tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5464180585819540715.post755887937245313936..comments2023-10-31T08:09:30.343-07:00Comments on The Token Catholic.: I guess this is why I could never be...J.Samuel Ross.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11981863011563791787noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5464180585819540715.post-49541781954314586632010-03-04T18:07:41.032-08:002010-03-04T18:07:41.032-08:00I didn't mean to say that a different preface ...I didn't mean to say that a different preface for every ferial day was necessary, or even desireble, I just meant to use it as a comparison.I think the most ideal option would be the use of one common and one weekday preface for each season,similar to the idea of there being different hymns in the breviary for Sundays and weekdays during Lent and/or Paschaltide. (eg, one sings Precemur omnes cernui at lauds of Sunday, but one sings Iam Christe, sol iustitiae for lauds of weekdays.)<br /><br />As to communion in both kinds -- not being a part of the Latin rite does'nt seem to to me to be a sufficient reason to avoid it. The general communion on Good Friday was never a part of the Latin rite until Bugnini's 55' reforms of Holy Week. Neither was the use of the names of confessors in the Canon of the Mass, or the occasional suppression of the preparatory prayers,(And it's corollary, the suppression of the final blessing) all of which are in the 62' missal. <br />As to the private recitation of the choir's parts at high mass, my problem is that it in effect creates two masses: The one recited by the celebrant at the altar,and the one being sung by the choir. Sometimes it works okay, but other times, one is left in a situation where one is trying to keep up with two or three (Or sometimes four)things at once while trying to remain in a prayerful disposition.This isn't to vindicate the new missal's almost total rejection of superimposed ceremonies,however.I don't really have an argument against the private recitation of the choir's parts, I just find it confusing and I don't see any real merit to it.<br />Anyway, I plan to post further about this soon.J.Samuel Ross.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11981863011563791787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5464180585819540715.post-65686706403804748792010-03-04T15:10:01.124-08:002010-03-04T15:10:01.124-08:00No Liturgy this side of heaven is perfect... that ...No Liturgy this side of heaven is perfect... that must be accepted by all. However, the Missal of 62, actually expanded in certain areas of the previous Missales. For example, after the reforms of Trent, the number of prefaces were reduced and gradually newer prefaces were added. Now we have many, many prefaces. Furthermore, a particular preface for every ferial day of a aprticular season, is not necessarily a good thing. Having a common preface that is intrinsically connected w/ the Sunday Preface, connects the Liturgical celebration during the week with the hinge of Sunday -- a general advantage of the New Missal, particularly during Ordinary Time.<br /><br />Communion under both kinds and suppression of the private recitation of choir parts -- i would argue are NOT advantages, but a rejection of a peculiar development w/ in the Latin Rite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com