Sorry, but I really don't understand this.

Tim Romano wrote:

<<Mass and communion are often perceived to be one and the same, or at least
it is often assumed that communion is the essence of the mass.  >>

You are losing me here.  I never said that Mass and communion were the same,
or ever implied it.  I merely said that Pound supported them both in the
quote ["Re: European Religion:  Mass and communion are not of Jew origin . .
. "  -- ( he could have at least said "Jewish origin," don't you think?).


<<But, as I
said, that is not the view taken by many conservative liturgists, who would
assert that the mass is a ritual-drama  which re-enacts, in its language and
symbolic gesture, the central mystery of the Sacrifice.  The essence of your
argument, if I may restate it without any intention of distorting it, is
that the religious experience consists in the communal brotherhood of the
congregation with each other, in their worship of God, and that the language
and the ritual should therefore interpose no barriers to this communal bond.
But Latin does so; and the separation of men into two classes, elect
priesthood and laity, does so.>>

Yes, that is an extremely fair summary of my viewpoint.

<<The essence of my argument is that Pound is
focusing not on the communal aspects of the liturgy but on the sacrifical
mystery it re-enacts. It is more than a matter of emphasis: Community or the
Ultimate Isolation of the Divine Mystery.>>


Pardon me, but I don't understand this.  In all honesty, I don't know what
you mean, and this might be a good thing. What do you intend by the last
sentence, particularly the phrase "Community or the ultimate isolation of
the Divine Mystery"?

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com