I just got a journal called "Adoremus." It is devoted to the "renewel" the Roman Liturgy. It has a number of biased and innacurate things to say about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Has anyone seen this journal? They also have a website with articles from the print journal at:

www.adoremus.org

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

Salaam.

I've only glanced at Adoremus at the Catholic seminary library near here but it seemed to be doing good work restoring the Roman Rite. Sorry to hear yet another conservative Roman group is doing the Eastern Churches a disservice.

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge,

I am glad they are doing good work for their own Church. I wish they would leave the Eastern Churches alone though. The "slant" of the editors on things seems "ultramontane" at best.

Mercy, salvation and peace in the New Year to you and all!

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

Khouri,

To what article are you refering. All I could find was a polite response to a rather terse letter to the editor from an Orthodox laymen.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I too am familiar with this fine publication. What exactly was in it that was offensive to you as regards Eastern Christianity?

The only thing I recall that could even remotely be problematic was a reply to an Orthodox letter writer who was objecting to the Roman churches use of icons - which he saw as exclusively the property of Orthodoxy. The editors disagreed with him saying that it was an art form proper to the Catholic church as well. The link is:

http://www.adoremus.org/0901IconsCatholic.html

PAX

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Although I am loathe to read minds, perhaps khouri was referring to the whole church vs. rite issue. The latest issue, in a response to a reader's letter says:
When you say "my heart bleeds for the Roman Catholic Church", we believe you mean the Latin rite Catholic Church. The Ruthenian rite is part of the Roman Catholic Church - the same in everything but ritual.

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: EJKlages ]

When you say "my heart bleeds for the Roman Catholic Church", we believe you mean the Latin rite Catholic Church. The Ruthenian rite is part of the Roman Catholic Church - the same in everything but ritual.

A response sure to raise hackles here and understandably so. (Same in everything?! Tell it to the Marines — the Orthodox party among the Ruthenians here!) Yes, it's wrong and counterproductive to what we're trying to do here, and therefore very exasperating and frustrating. But they probably aren't malicious, just ignorant. They use "Roman Catholic Church' in the sense we use "Catholic Church' and "rite' for "Church' as EJKlages notes.

That their notion is so widespread, perhaps even among Ruthenians themselves, shows there's a long way to go to end the Schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I recently paged through their journal and pamplets while inthe back of a Latin Catholic Church in New Jersey during a wedding rehersal. I found nothing directly objectionable in Adoremus, but I have to admit, the particular church I was in was a posterchild for all that was wrong in the unreformed and 'traditionalist' Latin Church. I take it at least some of their followers are simply moss-backs rather than liturgical renewers.

K.

Kurt,

Instead of baiting, could you please just outline what you think is wrong with that church?

Thanks,

anastasios

If we all agree that both the 'traditionalist' school and the 'VC II' school (I'm sure better term could be found) in the Latin Church have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics, it seems not be with worthwhile to belabor the point. I'll assume we have such a consensus.

K.

Well what about the "Vatican II was needed to stop ice cold whispered low masses and inward looking anti-world mentality but it went wrong when it was hijacked by those who wanted to turn the mass into a 'community gettogether'" point of view? (ie my point of view). I don't neatly fit into the traditionalist camp since I am for vernacular liturgies, ordained women deacons, against whispered low masses, against altars up against walls, confessional boxes, etc, and I do not fit into the V2 crowd since I am against the priest celebrating the liturgy with his back to God, guitar strumming masses, sermons that resemble motivational speakers, and lack of distinction of Catholicism as the true faith.

That's why I wanted you to clarify exactly what you meant, instead of assuming that we all know what a "traditionalist" is and why you don't agree with their "program."

anastasios

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that both schools have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics. That was exactly my point and I assume most here agree with the two of us.

K.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

"885
posted 01-02-2002 02:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that both schools have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics. That was exactly my point and I assume most here agree with the two of us.
K."

I see that my views are neither welcome here or in the Eastern Church. My plans to transfer rites are no longer in effect.

Joe

Joe,

I fear I do not understand what you mean. Could you help us understand your point?

Dan L

Joe,

1) What Kurt or I think is not indicative of the Eastern Church's attitude, if one even exists.

2) Why are you going to cancel your rite change based on one post? And without engaging in the discussion? Seems a little rash to me.

