|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2017 8:18:06 GMT
PS The only places I know in Dublin that offer anything like the Reform of the Reform are the two High Anglican Churches. God has an ironic streak.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 10:55:03 GMT
I've been thinking about the whole question of reverence. Adherents of the Latin Mass rightly praise its reverence, but I wonder is there a danger of exaggerating reverence at the expense of another dimension of Christian spirituality, that is, friendship with Christ? "I will not now call you servants...I have called you friend." (John 15:15.) The same Jesus who approved of Mary pouring expensive ointment over him was happy to let St. John lean against his breast and the children come to him. There can't be such a thing as too much reverence-- I don't think so-- but isn't there a danger of losing an appropriate familiarity? We know that, for a long time, daily Communion was discouraged and even saints and religious orders received very rarely by our standards, as frequent Communion was seen as irreverent. And yet Traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with daily Communion. www.newadvent.org/cathen/06278a.htmI must admit, I do like the warmth of the Novus Ordo. Which is NOT an endorsement of its freakier excesses.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 14, 2017 11:16:56 GMT
I've been thinking about the whole question of reverence. Adherents of the Latin Mass rightly praise its reverence, but I wonder is there a danger of exaggerating reverence at the expense of another dimension of Christian spirituality, that is, friendship with Christ? "I will not now call you servants...I have called you friend." (John 15:15.) The same Jesus who approved of Mary pouring expensive ointment over him was happy to let St. John lean against his breast and the children come to him. There can't be such a thing as too much reverence-- I don't think so-- but isn't there a danger of losing an appropriate familiarity? We know that, for a long time, daily Communion was discouraged and even saints and religious orders received very rarely by our standards, as frequent Communion was seen as irreverent. And yet Traditionalists don't seem to have a problem with daily Communion. www.newadvent.org/cathen/06278a.htmI must admit, I do like the warmth of the Novus Ordo. Which is NOT an endorsement of its freakier excesses. I think the big difference between the New Mass and the Traditional for me is Worship. The Mass is not about becoming friends with Christ but worshiping him, as this logic Leads the Mass becoming a community meal with all sitting around the table. Of course Im not saying a friendship can not develop at Mass.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 11:43:40 GMT
The Mass is not about becoming friends with Christ but worshiping him, as this logic Leeds the Mass becoming a community meal with all sitting around the table. And nothing could be further from the original celebration of the Eucharist.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 14, 2017 12:28:18 GMT
The Mass is not about becoming friends with Christ but worshiping him, as this logic Leeds the Mass becoming a community meal with all sitting around the table. And nothing could be further from the original celebration of the Eucharist. If we take the pictures too seriously- even the Apostles sat on one side only... Perhaps they were anxious to get into the painting? Ratzinger said in 2002: "EUCHARIST is today... The most common name for the Sacrament... In the early church there was a series of other names for it-we have already mentioned agape and pax... Among the protestants the sacrament is called 'supper', which is meant to be a return to biblical origin, on keeping with Luther's claim that only scripture has validity. In fact in the letters of Paul this Sacrament is called ' The Supper of the Lord". But it is significant that this title very soon disappeared and, by the second century was no longer used. Why?... no doubt the Lord had instituted His Sacrament within the context of a meal, specifically, as part of the Jewish Passover meal... But the Lord had not ordered His disciples to repeat the Passover meal, which constituted the framework but was not HIS sacrament, not His new gift.... Furthermore, the celebration of the Eucharist was itself actually separated from the gathering at table as the separation from the Law took place and the transition was made to a Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles... The early Church recognized that the essential thing that took place at the Last Supper was not the eating of the lamb and the other traditional dishes; rather out was the prayer of praise that now contained Jesus' words of institution as it's centerpiece" Even assuming that Holy Thursday took place exactly in the table-form that we generally picture out does, the context of the Supper as coming from original chosen people's ritual, as if from it's mother's womb (my poetry) that Ratzinger/Benedict mentions explains to my mind why it was instituted this way and why we are not literally supposed to liturgical-ise it the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 12:45:38 GMT
And nothing could be further from the original celebration of the Eucharist. If we take the pictures too seriously- even the Apostles sat on one side only... Perhaps they were anxious to get into the painting? Ratzinger said in 2002: "EUCHARIST is today... The most common name for the Sacrament... In the early church there was a series of other names for it-we have already mentioned agape and pax... Among the protestants the sacrament is called 'supper', which is meant to be a return to biblical origin, on keeping with Luther's claim that only scripture has validity. In fact in the letters of Paul this Sacrament is called ' The Supper of the Lord". But it is significant that this title very soon disappeared and, by the second century was no longer used. Why?... no doubt the Lord had instituted His Sacrament within the context of a meal, specifically, as part of the Jewish Passover meal... But the Lord had not ordered His disciples to repeat the Passover meal, which constituted the framework but was not HIS sacrament, not His new gift.... Furthermore, the celebration of the Eucharist was itself actually separated from the gathering at table as the separation from the Law took place and the transition was made to a Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles... The early Church recognized that the essential thing that took place at the Last Supper was not the eating of the lamb and the other traditional dishes; rather out was the prayer of praise that now contained Jesus' words of institution as it's centerpiece" Even assuming that Holy Thursday took place exactly in the table-form that we generally picture out does, the context of the Supper as coming from original chosen people's ritual, as if from it's mother's womb (my poetry) that Ratzinger/Benedict mentions explains to my mind why it was instituted this way and why we are not literally supposed to liturgical-ise it the same way. I wasn't suggesting we should literally re-enact the Lord's Supper. I was suggesting that familiarity with the Lord might be something desirable, as much as reverence. "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make a home with him." "In fact in the letters of Paul this Sacrament is called ' The Supper of the Lord". But it is significant that this title very soon disappeared and, by the second century was no longer used." I don't understand why development in the early days of Christianity is considered OK, but later developments are considered bad? Isn't there something a bit arbitrary about this? If the transition from Greek to Latin is OK, why not the transition to the vernacular? I read the Spirit of the Liturgy (Ratzinger's)...there was nothing in it I couldn't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 13:02:41 GMT
I'm not actually taking issue with anything in the Traditionalist Mass, simply the rhetoric around it, especially when it comes to comparing it to the Ordinary Form. Sometimes it seems as though critics of the Ordinary Form are actually hunting for evidence of irreverence and interpret everything in the worst possible way...for instance, if somebody comes to Mass in a tracksuit, it's taken as evidence of irreverence, where it needn't be. That person could wear tracksuits all the time and consider them his or her good clothes.
