Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Cekada on the Historical Roots of the New Mass (Work of Human Hands, Ch. 2)


Share/Bookmark

One of the most interesting chapters of the book, in my opinion.



Posted by Francisco Romero Carrasquillo at 9:27 PM

9 comments:

Alan Aversa said...

It looks like he adds a new video to the series approximately weekly. I'm keeping a playlist of them all here.

12:21 AM
Lorca León Cayasso said...

Excelent!

1:33 AM
W.LindsayWheeler said...

I was fortunate to live a short time with one of the participants in the Liturgical movement. Fr. Boniface Lukyx.

The video is a mixture of truth and error.

Saying the mass in the vernacular is done in all Orthodox countries. To claim it is evil in the West is to say it is evil in the East. That can not be the case.

If anything, and if you want to really conserve, the liturgical language of the Church was GREEK--not Latin. The liturgical language of Rome for the first 400 years was Greek!

So what part is there to conserve? The Greek, or the Latin innovation? Greek was the lingua franca of Imperial Rome and the Septuagint was pride of place.

Recieving the Eucharist under both species is Orthodox practice. Now, if it is evil to do so in the West, it is evil in the East. But it has been the Orthodox East that has best preserved Christian liturgical traditions. Not the Latin West.

So some of the changes were inspired by the true Tradition from the Orthodox East. Turning the priest around to face the people----that surely is a modernist invention with absolutely no historical fact behind it.

To hear "conservatives" complain about what is essentially the practice in the Orthodox churches is absolutely absurd. I am stunned and dismayed at the mixed up liturgical opinions of Roman Catholicism. They don't know which way is up.

For instance, Concelebration. Dead for 400 years in Catholicism, Revived by the liturgical movement--but did anybody ask the Orthodox how it is done? It is NOT done by having 20 priests at the pews raising their right arms! The Roman Catholic Church has no idea how to properly perform concelebration. All the past modern representations of it are ludicrious.

Really, Liturgy is messed up from A-Z in the Roman Catholic Church. No one knows what they are doing.

12:14 PM
Jack B. said...

W.LindsayWheeler,

The Church is built upon traditions. Each rite of the Church has developed organically and, for the most part, separately. To discuss mixing the rites is to ignore the history that created them.

4:39 PM
Don Paco said...

@W.LindsayWheeler, recall the original context of the popular famous dictum "When in Rome, do as the Romans": St. Ambrose said that to correct St. Monica, when she brought eastern-ish liturgical customs (e.g., distributing the antidoron) with her to Rome, which was causing concern, confusion, and even scandal, among Roman Catholics.

Not every element of the liturgy is of divine institution, and, thus, not every element is invariable. The East has its traditions, Westerners have theirs, and these are all beautiful and express the faith in their own ways.

Another dictum that might be helpful to you: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas." In other words, in necessary things, let us foment unity; in variable things, liberty; and in all things, charity (reading "variabilibus" for "dubiis").

9:24 PM
The Maestro said...

Another dictum that might be helpful to you: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas." In other words, in necessary things, let us foment unity; in variable things, liberty; and in all things, charity (reading "variabilibus" for "dubiis").

I've seen a very similar saying - supposedly having its source in St. Augustine? - used as a justification for the presence of so many options, and therefore a quite large degree of "liberty," in the Novus ordo Mass.

11:27 PM
Don Paco said...

I am proposing the principle itself, not its ill applications.

12:07 AM
W.LindsayWheeler said...

Very well. What about Kneeling on Sunday? There is an ecumenical canon that forbids kneeling on Sunday because that is the day of resurrection. It is supposed to be a joyous day.

Around the 900s or 1000 A. D., The Catholic church decided to incorporate kneeling in the church on Sunday. They were met with resistance. It was still FORCED upon Catholics. This was the Widespread tradition of Both Churches. All of sudden we are kneeling. What about not bringing disunity? Does the Roman Catholic church really care about unity? Yet, conservative Roman Catholics think this is "The Tradition" to kneel. It isn't!

Or about the sign of the Cross. All Christians signed the same way. A Catholic Pope hated the Greeks so he commanded that the sign of the cross be changed. Instead of right to left, it was changed from left to right.

Where is the Unity of Tradition? If the Catholic church insists on changing things--were is the "Tradition". Or is Roman Catholic Tradition based on If the Greeks say the sky is blue, for the Roman Catholics the sky is green and sparklee.

The Bread at the Eucharist was always leavened bread! The Catholic Church changed this to unleavened bread.

Where is the Unity of the Church that Christ prayed about? If the Catholic Church is always changing the Tradition. There is perfect proof, turning the priest around and altar girls. The taking away of the communion rail. All of these innovations.

These recent innovations prove the existence within Roman Catholicism that their hold on Tradition is rather shaky. Dropping the Deaconate for 400 years? Where is the Divine Office in the Cathedral Church? You don't even say vespers communally.

Altar girls, the turning of the priest around and the dropping of the deaconate, the changing of the sign of the cross, and the adoption of unleavened bread for the eucharist all show that the Roman Church is not faithful to tradition. How do you know the other things as well were not changed by fiat by Roman clergy?

How about adding "To the son". Why did this have to be adopted across the Roman Catholic Church? couldn't you have fidelity even here?

All of these changes. What it boils down to is that there is no respect. And certainly no respect for the Orthodox sensibilities. It seems that for quite awhile the Romans run roughshod over the Orthodox.

Christ prayed for the unity of the Church. this was His Will. Yet, what is "conservatism" in the church--conserving the latest fad?

10:05 AM
Don Paco said...

Lindsay, there are some things that are not of divine, but of ecclesiastical, institution, specifically disciplinary matters, such as some of those you mention,which the Church, and even just the Pope, has the authority to abrogate.

Other points you raise are not quite the way you imagine them.

Also, you seem to confuse the New Mass (which truly IS a mess), with the Old Mass, which is the fruit of organic development throughout the centuries.

If you could calm down, we could discuss each of your questions point by point...

11:30 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)