tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post3237850210658288414..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: THE 1965 ROMAN MISSALFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70191024869253637212013-04-09T16:38:00.665-04:002013-04-09T16:38:00.665-04:00The rubric for the communication of the faithful f...The rubric for the communication of the faithful from the Tridentine Missale Romanum:<br /><br />"Sumit totum Sanguinem cum particula; quo sumpto, si qui sunt communicandi, eos communicet, antequam se purificet."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81187308941053511982011-09-04T11:29:37.209-04:002011-09-04T11:29:37.209-04:00The SCDW - Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship ...The SCDW - Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship - is hardly a "Protestant" organization.<br /><br />The Church uses both terms "eucharist" and "Lord's Supper" to describe the same reality. For example, every Holy Thursday we celebrate the Mass of the Lord's Supper.<br /><br />The question is not "Which mystery is greater?" but "How to we strike a balance?" There are TWO priesthoods taught by the Church - that of the Baptized and that of the ordained. <br /><br />Both have their rightful place, and the overemphasis of one to the diminution of the other is to be avoided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65578819626528432892011-09-01T22:16:48.856-04:002011-09-01T22:16:48.856-04:00Anonymous, I can't really read between your li...Anonymous, I can't really read between your lines, but that sounds quite "ecumenical" and Protestant. The "elegant simplicity" (are we talking art appreciation here?) of the Incarnation is completely dependent upon the not-so-elegant sovreign power and Transcendance of God the Father. God's Transcendence and Christ's Incarnation cannot be separated. When you do so and place the emphasis on "the dignity of the Baptized," you move toward an inelegant over-emphasis on Christ's humanity. And, this Lord's Supper business..what is wrong with the simple and elegant term "Eucharist?"Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3334773250096735092011-08-30T22:30:56.374-04:002011-08-30T22:30:56.374-04:00Make that a small "b" byzantine!Make that a small "b" byzantine!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3702019916182346562011-08-30T18:52:41.462-04:002011-08-30T18:52:41.462-04:00The sacrifice is not offered on our altars for the...The sacrifice is not offered on our altars for the purpose of merely perpetuating the sacrifice. The "terminus ad quem" - the goal - of offering the sacrifice was the same at Calvary as it is on every altar where the propitiatory sacrifice is offered in an unbloody manner - our sanctification and the sanctification of the world. <br /><br />It is necessary, even essential, to understand the theology of the Sacrifice through the lens of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is THE fundamental mystery which gives meaning to and explains the other mysteries of the faith, including the theology of the mass and, therefore, our liturgical practices.<br /><br />By receiving communion, we participate "more perfectly" in and "recieve more fully" the fruits of the sacrifice. This is part of the necessary renewal of liturgical theology and practice that resulted in the Second Vatican Council's teaching, and the implementation documents that followed.<br /><br />For centuries the elegant simplicity of the Incarnation was superceded by a Byzantine overemphasis on the transcendence of God. By recognizing the dignity of the Baptized and by recovering an understanding of the universal priesthood of the baptized (with no diminution of the sacramental priesthood), we have come to a more ecclesial (and less presbyteral) understanding of the Lord's Supper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-29751633875077541752011-08-30T14:17:58.638-04:002011-08-30T14:17:58.638-04:00"Through sacramental communion the faithful t..."Through sacramental communion the faithful take part more perfectly in the eucharistic celebration. This is the teaching of the entire tradition of the Church. By communion, in fact, the faithful share fully in the eucharistic sacrifice. In this way they are not limited to sharing in the sacrifice by faith and prayer, nor merely to spiritual communion with Christ offered on the altar, but they recieve Christ himself sacramentally so as to recieve more fully the fruits of this most holy sacrifice."<br /><br />S.C.D.W. Sacramentali Communione, 29 June 1970<br /><br />Not for the "representation and perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross" but for the sanctification and transformation of the People of God, the communion of "those kneeling at the foot of the Cross" is a good and desirable thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-90651069468500476362011-08-29T14:34:13.354-04:002011-08-29T14:34:13.354-04:00pinanv525,
That is a good one to Laugh at, and I ...pinanv525,<br /><br />That is a good one to Laugh at, and I stand corrected. The word is "Homilies." Homies for the new mass" is funny!<br /><br />Anonymous at 9:58 a.m.: I do not dispute that there was to be a new lectionary, the preliminary one came out in 1967. As for the propers, Jeffery Tucker at the Chant Cafe did an article about these(it might be at the New Liturgical Movement, where Jeff started), which, you might find interesting. <br /><br />We know more about the battle of Gettysburg than we do about the day to day working of how the mass was revised (16th MS Inf. Reg, Father!). We can look up Antonelli's and Bugnini's version of events, but how many others provided memoirs or diaries that would be helpful? There is a lot of work for historians to do, and I am looking forward to Alcuin Reid's forthcoming book on this.<br /><br />FYI -- when the draft of the new Divine Office came out in 1970, it still included in its calendar July 2 as the Feast of the Visitation!<br /><br />James Ignatius McAuleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47668487229369434522011-08-29T11:46:37.978-04:002011-08-29T11:46:37.978-04:00James, "Homies for the New Liturgy?"