(And obviously this isn't all Traditionalists by any means.)
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 14, 2017 14:02:00 GMT
for instance, if somebody comes to Mass in a tracksuit, it's taken as evidence of irreverence, where it needn't be. That person could wear tracksuits all the time and consider them his or her good clothes. (And obviously this isn't all Traditionalists by any means.) I would agree with you on that. I think this is more of a problem with are current culture and maybe the leadership. I would Like to know if this person would wear a track suit to a wedding,job interview, date, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 14:06:37 GMT
for instance, if somebody comes to Mass in a tracksuit, it's taken as evidence of irreverence, where it needn't be. That person could wear tracksuits all the time and consider them his or her good clothes. (And obviously this isn't all Traditionalists by any means.) I would agree with you on that. I think this is more of a problem with are current culture and maybe the leadership. I would Like to know if this person would wear a track suit to a wedding,job interview, date, etc. What if they wouldn't? The difference being Mass is something you do at least once a week, whereas those other things are quite rare, at least the first two. I think that's an unreasonable standard. Why not compare it to what someone would wear when meeting their friends?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2017 14:11:22 GMT
I usually wear my suit (which is too old now to bear anything more than occasional use) to funerals. I notice other people often wear sports clothes, trainers, casual clothes, etc. I don't think, "Those people are disrespecting the dead", because I realize no such disrespect is intended. And I don't give myself points for wearing a suit.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 15, 2017 2:04:02 GMT
The Mass is not about becoming friends with Christ but worshiping him, as this logic Leeds the Mass becoming a community meal with all sitting around the table. And nothing could be further from the original celebration of the Eucharist. I'm the first to acknowledge that I'm the worst at typos, my phone seems to have a mind of it's own at times, but in the light of people complaining about following English League Football "Leeds the Mass" is almost funny
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 18, 2018 16:53:48 GMT
Today I decided that I'm not going to complain about anything that happens at Mass anymore, since it gives ammunition to those Traditionalists (not all) who are forever exaggerating the ills of the Ordinary Form.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 18, 2018 18:23:44 GMT
Today I decided that I'm not going to complain about anything that happens at Mass anymore, since it gives ammunition to those Traditionalists (not all) who are forever exaggerating the ills of the Ordinary Form. That's a rather strange position Maolsheachlann. Suffering in silence to deny ammo to the traddies ? In canon law ,(not that that's observed very much) the laity have a right to a dignified catholic celebration of all the sacraments. Why should people put up with what ever corny stunt, whim or gimmick that the local pp or his lay advisors (who know better than the entire church obviously) inflict on the long suffering faithful ? What is so outrageous about having mass said by the book ? Why should there even be something to complain about?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 18, 2018 19:40:23 GMT
When wouldn't there be something to complain about? If the liturgical changes of Vatican II were changed tomorrow, there would still be plenty to complain about, I'm sure.
The problem is that if I complain about one bad thing happening at an Ordinary Form, it feeds this stereotype of guitar masses and priests doing comedy routines etc. etc. Whereas, in my view, most Ordinary Form Masses are perfectly reverential and dignified. Every abuse is blown vastly out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 18, 2018 21:00:46 GMT
When wouldn't there be something to complain about? If the liturgical changes of Vatican II were changed tomorrow, there would still be plenty to complain about, I'm sure. The problem is that if I complain about one bad thing happening at an Ordinary Form, it feeds this stereotype of guitar masses and priests doing comedy routines etc. etc. Whereas, in my view, most Ordinary Form Masses are perfectly reverential and dignified. Every abuse is blown vastly out of proportion. I agree with your last paragraph . Most of the crazy stuff is a minority taste but it should be stamped out nevertheless. I have never ever encountered a "Clown Mass" but some traditionalists would have you believe every second parish was hosting them.
|
|