www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Does the Liturgy Have to be Complex?

Another possibility is the Calvinists. The Calvinist doctrine of salvation informs us that if we spend our entire lives avoiding everything we might enjoy and doing certain things which we know we shall not enjoy, we shall be rewarded - by a mandatory invitation to attend a never-ending Presbyterian church service (preferably run either by Ian Paisley or by the Wee Frees in Scotland).

At all costs, avoid the sort of Presbies who sing good Psalm tones - it might seem complex.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Deacon,

The point of the thread was to see if there were differing opinions of what actually HAS to be in the Liturgy and what is extra. For example, after Pope Leo XIII had a vision of Satan, he instituted the Prayer to St. Michael that he wrote to be said after each Mass. Since the Pauline reforms, this has ceased. I've also learned from some of the eminent persons on the Forum that the Entrance (I can't remember if it is the Little, the Great, or both) used to be a literal entrance into the church in the form of a procession from the royal palace.

Also, the Icon screen developed from what looks to be a "communion rail," to a rood screen, to eventually the great wall of Icons with 3 doors on it.

Am I a little more clear now that I've been to bed?

Addendum:

This:

"We who mystically represent the Cherubim,who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn,
let us now lay aside all earthly cares that we may receive the King of all,escorted invisibly by the angelic orders.

Alleluia"

Which is beautiful and we all know it as the Cherubikon. It was added during the reign of Justin II.

No, but it's probably me. I have a formed opinion about the prototype, as I mentioned, and what was handed on, paradosis i.e. tradition. I also have strong feelings about good liturgy, which is true to the prototype since that is necessary, but which also is in accord with organic developments in the ritual. Thus, all the fuss about the RDL. Our liturgy then is to embody and hand on the Tradition, the essentials, while also being as close as possible here on earth to the heavenly liturgy, the archetype, see link.

This is rather theoretical and I think you're after something more practical; and so I'll say no more.

Please, Fr. Deacon, if you wish to opine or offer some historical data, I would be very interested.

Father Deacon, by the way, thanks for the link. You reminded me that the "Holy, Holy, Holy" is part of the Heavenly Liturgy and that it should be a part of the Liturgy that we celebrate.

Actually, nothing has changed in Catholic teaching regarding the minimum necessary for the Sunday obligation to be considered fulfilled. As long as a Catholic is able to attend Sunday Mass from the beginning of the Offertory up to the end of the Communion Rite, he has technically "not missed Mass." This minimum was delineated not out of a minimalistic attitude towards the Mass, but in order to assist Catholics in determining if, having been tardy (unintentionally or not) for Mass, they might need to attend another Mass in order to fulfil their Sunday obligation and so avoid the stain of mortal sin on their souls.

It is unfair to present this as meaning that, prior to Vatican II, "one had only to be present for the Offertory, Consecration, and Communion" and that "you could come late and leave early". In delineating the minimum necessary for Catholics, the Church's interest was in establishing a clear line between what would be venial sin from mortal sin when it comes to missing part of the Mass. However, even then, Catholic moralists and spiritual writers prior to Vatican II were one in condemning tardiness (no matter how minute) at Mass as spiritually harmful and even as (venially) sinful. Catholic spiritual writers also frequently advocated spending significant time in prayer BEFORE and AFTER Mass -- scarcely an attitude of minimalism towards attendance in the whole of Mass!

As for attending the WHOLE Mass and preparing for Holy Communion, the discipline prior to Vatican II was in fact much more stringent and demanding. In addition to the longer Eucharistic fast and the greater emphasis on confessing before receiving communion if one has committed grave sin, devout authors and prayerbooks were full of instructions and exercises for people preparing for the Mass. The current "emphasis" on being present for the whole Mass is merely a reiteration of what the Church has always taught, even prior to the Council.

I might add that prior to 1962, Catholic priests were required to recite lengthy prayers of preparation (in addition to the vesting prayers) before offering Mass, to be followed by long prayers of thanksgiving after Mass. This is something almost totally missing in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

In terms of the essentials: I was aware of this as the old catechism answer. Then, much later while looking into a seemingly unrelated topic, I find that this is also the answer provided by scripture (as posted above regarding the "fourfold action" of taking, blessing/thanks, breaking, giving). This is also the Tradition as witnessed by diverse churches, those who hold the eucharist, Divine Liturgy, Mass etc. as the central act of worship. The catechism had it right.

If you miss the reading of the gospel you've missed Mass.

Thanks. I did post after reading this. I just didn't want to change the focus from your concerns to mine.

I agree it should be or that it is most fitting that it be in the liturgy - should but not must.

I think saying it was the Gospel reading was to present an easily identified aspect of the Mass that served to insure that the real intent, the Offertory, not be missed.

I have found that the Old Catholic Encyclopedia reads that the constitutive parts of the Mass are the Offertory, the Consecration, and Communion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

"Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of the liturgy of the Mass in which the real sacrifice is to be looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief parts: the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion."

asianpilgrim:

I'd have to ask why you would make this statement. While what you post is correct in formal teaching, what the clergy dealt with in actual practice more closely mirrors what I have stated earlier. I've sat through numerous sermons during the conciliar and post-conciliar periods that made the point that I made: that to truly attend the Liturgy one must be present for the whole of the Liturgy of the Word as well as the Liturgy of the Eucharist, as well as be present for the final rites. Time and again I had opportunity to discuss this with members of the clergy and hear their frustration over the attitude that I described as the mentality of the laity prior to the Council. The problem has always been that the Latin people have been extremely legalistic and focused on what was the minimum. Today's practice, on the other hand, has taken a different path. I know of no one who would consider it necessary to attend a second Liturgy if he arrived late and missed one of the traditonal three parts. People still arrive late--as late as the end of the Gospel--but those who make a practice of it don't ever return for a second Liturgy. I remember well one experience of that in my own family. We were traveling, didn't know the Mass schedule in the city we were in, arrived at the Consecration, and stayed until the next Mass started, leaving after the Offertory--the adults figured if they'd been to all three parts it disn't matter what order they were in.

My point continues to be that the difference between theory and practice is often exaggerated when it filters through the minds of the man in the pew. Practice in the area I was raised in saw a lot of "arrive late; leave early."

BOB

I went to Catholic schools prior to Vatican II and I well remember being taught that one needed to attend the Offertory, Consecration, and Communion. Still worse, we were taught that if we didn't get to church until after the Offertory but before the Consecration, we could attend another Mass - and leave the second Mass before the beginning of the Canon!

In the early fifties, the evening Mass came in but the permission of the diocesan bishop was required. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (Latin, that is), one (one only) evening Mass was allowed on a Sunday - that's one in the entire Archdiocese, not one in each parish. The church was packed with people every Sunday and so were the steps outside, with people standing there so as to "fulfill the obligation". Each new arrival would ask those ahead of him what point the priest had reached - and if he had not yet begun the Offertory, the new arrival would also stand there, even though he could neither see nor hear much of anything.

As to leaving early, ducking out before the Last Gospel was a time-honored custom!

Fr. Serge

Bob, please don't take this personally, as it is not necessarily a reflection on you specifically, but I have to wonder if there was comparable "Byzantine bashing" here, as you have above based "the Latin people" for being "extremely legalistic and focused on...the minimum," if that user would be censured or warned in some way. I think so.

Alexis