Now...James, "Homies for the New Liturgy?"<br />Now, that is a book I would really like to see. LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-90511960516325777752011-08-29T09:58:53.617-04:002011-08-29T09:58:53.617-04:00James I think you are correct. However thw 1965 al...James I think you are correct. However thw 1965 altar missal did not contain the propers or the lectionary a separate lectionary in English was published which I have--it is the 1962 lectionary and calendar. SC did ask for more Scripture for the Mass so that had to be in the works and also an official English for the Roman Gradual propers. Even by 1967 a supplement was sent to be inserted into the 1965 missal which has the order and rubrics of the 1970 missal with the 3 new Eucharistic Prayers. So I'm not sure how firmly the Vatican thought the 1965 missal was it when they approved the new order of Mass by 1967.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30238478506919684122011-08-29T09:22:09.462-04:002011-08-29T09:22:09.462-04:00Father, not to pester you more, but it is an anach...Father, not to pester you more, but it is an anachronism to call the 1965 missal an interim missal. This terminology was adopted after the fact. 1965 was not called an interim missal when it came out – look at the 1965 Missals published in 1966 by Benziger, Catholic Book Publishing and Liturgical Press – there is nothing in them to lead one to believe that all this money, ink, paper, and time is being wasted on a mere interim missal.<br /><br />Another book example is Alfred McBrides’s Homies for the New Liturgy – this came out in 1965. And, what is the new liturgy? The 1965 missal.<br /><br />James I. McAuleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-66011826787798671322011-08-28T16:15:00.682-04:002011-08-28T16:15:00.682-04:00The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the sharin...The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the sharing of the Body and Blood of the Lord by the Faithful are two inseperable elements of the Mass.<br /><br />This was one of the weaknesses of the liturgical theology of the EF that was corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-86579988894363082712011-08-27T16:40:47.580-04:002011-08-27T16:40:47.580-04:00Father, I think the historic evidence leans toward...Father, I think the historic evidence leans towards 1965 being "the mass of Vatican II." I make this statement not only based on what Klaus Gamber said in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, but my review of altar missals (I have a 1964 Benziger with the 1965 insert)lay missals (like the Maryknoll Missal) from the time (1966), books of the time which call it the "new mass" from 1965-66 (McNaspy - Our Changing Liturgy, Sloyan - Worship in a New Key, Jean-Nesmy - Living the Liturgy, etc.) The calender and lectionary were a separate issue, like the breviary reform. As for the creation of the Eucharistic prayers, that is best documented in Vagganin's The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform (Italian 1966, English 1967). All in all, the limited small reform changes of 1965, or even 1967 are, in my mind, in accord with the incremental changes of 1955-62.<br /> In 1968 the new Eucharistic prayers (2-4)came out, as well as some new prefaces.<br /><br />An example of how the Council was implemented properly, and then later "thrown under the bus" Liturgical Press's wonderful 1966 book Bringing the Sacraments To the People. It uses the 1964 Collectio Rituum and Weller's old three volume set. The author's for the book clearly believe they were fulfilling the intent of the Council and there is no hint that much of the traditional ritual will later be abandoned. <br /><br />James I. McAuleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15068921215995209632011-08-27T13:55:18.033-04:002011-08-27T13:55:18.033-04:00"How odd and yes, corrupt that there was no r...<b>"How odd and yes, corrupt that there was no ritual or rubric for the Laity's Holy Communion until 1965!"</b><br /><br />As though the Sacrifice of the Mass, being a re-presentation and perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, should necessarily require Holy Communion of those kneeling at the foot of the Cross? Is there some sort of logic here that escapes the ordinary rational persom? (Perhaps or especially if schooled in Thomistic sacramental theology rather than Novus Ordo vacuities.)<br /><br />Or do some "children of Vatican II" think that the Mass is a commemoration or re-enactment of the Last Supper?<br /><br />Of course there is a clear sacramental distinction between the Sacrifice, which is consummated with the communion of the priest, and the entirely different communion service of the people (the "Lord's supper") which follows. But in the minds of how many Catholics (even priests) today is that distinction clear? <br /><br />Which is not to say that ... Of course, there should ordinarily be a communion service to offer the people the most active possible participation in the fruits of the sacrifice. But recent practice has left most Catholics pretty fuzzy about what's happening at Mass.Henry Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56020847640599626852011-08-27T11:39:08.425-04:002011-08-27T11:39:08.425-04:00What's the origin of the Prayers at the Foot o...What's the origin of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? When did they become the universal norm?<br /><br />And that paten thing - Holy Moly!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com