3) What are your views on the matter?

4) Isn't it true that there are bad liturgics in both camps of the Latin Church (and in our church as well)? Both sides have pros, but both have cons as well!

anastasios

+JMJ+

"4) Isn't it true that there are bad liturgics in both camps of the Latin Church (and in our church as well)? Both sides have pros, but both have cons as well!"

I do not beleive that the prevaticanII camp has a bad liturgy. I love the Tridentine liturgy. If you want to talk bad liturgy, I'll be glad to discuss the New Mass. (BTW, the SSPX and SSPV are not a good depiction of the TLM movement.)

Johanam,

I am going to disagree with you, but I hope the fact I disagree will not lead you to confirm your decision to chuck your rite change plans.

As far as I see, the Tridintine Mass as it was practiced in the late 1950's needed to be reformed.

Altars set up against walls, liturgy in a language that people can not actively understand (of course there were people who took the time to learn Latin), 35 minute "low masses" that were whispered while people prayed their rosaries in the pews, priests functioning as deacons at masses... all these things needed to be rectified.

To say the pre-Vatican II mass was perfect ignores the fact that many desired its reform. It was not just "thrust" on them. Unfortunately, the reform went to the other extreme.

If I had been Paul VI, for sure I would have instituted far less changes. I would have left the texts of the Mass as is; I would have put it in the vernacular, moved the altars off walls (but not made the priest face the wrong way), I would ban low masses and institute vernacular gregorian chant, encourage a diaconate, etc. But to say that no reform was needed... I beg to differ.

In many ways our Byzantine liturgy has reached certain stale elements. Being in the vernacular, it really doesn't need an overhaul; but rather a fine tuning. To see what I mean, read "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemmann. Modest changes are in order. But not a "mass"ive change like Paul VI's ordo! Things like psalm verses chanted at the antiphons (lost in many non-Ruthenian parishes), restoration of active congregational singing, encouragement to commune more than 4-6 times a year, etc. etc. etc.

Respectfully yours,

anastasios

+JMJ+

Dear Anastasious:

I wish to respond to your post line by line.

"As far as I see, the Tridintine Mass as it was practiced in the late 1950's needed to be reformed."

I will agree that some tweaking might have been neccessary.

"Altars set up against walls, liturgy in a language that people can not actively understand (of course there were people who took the time to learn Latin), 35 minute "low masses" that were whispered while people prayed their rosaries in the pews, priests functioning as deacons at masses... all these things needed to be rectified."

There is nothing more beutiful and nothing that epitomizes a Latin Rite parish then the High Altar. Somewhat akin to the Iconostasis in the Eastern Rites. Many people could learn Latin but chose not to. At least 2/3 of the Liturgy should be in Latin as this is the universal language of the Latin (thus the name) Rite. Hand Missals with Latin on one side of the page and English on the other were readily available. The Low Mass is a beuitiful celebration of the Liturgy. There are certain prayers that should not be said at every Liturgy. I agree that people should never have prayed the Rosary during the Low Mass. This was a sin on the part of the people not a fault of the Liturgy. The Silent Canon is truly a wonderful thing. For more on the value of the Silent Canon read "The Glories of the Silent Canon" available at http://www.latin-mass-society.org/canon.htm
I agree that priests should not have acted like deacons, although they still are deacons because the ordination to the Diaconate cannot be taken away. They should have offered up the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on a side altar.

"To say the pre-Vatican II mass was perfect ignores the fact that many desired its reform. It was not just "thrust" on them. Unfortunately, the reform went to the other extreme."

To say that the Pian Liturgy needed to be reformed is to ignore the many thousands of people that nearly left the Church because it was reformed. No Earthly Liturgy is a hundred percent perfect, but the New Mass is vastly inferior to the beuty, awe, reverence, and devotion (these four things are lacking at most NO Masses) of the Traditional Latin Mass.

"If I had been Paul VI, for sure I would have instituted far less changes. I would have left the texts of the Mass as is; I would have put it in the vernacular, moved the altars off walls (but not made the priest face the wrong way), I would ban low masses and institute vernacular gregorian chant, encourage a diaconate, etc. But to say that no reform was needed... I beg to differ."

some reform was indeed needed, but these were very minor and did not require the major overhauls of the 1969 Missal which has done more harm then good.

