I think I might have posted something similar here, but I couldn’t find the thread I started. This is a new thread on the topic.
I deliberately choose to evade from the Traditional Catholicism forum where I may get biased responses.
Recently, I browsed through several webpages regarding the rubrics and meanings of a typical Anglican Service. To my surprise, I discovered striking similarities between our Ordinary Form of Mass and it. At least in terms of the general flow of rituals. The Eucharistic Prayer II of our Holy Mass is very close to the Eucharistic Prayer of an Anglican Service.
I am not here to insinuate any argument questioning the validity of our Holy Mass or whatsoever - in fact I am fed up with such endless clamors which bring about nothing but hatred and confrontation, for most debaters always get far-fetched in their discussions and later on the entire thread is messed up with emotional outbursts.
YET, this stunning similarity sounds an alarm to me. While it is inevitable that any Christian Eucharistic liturgies are established in accordance with the prototype of the Last Supper and integrated with the liturgical legacies from the Early Apostolic Age, depending on the degree of it, I am a bit worried about the loss of a unique Catholic identity in our Holy Mass.
By the loss of a unique Catholic identity, which will spark a vehement debate if not elucidated adequately, I DO NOT intend to go into issues like the use of Latin, Gregorian Chants, altar rails, altar architecture, Latin motets, the ‘ad orientem’ controversy, the existence of various Eucharistic Prayers instead of the Roman Canon only, translation problems, vestments of the ordained, altar boy/girl issue, etc. (I specify what is excluded first to avoid further disputes.) WHAT I FOCUS ON is the logistics of the Mass.
There are many missing traditional Mass parts which developed over centuries in our Ordinary Form of Mass. Asperges Me, while not an ordinary or mandatory session of a Mass, is now rarely seen. Prayers before the Altar are gone. The part from Suscipe Sancte Pater up to the Lavabo is greatly abridged. Some Psalms are missing. Eucharistic Prayer II, the one commonly used in my parish for every Sunday and weekday Mass, fails to express EXPLICITLY AND ELEGANTLY the theology of the Holy Mass as a Sacrifice as well as the Communion of Saints. To me, this is a great loss, the loss of the very precious gemstone our Holy Mother Church has cherished and passed on for centuries.
NEVER take me to be a sedevacantist, a schismatic or other titles labelling me as a rebel. I NEVER criticise the intention or validity of the Vatican II Council and Pope Paul VI’s Reform. The only thing is that our liturgy really needs some reform of the reform, one that can imbibe our liturgy with a bit more of the traditional elements. I really truly hope that for our Eucharistic Prayer, the wordings can be embellished and Nature of Sacrifice and Communion of Saints mentioned more explicitly, which can already very much distinguish our Holy Mass from any Anglican Service.
Any idea? Objection? Suggestion?
By the way, someone contended that the Eucharistic Prayer II is supposed to have its origin in a Eucharistic Prayer written by St. Hippolytus of Rome, who in a period was deemed schismatic and thus the intention of the prayer is very much of question.
There is little counter-arguments for this apparently ‘traditionalist’ attack. My first doubt is: why would Rome canonize him as a martyred saint if he were under suspicion of aberrance? Now, if he has been recognised by both Rome as a saint, then it is assumed that his writings are compatible with the orthodox teachings of the Church, so there should not be serious query into the validity of the EP II. Moreover, to me, as far as the language in the Eucharistic Prayer he wrote is in line with the Catholic faith, I don’t see why a surmised ‘wicked intention’ of a saint will quiver the Sacrament’s validity.
Having said that, I think that the Eucharistic Prayer II should still need slight modifications regarding the translations. I can’t tell why, but I feel that it lacks some sort of embellishment.
N.B. I am not polished in English since I’m not a native speaker. I apologise for my handicapped communication if any of my thought is not so clearly laid out in this thread.