Purely coincidentally, there appears to be a common theme emerging (is that a thread?) among several bloggers in Wales.
One in which I have been drawn into, not by their excellent posts that appeared, more or less at the same time as my rather less illustrious offerings, but by pure providential serendipity (what those in other churches might term 'chance').
The essence of the matter is the well worn case of EF or OF - is there a difference? Is one better than the other?
Here, I have to say that I have taken the liberty of trying to paraphrase the context of the posts from Ragazzagallese and Lucas Cambrensis and I hope that I have not mis-judged them.
This renders words superfluous
Both writers are young and present interesting views but, Lucas Cambrensis speculated on the fact that, if all Masses today reverted to the old rite, liturgical abuses would still take place.
An interesting point and one that none of us with any degree of certainty, can comment on.
But, he goes on to state that he suspects such abuses were in place prior to the introduction of Mass in the vernacular.
Aha! Here, at last I can claim some degree of expertise because, of course, I was around in those days. Those were the golden days of my youth.
Let me put some perspective on that last statement.
I was an altar server from the age of five and, from the age of nine, my family home was less than fifty yards from St Michael's and St Martin's Church, Hounslow.
Now Hounslow, for the geographically challenged, lies at the eastern end of London Heathrow Airport's main runway (Are you still with me? Please hang on for a few minutes more).
Priests arrived in Hounslow from all corners of the world, on a weekly basis. We had many fine American priests, French ones, German ones and so on.
And I was in the firing line for the duties of default server.
Most mornings I would troop into the sacristy never knowing who the celebrant might be or where he was from.
But, in the midst of all this multi-cultural ministry, never once did the words or format of the Mass differ.
Every Mass was the same.
Why?
Well, of course, because the language and words were constant.
But, also, the priest was invisible. He had no identity.
Well that's not quite true. He had the identity of Christ ( but I didn't fully appreciate that then).
And, with such an identity he was, of course, truly Christ like, diminishing his own presence to act as the link between us, the great unwashed and Almighty God.
I don't think you get such an aura of priestly invisibility at a new Mass but I am open to correction as I never (or hardly ever) attend a new Mass; I am not experienced in the ways of the new other than by distant memory.
Of course, there are many theological distinctions between the OF and the EF but I like the late Father Hugh Thwaites' summary of them.
The new Mass, he said, is like water, while the old Mass is milk.
That is a very apt way of comparing the two in my book.
One in which I have been drawn into, not by their excellent posts that appeared, more or less at the same time as my rather less illustrious offerings, but by pure providential serendipity (what those in other churches might term 'chance').
The essence of the matter is the well worn case of EF or OF - is there a difference? Is one better than the other?
Here, I have to say that I have taken the liberty of trying to paraphrase the context of the posts from Ragazzagallese and Lucas Cambrensis and I hope that I have not mis-judged them.
This renders words superfluous
Both writers are young and present interesting views but, Lucas Cambrensis speculated on the fact that, if all Masses today reverted to the old rite, liturgical abuses would still take place.
An interesting point and one that none of us with any degree of certainty, can comment on.
But, he goes on to state that he suspects such abuses were in place prior to the introduction of Mass in the vernacular.
Aha! Here, at last I can claim some degree of expertise because, of course, I was around in those days. Those were the golden days of my youth.
Let me put some perspective on that last statement.
I was an altar server from the age of five and, from the age of nine, my family home was less than fifty yards from St Michael's and St Martin's Church, Hounslow.
Now Hounslow, for the geographically challenged, lies at the eastern end of London Heathrow Airport's main runway (Are you still with me? Please hang on for a few minutes more).
Priests arrived in Hounslow from all corners of the world, on a weekly basis. We had many fine American priests, French ones, German ones and so on.
And I was in the firing line for the duties of default server.
Most mornings I would troop into the sacristy never knowing who the celebrant might be or where he was from.
But, in the midst of all this multi-cultural ministry, never once did the words or format of the Mass differ.
Every Mass was the same.
Why?
Well, of course, because the language and words were constant.
But, also, the priest was invisible. He had no identity.
Well that's not quite true. He had the identity of Christ ( but I didn't fully appreciate that then).
And, with such an identity he was, of course, truly Christ like, diminishing his own presence to act as the link between us, the great unwashed and Almighty God.
I don't think you get such an aura of priestly invisibility at a new Mass but I am open to correction as I never (or hardly ever) attend a new Mass; I am not experienced in the ways of the new other than by distant memory.
Of course, there are many theological distinctions between the OF and the EF but I like the late Father Hugh Thwaites' summary of them.
The new Mass, he said, is like water, while the old Mass is milk.
That is a very apt way of comparing the two in my book.
No comments:
Post a Comment