"In many ways our Byzantine liturgy has reached certain stale elements. Being in the vernacular, it really doesn't need an overhaul; but rather a fine tuning. To see what I mean, read "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemmann. Modest changes are in order. But not a "mass"ive change like Paul VI's ordo! Things like psalm verses chanted at the antiphons (lost in many non-Ruthenian parishes), restoration of active congregational singing, encouragement to commune more than 4-6 times a year, etc. etc. etc."

Since I am not a Byzantine Catholic, I cannot comment on the liturgy of that rite. I can only offer my humble opinion of what I saw when I attended a Byzantine Liturgy for the first time. I saw at that point the Byzantine Liturgy as being the best Liturgy I had attended that was not a Traditional Latin Mass. Reverence and Devotion were present.

in the IHM,
Joe Zollars

As I read this thread, I cannot help but saying that the Latin Rite does not whatsoever grip me. I have talkied to Roman Catholics who feel numb during their Mass. Can anyone explain to me this numbness and I wonder if it is due to the Mass? Many have expressed to me that their liturgy does not do anything for them. What could be the probable causes for the thousands who have left their church or simply become numb in mind, body & soul?

+JMJ+

The cause in my humble opinion is the horizontalizim that is so grossly present in the Novus Ordo Mass. No longer does the Mass seek to raise the heart and soul to God, but now the Mass seeks to become a purely social oraganization that no longer beleives in Sacrifice and in Penance and in the neccesity of the Sacraments.

Joe Zollars

Robert,

You say "As I read this thread, I cannot help but saying that the Latin Rite does not whatsoever grip me. I have talkied to Roman Catholics who feel numb during their Mass. Can anyone explain to me this numbness and I wonder if it is due to the Mass? Many have expressed to me that their liturgy does not do anything for them. What could be the probable causes for the thousands who have left their church or simply become numb in mind, body & soul?"

I would venture to guess you feel the cause is that Catholics are without grace. Interestingly enough I have heard the same comments from Orthodox about their liturgy. One gentleman I know splits attendance between his Greek Orthodox parish and a Presbyterian Church becasue "he gets more out of service he can understand" and "feels the same after either service."

How people "feel" or what the liturgy "does for them" is a poor way to judge any liturgy. I was raised Latin and the Latin Rite is beautiful in many ways that are different from the Byzantine. Historically, the Latin Liturgy is more simple and austere though no less solemn. However, at a very early age my heart turned to the Byzantine Church. It spoke a spiritual language that I understood more clearly. However, I feel no reason to denigrate the Latin Church or its liturgy.

My parents and other relatives are Latin. They all love the Novus Order Mass and are quite happy with the reform and they are very conservative and loyal. They have been blessed with good parishes and priest who celebrate properly and reverently. I do sympathize with those who must endure abusive practices. If every parish celebrated as they do on EWTN then their would be no (or very few) Latins upset with the reform like our friend Joe.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Joe,

While I respect those who are attached to the Tridentine Mass, there are some theological underpinnings I see present in some arguements.

The Liturgy should be in the Venacular. This does not mean that some parts can't be done in a Liturgy-only tongue but the majority should be in a language understood by the people. The half and half missal or the people just need to learn a Latin (or Greek or Slavonic) are not solutions nor inline with Christ's commnad. We are to take the Gospel to every nation. To facilitate this, on Pentecost the Apostles were given the Gift of Tongues so all could hear the Gospel in his own language. The Gospel and the Liturgy are one so both need to be in the venacular. The Eastern Church once new this, some still do, and the lAtin Church finally recognized this at Vatican II. Why are so many opposed to one of the really needed reforms? Who are we to contradict the Holy Spirit? The Apostles spoke the language of the people. They didn't expect those they went to to learn Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek.

Low Mass, could there be a more contradictory term? Every Liturgy is nothing less than Heaven on Earth, Christ made real in a unique way to His people. This is why every Eastern Liturgy is sung and uses incense. Liturgy is never high or low it is simply Liturgy. It may be solemnized by additional rituals, but never is it or should it be considered okay to dispense with dignity or say things secretly in order to rush througha "low" Mass. This was often done in pre-Vatican II, as many Latin priests I know attest to it.

