(Picture source: http://1969j.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/holymass2.jpg)
~J.M.J~
Today, on the Feast of the Pentecost, I attended a Traditional Latin Mass at the St Joseph's Institution (International) Chapel, Singapore. Yes, it did lose me on several occasions, but it did satisfy an untellable hunger for tranquility and reverence. After all, I believe that Communion is ideally received kneeling, and will do so after my baptism. As the Latin rolled off my tongue, I felt one in Christ with my brothers and sisters from all the corners of the earth, as well as those in Purgatory and the saints in Heaven.
How is it that so much of the Eucharistic celebration has changed? Ecumenism was one of the priorities of the Vatican II reforms, and so our worship became more similar to that of our Protestant brethren's, whom I respect and love. Their ideal, desirable in moderation, that the people should participate in everything, gradually exceeded moderation. It is prescribed by Vatican II that the priest can face the people at any time of the Mass as he deems fit, but nowhere did they say this was to be maintained throughout the celebration. Nor did they say that the Mass was to be celebrated exclusively in the vernacular tongue. In fact, they had explicitly stated, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 36.1).
If we explore the effectiveness of the reforms on Ecumenism, the results are obvious. Yes, the Anglicans are returning, but traditionalist groups have split from us. Overall, no progress has been made in Ecumenism, and we have diluted our Sacred Tradition in the process. I do not blame Vatican II for this situation, because they never foresaw it. It is some theologians who have misinterpreted the documents and propagated their erroneous views who, in my opinion, are at fault.
So Mass isn't about us? Well, if it were, we would be adoring ourselves. Do I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass? Not entirely. I find some actions superfluous and distracting from the focus on the all-important Eucharist. Although I understand the symbolism behind tracing 52 crosses over the Body and Blood of Christ, I find that the crossing after Consecration seems to imply that Transubstantiation is gradual, which does not conform to Doctrine. Am I condemning Protestant worship? No, it's fine and beautiful in its own way and we do mimic it outside of Mass, in what we call "Praise & Worship".
However, we understand Mass not as a form of participatory worship, but as the offering of the Perfect Sacrifice to God the Father. Hence, we should preserve it in its antiquity and catholicity.
Blessed Pentecost! Veni Créator Spíritus!
-------------------------------------------
Hi everyone, I have just came across the part of the Summa Theologica, 3rd Part, Q28, Art 5, which states this:
Objection 4. Further, the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:7): "And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.
Reply to Objection 4. After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).
