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