Silent prayers. Aside from personal prayers of unworthiness said by the priest in preparation of his aawesome duties, no parayer should ever be said silently, especially the Anaphora. This is nothing but clericalization and has no place in any Church, East or West. How can the priestly people affirm the actions of the priest if they don't hear what they are affirming? This problem exists in both the East and West and I have heard all the weak arguements for secret prayers and I find them all bs. Thankfully, the Byzantine (at least Pittsburgh Metropolia) and Latin Catholic Churches have discarded this clericalization of the past.

Joe I intend no disrespect but the above issues both I and the Church perceive as wrongs that needed righted. Why labor to restore the Tridentine rite which can only have limited success in my opinion because of the above issues. Why not work with Adoremus to reform the current LAtin liturgy to the status we find on EWTN? Surely, I can't beieve you find anything wrong with their liturgy, can you?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I think Lance hits the nail on the head. A major promblem with the NO is that it is rarely executed properly, i.e. the rubrics are often blatently ignored. Part of this is due to clerical laziness. When i read the Latin version of the NO, i did not observe that many difference between it and the Pian Liturgy, other than NO is a simplification of the latter. The overbearing horizantal aspects have little to do with the Liturgy itself, but with the liturgists, whoo seem to know nothing of devotion, piety, ascethetics, and mystery. They tend to want to put on a good show (a "glorified jamboree as one priest put it).

Lance,
I think that there are very few among us who do not believe that some reform of the pre-Vatican II Roman Liturgy was required. Nevertheless, the sweeping changes to the liturgy approved by Pope Paul VI seem to me to be antithetical to the traditional Catholic approach to the Sacred Liturgy. Any reform of the liturgy should have started with the liturgy as it came to us from our Fathers. This is why I think it is important for us in the west to return to the Traditional liturgy, so that a true organic reform can begin to take place.
At the same time, I think we must always be very cautious in criticizing practices that have had the sanction of the Church for centuries. You criticized, for instance, the altar against the wall and the silent canon. The great liturgical scholar, Fr. Joseph Jungmann, writes the following concerning the altar:

"The line of separation between altar and people, between clergy and laity, between those whose duty it was to perform the sacramental action and those who formed the celebrating congregation -- a separation which was always taken for granted as essential to the Church's constitution, and which was never really forgotten -- was now made into a broad line of demarcation, not to say a wall of division. This had its effect even on church architecture. The altar was moved back to the rear wall of the apse."

Now one could argue from this that since the change in the location of the altar was a result of an exaggerated notion of the distinction between clergy and laity, one could rectify the situation by going back to the free-standing altar. Unfortunately, I don't think that the situation was rectified by this move (clericalism of the worst sort still exists in the western church). If anything, the change in the position of the altar has made possible many of the abuses that we have seen in the last 30 years or so. This is not the fault of a free-standing altar of course. But it is all part of a mentality which feels free to make liturgical changes willy-nilly. It is interesting in this regard that the same Fr. Jungmann mentioned above says the following concerning the Eastern Liturgies:

"....And already in Basil the sentiment towards the Eucharist is altered. The pertinent chapter in his Shorter Rule is entitled: 'With what fear...we ought to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.' The same attitude towards the Blessed Sacrament, even aside from the thought of communicating, is noticeable in various parts of the eastern world. It is especially strong in Chrysostom, who time and time again talks about 'the terrible sacrifice,' about the 'shuddering hour' when the mystery is accomplished, and about the 'terrible and awful table.' This attitude left its mark not only on the character of the oriental liturgies, but on the peculiar form of oriental piety. Even Chrysostom gave vent to the complaint that few dared approach the holy table for Communion. The decline in the frequentation of Communion in the East was already remarked by the Latin Fathers of the fourth-fifth century."

As Fr. Jungmann explains, this exaggerated view of the Holy Eucharist came about as a result of a greater emphasis in the East on the Divinity of Christ over His humanity.
Fr. Jungmann goes on to explain the effect all this had on the celebration of the liturgy:

"It is therefore no mere accident that precisely in the Orient the celebration of the mysteries took on an ever greater splendor. The activities at the altar became the object of the awesome gaze and wonder of the assembled congregation. The clergy appear in splendid vestments, lights and incense are introduced into the service, an external ceremonial with bowings and 'proskunesis' is gradually evolved. Forms broaden out, following the pattern set by the Emperor and his highest officials on festive occasions. The bearing of gifts to the altar and, of course, the procession for their distribution in Holy Communion are turned into solemn parades of the clergy, who appeared like the legions of the heavenly spirits.
In addition the line of demarcation between the altar-sanctuary and the people became more and more pronounced. The railings which lay between the two grew higher until at last they became the ikonostasis, the picture wall which fully hides the sanctuary from the gaze of the people. Thus the action at the altar is all the more raised in dignity. It is enveloped in an atmosphere of holy awe."

