(quote) Ginia-1026653 said: In regards to what the congregation sees and hears....isn't it true that what the priest says is spoken to God and is not necessarily intended for the people to hear? And isn't the only audience at Mass God the Father?
Another questions for you...this was mentioned earlier in the posts..when the curtain of the temple was torn in two, wasn't that God leaving the temple? Do you know if that was pretty much the end of temple worship? Or do you think it continued up until the destruction of the temple? With all the tearing of garments that went on when bad things happened back then, I can't imagine that someone would interpret the tearing of the curtain to be a sign of God's pleasure with the people. Seems to me more like a sign of the end of the old covenant. What do you think?
ircYes, the prayers the priest recites are all spoken to God. And in the TLM he does so on behalf of the people. Where appropriate, the alter respond for the people.
But the simple fact is, the Mass is a corporate act. That is, it is worship by all, the Priest, the Alter Boys and the Congregation.
In the TLM, the congregation plays essentially a passive part except for the reception of the Eucharist. Even if the lay person in the pew s properly using a missal, praying all the prays along with the priest, they are still passive.
One of the main purposes Vatican II had for ordering a revision of the Mass was to have the congregation take a more active part in the celebration. How well that aim was achieved can be argued from now until doomsday with no resolution.
Those who are sincerely "traditional" can rightly argue that there was no need to make such a drastic change. And they could be considered accurate. After all, the Council could just as easily have ordered that most of the extraordinary form be done in the vernacular, thereby removing the language barrier. It could also authorize the Mass to be said either facing or not facing the people. Actually they did exactly that. They could also have added all the extra readings, without changing so much more.
But the simple fact is they did not do all those things. Instead they ordered, very simply, that the Mass be redone to achieve the norms for it that they laid down and left it to a committee they created and the Pope staffed to achieve the aims.
Good, bad or indifferent, the Pope, who is the final decider of what is in the matter of how the Mass is celebrated, accepted the work of the committee and promulgated it to be used in the Latin Church. Unlike he Pope at the time of Trent, he did not suppress the TLM. Probably because he believed that everyone would accept the new form and forget the old since the new did all the things the laity had been complaining about for so long and so loud.
From strictly a "housekeeping" point of view he should have suppressed it. But that is neither here or there. He didn't and, therefore, set the stage for the silliness we have now. Those who think of themselves as "traditional" (most of them really aren't in my opinion) saying one thing and those who have accepted the new saying another.
What I object to is not those who sincerely love the TLM, especially since I am one myself, but those who say they do and try to make their case by denigrated the Novus and its creators with all kinds of nonsense. In the process they show themselves to be very unchristian, demonstrate their ignorance of the Mass in general and both forms; the TLM and the Novus, in particular.
As to the last part of your note. I don't know what it has to do with the subject under discussion. But to answer your question. When the Curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn in two at Christ's death on the cross, it was the signal that the old Covenant and the law was fulfilled. So in that sense they ended. But it does not mean that the Jews lost there place as God's Chosen people. They still are. Its just that all the rest of us who freely and unconditionally accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church, are added to the ranks of God's chosen people.
The sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem continued until its destruction by the Roman Army in the 70s. But they no longer carried the weight they did before Christ' death. Remember, though, sincere Jews who did not know or understand who Jesus Christ is still gained whatever merit those sacrifices had before Christ's death.
Remember, Jews were spread throughout the world at the time of Christ. And just like most people today, most of them never traveled to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices. They practiced their faith and prayer life in their local synagogs where no sacrifices were offered. And they still do so today.
Today, they no longer have an organized priesthood, although any male Jew alive today whose ancestry is of the tribe of Levi and Aaron have a claim to that priesthood. Instead, all religious functions except the sacrifices, are led by teachers - Rabbis. There are no sacrifices, because under Jewish law, sacrifices can only be done at the Temple where the Ark of The Covenant and, therefore, God is located. The Ark no longer exists. Even if it did, God would not be there because he can now only be where the Mass is offered. Obviously, here we are speaking of God's presence as He was in the Old Testament in the Temple and under the New Testament in the Eucharist.