Excellent point regarding the "Jewishness" of the liturgy. It's curious. The liturgical reformers in many respects wanted the liturgy to be more "Jewish" -- but, ultimately, what they produced is less "Jewish," crudely transplanted table blessings notwithstanding. One need look no further than the feast of the first day of the (civil) year, as it appears in the two dispensations. But the same reality is evident all over the place. One sees a direct line between "Temple" and "Church" at the TLM; at the NO, there is barely a line between "Synagogue" and "Church."
Correct you are. I think this is a case of a more general rule. As someone once said, there's more of the year 200 in a liturgy that has developed continuously from the year 200 to the present than there is in a liturgy constructed out of pieces of material from the year 200. Similarly, the Roman Rite contains and sublimates the Jewish inheritance, whereas the Novus Ordo sort of sprinkles a Jewish touch here or there, but guts out that inheritance.
Kudos! This was an excellent piece. One of the fantastic things about studying the actual and correct history of the Roman/Western liturgy is that in the end we really have no idea who put all of this together. When recorded liturgical history begins it is basically there. For my money that was why it was such a gigantic mistake to start calling it 'Tridentine' but I won't go down down that rabbit hole.
One thing about the ninth Sunday after Pentecost. I think it was Gueranger who pointed this out somewhere but depending on the date of Easter in any given year that particular Sunday can fall during the first or second week of August which is the time of year that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So it may very well have been deliberate on the part of somebody at some point. In another one of these little gems you also have the wonderful example of how the Collect for this week, the third Sunday after Epiphany, speaks of the Almighty Eternal God extending the right Hand of his Majesty to our infirmity which pairs up very nicely with the Gospel of the Leper.
Who did this stuff I don't know but I very much doubt it was any committee of professional liturgists anywhere.
Re. "the Holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John." Though of a priestly family, there does not appear to evidence he served in the priestly ranks at the Temple. But what would have been his "training" or formation in the priestly ministry? Surely the priests must have learned in some fashion chants passed down through the centuries? Michael O'Brien's lovely novel about the Prophet Ezekiel alludes to some of this on the job training.
Excellent point regarding the "Jewishness" of the liturgy. It's curious. The liturgical reformers in many respects wanted the liturgy to be more "Jewish" -- but, ultimately, what they produced is less "Jewish," crudely transplanted table blessings notwithstanding. One need look no further than the feast of the first day of the (civil) year, as it appears in the two dispensations. But the same reality is evident all over the place. One sees a direct line between "Temple" and "Church" at the TLM; at the NO, there is barely a line between "Synagogue" and "Church."
Correct you are. I think this is a case of a more general rule. As someone once said, there's more of the year 200 in a liturgy that has developed continuously from the year 200 to the present than there is in a liturgy constructed out of pieces of material from the year 200. Similarly, the Roman Rite contains and sublimates the Jewish inheritance, whereas the Novus Ordo sort of sprinkles a Jewish touch here or there, but guts out that inheritance.
Kudos! This was an excellent piece. One of the fantastic things about studying the actual and correct history of the Roman/Western liturgy is that in the end we really have no idea who put all of this together. When recorded liturgical history begins it is basically there. For my money that was why it was such a gigantic mistake to start calling it 'Tridentine' but I won't go down down that rabbit hole.
One thing about the ninth Sunday after Pentecost. I think it was Gueranger who pointed this out somewhere but depending on the date of Easter in any given year that particular Sunday can fall during the first or second week of August which is the time of year that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So it may very well have been deliberate on the part of somebody at some point. In another one of these little gems you also have the wonderful example of how the Collect for this week, the third Sunday after Epiphany, speaks of the Almighty Eternal God extending the right Hand of his Majesty to our infirmity which pairs up very nicely with the Gospel of the Leper.
Who did this stuff I don't know but I very much doubt it was any committee of professional liturgists anywhere.
Re. "the Holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John." Though of a priestly family, there does not appear to evidence he served in the priestly ranks at the Temple. But what would have been his "training" or formation in the priestly ministry? Surely the priests must have learned in some fashion chants passed down through the centuries? Michael O'Brien's lovely novel about the Prophet Ezekiel alludes to some of this on the job training.
Yes, if only we had better information about what Hebrew temple music sounded like. We do have some educated guesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fpgQ21HYy4&list=OLAK5uy_kVj8u_Hrz7m9jaQSBBdR62Zt9A7G7OAUs&index=2