Should modern Byzantines then get rid of their beautiful ceremonies and tear down the iconostasis because these developments came about as the result of a view of the Sacred Mysteries which kept people from approaching the altar to receive our Lord? I don't think so. And neither do I think this should be the case in the west. Most major developments in the Church have been somewhat lop-sided reactions to the heretical tendencies of some of her members. This doesn't mean that we need to rid ourselves of these developments. We can certainly get our balance back in other ways (good preaching is certainly one way).

With regard to the silent canon, I am non-committal on this. I think it is very beautiful when it is sung. On the other hand, the silent canon has a certain contemplative beauty to it. It is as though we have been taken up into heaven, into the presence of Almighty God and can now only speak in hushed tones. This may seem a rather gratuitous interpretation of the silent canon, but it does truly resonate with me ( I am reminded of the Book of Revelation where there is silence in heaven for half an hour--the silence of adoration, no doubt).

Lastly, with regard to the use of Latin. I generally agree that the vernacular is helpful and good. Vatican II allowed for the use of the vernacular especially in those parts of the Mass that pertain to the people (you wouldn't need the vernacular in the Ordinary since people had come to fully understand the text of the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei, and Sanctus). I see no real problem with that. Nevertheless, I think the use of a liturgical language has its place. Our Lord, no doubt, went to Temple services and celebrated the Passover in Hebrew, which was a dead language in His day.

In Christ,

Ed

Ed,

I have no problem with an altar against the apse and had no criticism of it. Perhaps someone else's post?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Just a comment.

Many of the elements underdiscussion here were discussed at length in a previous thread in East-N-West begun as an examination of some thoughts by Fr. Taft. The discussion took place btc (before the crash)! I do think that the thread contains information about areas such as the meaning of the Novus Ordo, the process of Liturgical renewal in the Latin Church, its relationship to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, and other issues . Various Orthodox posters posted as did as Eastern and Latin Catholic posters present and past. I think that it is worth the read.

The title of the thread was:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal.

It can be accessed by clicking on page 3 at the bottom of the screen containing the contents of East-N-West. Click on the name of the thread to access the postings.

In that thread are some statements of position similar to some being made in this thread about the history and meaning of the Liturgical Renewal in the Latin Church. Some of the statements here are incorrect or misinform. Others misrepresent what the Novus Ordo is about or how it came to be. In my opinion, they are making a second appearance when they have been dealt with already!

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

"I have no problem with an altar against the apse and had no criticism of it. Perhaps someone else's post?"

Sorry Lance. Looking back at the posts, I see that it was Anastasios who made the comment about altars against the apse.

Ed

Lance,

I agree that EWTN is a beutiful Liturgy, but I am not fully satisfied with what is on EWTN. For instance, the Priests on EWTN face the people instead of facing God who is present in the second Person of the most adorable Trinity in the Tabernacle. There are minor liturgical abuses in the Liturgy on EWTN. Certainly nothing like is in my home parish wherre the priest will switch the order willynilly as if he were the pope and could determine the order of the Mass.

I can be satisfied only, at least in terms of the Latin Rite, by a Pian (Although the slang for the PreVatican II Liturgy is Tridentine Mass, the proper name is Pian) Mass. The Pauline (the proper name for the postVatican II Mass) Mass has many signifigant problems.

Even the pope says that those of us who wish to attend the PreVatican II Mass are to be respected by our Bishops and an Indult parish has been ordered for EVERY Latin Rite Diocese in the world.

BTW, has anyone heard of the alleged agreement between the SSJV in Campos Brazil and the Vatican? What I have read so far on the agreement, says that the Vatican has set up a sort of Trad-Diocese in Brazil. If this is true, I will soon be moving to Campos. I will teach myself Portugeese, but I will no longer have to live with the Pauline Mass.

