Confused by a book on Perennialism

TheLightWithin said:
Mormonism has that.
Did Perennialists study Mormonism? Did it enter into discussions at all?
Click to expand...
Not as far as I know.

I rather fear they would dismiss it ... the idea of the Divine having a physical body, or that God the Father himself has a father, and so on, indicates a total lack of metaphysical understanding, or at best no-one has subjected the Mormon teachings to an informed metaphysical analysis.

On the surface, it seems to me to be unlikely, on the above and other points.

Then you have to look at the emergence of the movement in reference to and against the background of the currents of its day.
 
Last edited:
TheLightWithin said:
Hmm so some Perennialists thought Christianity had lost the truth it once held?
(More or less the message I was raised on)

Interesting...
Click to expand...
More a case of the West has lost access to Primordial Truth and the fundamental metaphysical principles which authentic Traditions share in common.

The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates were not so subject to the tides of change and the pursuit of novelty, so their relation to Ancient Traditions and insights into those principles is more evident and accessible.

Everything, in essence, is there and present in the Christian Liturgy, and the form and language of the Liturgy, the form and structure of the Church, all contribute to that.

I visited a Benedictine Monastery near where I lived. In church architecture, there is the nave, where the congregation gather, facing the altar, and behind the altar is the sanctuary, the main feature of which is the tabernacle – all Biblical references. In the Tabernacle are kept the Eucharistic wafers.

Mass used to be celebrated with the priest standing with his back to the congregation. This symbolised a collective offering, there priest officiates on our behalf. In the modern mass, the priest faces the congregation, which creates an artificial distinction. It may seem small but it isn't, and the reasoning behind the change struck me as banal.

At the Benedictine church, behind the alter, where the sanctuary should be, was a chair, where the celebrant sat when not engaged in the mass.

The tabernacle was off to the side, a safe door in the wall ... this is all so wrong ...
 
Thomas said:
At the Benedictine church, behind the alter, where the sanctuary should be, was a chair, where the celebrant sat when not engaged in the mass.

The tabernacle was off to the side, a safe door in the wall ... this is all so wrong ...
Click to expand...
With the idea that the tabernacle with the host in it should be centered?

When I first heard once upon a time that the priest used to face away from the congregation I thought, that was strange, why make it so hard for the congregation to hear the sermon? Or ignore the congregation?

It was only somewhat recently, year or few ago, that I saw a TV program (probably on EWTN) or maybe a YouTube video, maybe I read it, that the idea was the priest was leading the flock and they were all facing God.
 
TheLightWithin said:
With the idea that the tabernacle with the host in it should be centered?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Liturgy then, in both text and form, is an ascent from the mundane to the Divine.

TheLightWithin said:
When I first heard once upon a time that the priest used to face away from the congregation I thought, that was strange, why make it so hard for the congregation to hear the sermon? Or ignore the congregation?
Click to expand...
Ah, hang on, the celebrant faces the congregation when delivering his homily, this is done from the lectern or the pulpit.

TheLightWithin said:
It was only somewhat recently, year or few ago, that I saw a TV program (probably on EWTN) or maybe a YouTube video, maybe I read it, that the idea was the priest was leading the flock and they were all facing God.
Click to expand...
Yes. He's one of the flock. In the very early church, chosen from among those gathered, and human nature being what it is, probably either the most saintly person in the room, or the richest/most influential, or the owner of the house they were using.

+++

I used to attend Latin Mass in the Traditional Form at Brompton Oratory – a famous church in London. 7.00am mass, me and half a dozen others ...

I went to midnight mass there. Brompton Oratory was called the 'embassy church' because so many embassies are located in that part of London. To my surprise, when I arrived limos were parked two abreast disgorging the great and the good. And what really incensed me, was the red carpet that was laid from the doors of the church to the kerbside, as if we were at some movie premiere ... my lack of delight was noticeable. "Where the •••• are you at 7.00am on a Sunday morning?" I wondered.

Suffice to say there should be only one 'celebrity' in mind on Christmas Eve, and there was no red carpet in Bethlehem.
 
I've written about the Liturgy in the vernacular before. I have no issue in principle, simply that the English text is somewhat workaday ... my view still is that they should have given the approved text to a poet or lyricist.

Having said that, the Concluding Doxology (Gk doxa, 'glory' and logia, written or oral expression – an expression, verse of hymn in praise of God, in a liturgical context.)

The central act of the Liturgy is the Eucharistic Prayer. The Prayer begins with the preface, lifting our hearts up to the Father. Then comes the Sanctus, proclaiming God’s holiness and glory that fills the universe. At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest recites this concluding doxology, praising the Trinity. In this prayer, the priest elevates the Sacred Victim up high, above all temporal realities, and says:

“Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.”

There are, in this part of the mass, a number of responses from the congregation, for example the celebrant says:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: And with your spirit. (In my view, a clunky response. Traditionally: 'And also with you')
P: Lift up your hearts.
C: We lift them to the Lord.
P: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
C: It is right to give him thanks and praise.

Then follows a longer prayer, spoken by the celebrant on our behalf.

This ends with the Concluding Doxology

Note: According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: “The concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer is spoken solely by
the principal priest celebrant and, if this is desired, together with the other concelebrants, but not by the faithful.”

People who know the mass by heart know this. Peope who follow in missals, etc., have it clearly marked...

... yet I have been at Mass when the congregation spontaneously join with the priest in saying the doxology – and I read that as a mark of the Triune Presence in the Mass – and that spontaneous outpouring, I suggest, transcends the General Instruction.
 
Thomas said:
Ah, hang on, the celebrant faces the congregation when delivering his homily, this is done from the lectern or the pulpit.
Click to expand...
I didn't know because the entire process wasn't described somebody just described that part and I compared it with what I thought were "regular" churches that I had seen on TV.
 
Thomas said:
Yes. He's one of the flock. In the very early church, chosen from among those gathered, and human nature being what it is, probably either the most saintly person in the room, or the richest/most influential, or the owner of the house they were using.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair. Perhaps not unlike what Christadelphians or possibly Quakers do today -- or wait, not quite, as neither does rituals, it's more that the relative egalitarianism from among the flock is featured, it's all laity run, there are no non laity.

With Christadelphians thought AFAIK they ONLY does scripture reading and even in this day and age it's only men doing the reading in most congregations.

I think that's the "Restorationist" impulse of 19th century emergences like the Christadelphians. They attempt to restore what they believe they know and understand about the 1st century church.
 
Thomas said:
I went to midnight mass there. Brompton Oratory was called the 'embassy church' because so many embassies are located in that part of London. To my surprise, when I arrived limos were parked two abreast disgorging the great and the good. And what really incensed me, was the red carpet that was laid from the doors of the church to the kerbside, as if we were at some movie premiere ... my lack of delight was noticeable. "Where the •••• are you at 7.00am on a Sunday morning?" I wondered.
Click to expand...
What was the rationale and/or stated justification for putting the red carpet out??
 
Thomas said:
Note: According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: “The concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer is spoken solely by
the principal priest celebrant and, if this is desired, together with the other concelebrants, but not by the faithful.”

People who know the mass by heart know this. Peope who follow in missals, etc., have it clearly marked...

... yet I have been at Mass when the congregation spontaneously join with the priest in saying the doxology – and I read that as a mark of the Triune Presence in the Mass – and that spontaneous outpouring, I suggest, transcends the General Instruction.
Click to expand...
What is the rationale for having only the priest say the prayer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top