus of the Eucharist as a Christian form [Gestalt]. Sunday and the Eucharist belong together right from the beginning; the day of the Resurrection is the matrix of the Eucharist.
This is the situation, therefore, in the second phase: the new, Christian elements are taken out of the context of the Last Supper, joined together and placed after the disciples’ fellowship meal. Meal and Eucharist are linked by the fundamental Christian idea of agape. The mutual agape of the community provides the context for the transforming agape of the Lord. However, the actual development of the communities cannot match this ideal vision. What in fact happened was that the community agape, which had been meant to open the door to the Lord, became an occasion of egoism. Thus it proved unsuitable as a preparation for the meeting with Christ. This resulted in the separation of meal and Eucharist, documented in I Corinthians 11:22: “Have you not houses to eat and drink in?” This development will have taken place at a different speed in different places, but it signifies the start of the third phase, resulting in the final ecclesial form of the sacrament. We find the first witness to this form in the letter of Pliny to Trajan which speaks of the morning celebration of the Eucharist. Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) gives us the first full description of this new form. Sunday morning proves to be the Christians’ time for worship, underlining the connection between the service of worship and the event of the Resurrection. Separation from the Jewish matrix and the independent existence of the Christian reality, which began with the Christians’ commitment to assemble on the Lord’s day, have become definitive by the fixing of the time for worship. But there is a further consequence: as long as the Eucharist immediately followed a community meal, participation in the synagogue’s service of the word was presupposed. Very early on (though not from the beginning), Christians had withdrawn from the Temple sacrifice; but they did assemble in Solomon’s Portico, continuing to share, there and in the synagogues, in the service of readings and prayers of the people of Israel. Within this service they had tried to explain their interpretation of Scripture, i.e., the Old Testament, by reference to Christ, hoping to make the entire Bible, without loss, the Lord’s. John’s Gospel belongs to a period when a complete and final break had occurred. Now a distinct, Christian service of the word had to be created, and this was joined to the Eucharistic celebration, resulting in the growth of a coherent Christian liturgy.
The inner rationale of the resultant liturgical pattern is presented in the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25-31). First we have the searching of the Scriptures, explained and made present by the Risen Lord; their minds enlightened, the disciples are moved to invite the Lord to stay with them, and he responds by breaking the bread for his disciples, giving them his presence and then withdrawing again, sending them out as his messengers. This coherent and integrated form arose quite naturally when the Church was no longer able to participate in synagogue worship and thus acquired an identity and a form of her own, as the community of believers in Christ.
One can hardly allot a single term to a reality which has grown in this way to become the norm for all liturgical development in Christendom – and the whole thrust of this liturgy means that it must remain normative. Schurmann too comes to this conclusion, although, as far as the question of the form and structure is concerned, he feels obliged to separate the liturgy of the word from Eucharistic liturgy in the narrower sense. Initially he speaks of a meal structure in course of development. But even when he has kept the liturgy of the word out of the discussion – a questionable decision – his concept of meal structure is subject to so many qualifications that it disintegrates. First of all he says, “We are somewhat uneasy about applying the term ‘meal structure’ to the Eucharistic action described by Justin”, and he defines the outer limits of this term: in the first place the meal structure is so strongly stylized that one can only speak of a “symbolic” meal. This fact is evident in the posture of those celebrating the Eucharist: whereas they sit for the service of the word, they stand for the Eucharistic action, which certainly does not indicate the transition to a normal meal situation. Furthermore the prayer, the eucharistia, has become so dominant that Schurmann feels obliged to describe the “symbolic” meal structure as “impaired”. It would show greater objectivity, under these conditions, simply to abandon the inappropriate term “meal structure”. The determining element is the eucharistia. Since this is a participation in the thanksgiving of Jesus, which includes the prayer of gratitude for the gifts of the earth, it already expresses whatever element of the “meal” the liturgical action actually contains.
The analysis of the historical development thus confirms and deepens the thesis cautiously put forward by Jungmann on the basis of the liturgical sources. At the same time it has become clear that, while we must reject the idea that the Christian liturgy originates simply in the Last Supper, there is no hiatus between Jesus and the Church. The Lord’s gift is not some rigid formula but a living reality. It was open to historical development, and only where this development is accepted can there be continuity with Jesus. Here, as so often, “progressive” reformers exhibit a fundamentally narrow view of Christian beginnings, seeing history piecemeal, whereas the sacramental view of the Church rests upon an inner developmental unity. It is precisely by pressing forward that this unity keeps faith and brings into one, by the power and gift of the one Lord, all the changing times of history. This formal aspect, as well as the actual content, can be of great importance for the Church in her contemporary struggles. Once the concept of the “meal” is seen to be historically a crass oversimplification, once the Lord’s testament is correctly seen in terms of eucharistia, many of the current theories just fade away. And above all it puts an end to the baneful isolation of the liturgical and dogmatic levels, without confusing what is specific to each level. Thus eucharistia is the gift of communion in which the Lord becomes our food; it also signifies the self-offering of Jesus Christ, perfecting his Trinitarian Yes to the Father by his consent to the Cross, and reconciling us all to the Father in this “sacrifice”. There is no opposition between “meal” and “sacrifice”; they belong inseparable together in the new sacrifice of the Lord.