Dear Friends,

This past weekend I had a discussion with a Latin Catholic friend of mine, concerning the history of the Divine Liturgy, the Novus Ordo and the TLM.
He has never been to a BC DL or any DL for that matter, and had asked me if it was similar to the NO.
My reply was, There are few similarities, but it should be known that the NO is similar to the DL, not the other way around.

He disagreed.

My position is that Christianity and the DL began in the East and I would guess that the DL was prominent prior to any form of Western Mass.

Can someone help me be a bit more specific.


Thanks,

Brad

Dear Brad,

I believe that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century, changed the Liturgy in the West.

He also introduced what we know as the 'gregorian' chant.

In Christ,
Alice

Brad,

There are many who believe the traditional Latin liturgy is one of the oldest liturgies. This is despite the myth that since it is some times called the Tridentine Latin Mass it was developed at the Council of Trent.

We do have records St. Peter celebrated Mass in Rome with the Holy Grail. Not sure what Mass he celebrated.

An amateur's (amator liturgi�) historical overview:

Both the TLM/traditional Roman Mass (the best known form of which is the Tridentine Mass that was standard in most places before Vatican II) and the DL/Byzantine Divine Liturgy, evolving separately, reached their final forms in the late Middle Ages, but of course they share some common origins and things in common: two readings with some verses sung in between them, the Nicene Creed, the preface dialogue (Sursum Corda) and Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), the words of institution in the anaphora/canon/consecration prayer and the Our Father.

I understand that the early Roman Rite before around 1000 was ceremonially austere compared to the medi�val Mass but not really like the Novus Ordo. The priest celebrant faced east; 'having his back to the people' (that is, priest and congregation praying together facing the altar) is an old practice.

One reason I've been told why the Tridentine Mass and Byzantine Liturgy obviously resemble each other in feel despite differences in structure is that circa 1000 when the Roman Church was in decline (before the Cluniac reforms) the rite was revitalised by much importation/borrowing from the Gallican Rite in France (in Latin like the Roman but a different rite - it's now extinct), which was ceremonially more elaborate because it had been influenced by Eastern liturgies, not necessarily the Byzantine Rite but perhaps the older rites such as the Antiochene that also contributed to the Byzantine.

The choir-screen/rood screen (rare in post-1500s Western Catholic churches) and the Byzantine iconostasis are both medi�val developments. (The altar rail is a good analogue to the icon-screen.)

One difference in the Byzantine Rite much talked about in Western Catholic/Orthodox dialogue is the epiklesis, an explicit calling down of the Holy Spirit after the words of institution to change the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. Byzantine theologians often say that is when the change (called transubstantiation in the West) happens. That the Gregorian canon in the Roman (Tridentine) Mass lacks an explicit one may be a sign that it is in fact older than the two used in the Byzantine Liturgy. (Not everything Eastern is older than the West! Though much of it is.) And the Byzantine Nicholas Cabasilas, answering Western critics, pointed out that the Gregorian canon has an implicit epiklesis. The main point remains, however, that both sides hold that the same change happens in the Eucharistic prayer of the priest.

Sorry for the ramble. Thought some historical background was appropriate. Getting back to the point, the Novus Ordo, whether one likes it or not (I happen not to), is a wholesale rewrite (changed and greatly simplified) of the Roman Mass that while retaining basic elements in common that I named in my second paragraph here, has little in common ceremonially or structurally with the Byzantine Liturgy. Some of its Eucharistic prayers have an epiklesis but that's cosmetic - the service has a very different flavour from any ancient rite.

Удачи тебе! (Good luck!) Have fun learning and God bless you.

Incidentally, the Roman Canon *IS* the oldest of the various Eucharistic Anaphorae in use, with the exception of that of Mar Addai and Mar Mari.

Thanks Alice.
St. Gregory the Great is also credited with devising the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

Brad

Edward Young,

There are several records. Research the history of the Holy Grail (now in Spain) and you will find your answer.

A good starting point:
Holy Chalice [en.wikipedia.org]


Holy Grail, Fact or Fiction [zenit.org]

The Latin Mass, in its essentials, dates back to Pope St. Gregory the Great, but probably even further, to Pope St. Leo the Great.

It should be known that all liturgies we have today are not of apostolic origin. All have gone through extensive modifications through the years. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is no exception. It is correct to say that the Western Mass and the Eastern Divine Liturgy is a case of parallel development. Perhaps the developments in the Mass were more radical, but what resulted is a truly reverent and beautiful liturgy, and its praise is always well deserved.

The Novus Ordo, as said, is a rewrite. I am not aware of any liturgicist that has actually said the Novus Ordo is ancient. Bugnini himself said it was designed to be "ecumenical", which would imply Protestant rather than Catholic origins.

One final note, it doesn't matter whether one is older than the other. This is an "unhealthy archaeologism" rightly condemned by Pope Pius XII. A liturgy should be judged by its merits, not by how old it is. I do not like the Novus Ordo because it's Protestantized, not because it's new.

Pat,

I dont think we are judging whether one liturgy is better than the other via the age. I think it is just interesting the origins of liturgy in general.

For educational purposes what do we really know about the origins of our liturgies?

Antiquity is not an entirely disreputable basis or criterion for use in forming one's opinion of this or that liturgical matter. Nevertheless, I am willing to tolerate the use of central heating, and even air conditioning.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, I would agree that central heating and air conditioning are certainly tolerable!!!

That reminds me of the day in 1987 when we baptized my daughter on the Greek island on which my husband's parents were born ... it was probably the worst heat wave in a century and it was about 110 degrees F with absolutely no wind blowing off the water. You can imagine how it must have felt to see huge air conditioning units mounted on the walls of the church with no air conditioning coming out of them.

The reason, we later found out was that money had been donated by a wealthy parishioner from abroad for the units BUT they did not have the upgrade in electricity needed to operate them! Happily, eighteen years later, I can say that this has been remedied and that the good people of that parish now have airconditioned comfort!

In Christ,
Alice

Interested in what the *real* Roman Mass was like? You could check with the Society of St. Pius I [ancillapress.com] .

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Thanks for the link; I needed a good laugh.

Dear Alice - you have my complete sympathy. I've been in Athens more than once during truly horrible heat waves. The last time this happened I was subsisting on fruit juice and barely made it to the airport to leave. The plane, thank God, was air-conditioned. I love Greece, but not in high summer!

Incognitus

Lauren Pristas wrote an excellent article for "The Thomist" on the post-Conciliar reform of the Roman liturgy, entitled, Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal, and those interested can read the article by clicking the link below:

Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal [thomist.org]