Joe Zollars

Joe,

I do feel for what you are going through. I only attended 2 RC masses last year in America (I did in India as there was no Syriac Orthodox Church close to me).

I will stick by what I said about reforming the Pian Liturgy. But remember that I did say that I would not have overhauled it--like I said, I would have only 1) done away with the silent canon and Low Mass, preferring instead a fully chanted Mass with Gregorian, Mozarabic, or Ambrosian Chant, 2) put the liturgy in the vernacular, and 3) moved the altar out a little, 4) stopped priests from functioning as deacons. Well even #3 is not something I would have done in old churches, but rather just said new churches will be done that way.

On your suggestion that the mass be offered up on a side altar--well I don't agree with that either. One liturgy, on one altar, in one day, under all possible circumstances. The Church is made present through the Eucharist, since the Church is the Body of Christ. We "realize" it in this sacrifice. To make multiple sacrifices on multiple altars either at the same time or at different times destroys this notion. Concelebration of priests, which the Pian liturgy did not allow for, shows the unity of the Eucharistic sacrifice and our unity as a local community being formed around it. This was a good thing of VII in my opinion. But I don't expect you to agree, and the Latin Pian rite is was you are inculturated in, so I don't want to "take that away from you." This is just my observation, so please don't take it like I am trying to say the Pian Mass was bad or you are bad for liking it. I would still take a Pian Mass any day over Pauline.

I agree 100% that priests in the NO should being to face east again. This is the common way for all rites and churches for all time. I remember some "renovators" trying to argue that early latins actually faced towards the people based on St. Peter's first basilica. But that was I belive shown to be a lie as the people would actually face east anyway, even if they were in front of the priest, to watch the sun rise and illuminate the basilica.

To the other poster, whose name I forgot,

I don't advocate tearing down iconostases. I agree with Fr. Schmemmann, however:

Paraphrase: "Icon screens started out as a row of icons to draw the people into fuller participation, that needed a support wall. They instead became a wall of separation that needed icons to decorate the temple."

anastasios

It is very interesting to read what Byzantine Catholics think about the western rites. I would have to agree with Joe's statements 100%. In my experience and in study I find the "tridentine" mass is far superior to that which was formulated after Vatican II.

Anastasios,
I understand why you use the term "Pian Liturgy", however it would be more proper to call it the "Gregorian Liturgy". Pius V did not in any way formulate this mass, instead he codified it for use throughout the West. The "tridentine" mass goes back essentially un-changed to the reign of St. Gregory the Great and should bear his name and not the name of St. Pius V.

I am blessed to attend the New Mass where it is done quite reverently. I'm not saying things are perfect but I do believe that it fulfills some of the spirit of what the Bishops of Vatican II were looking for. I do not think it is in the Latin Church's best interest to go back to the Tridentine Mass. Leave it open as an option for those who prefer it. But, I think a "reform of the renewal" is in order (which I believe is one of the goals of Adoremus). I would agree with Anastasios with most of his recommendations "if I were pope..." I do think, however, that moving the altar away from the back wall was done mainly to allow for celebrating "facing the people." Restoring the traditional "facing East" and bringing the Tabernacle back into the main axis of the Church (instead of in side chapels) are two things that should occur in the new "reform," IMHO. An interesting article on "re-orientating the liturgy" can be found at:

http://www.liturgy.ie/picpage.html

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Ok, fine with me. I was referring to it as the Tridentine Liturgy, and Joe told me to call it Pian. Now you say "Gregorian." Gee wiz, what is it??

anastasios

Dear all,

As far as EWTN priests not facing east (ad orientum) this is not of their own choosing. I remember when they did face east and their bishop put a stop to it by decreeing that any televised Mass in his diocese MUST have the priest facing the people. If you follow things at EWTN, Mother Angelica built a beautiful new church specifically designed for liturgy facing east. After the bishop's decree, you no longer see Mass from there, but from the old chapel they used before the church was bulit. You can only see the church as a setting for various devotions - Adoration of the Blessed sacrament, etc.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if the Eastern Catholic priests who have a program on that network [a very informative show IMO] get their wish and have major feastday liturgies broadcast - will the "no backs to the people" rule still apply even for Byzantine worship?

As far as the thinking of scholars on this topic, people like Msgr. Klaus Gamber & Cardinal Ratzinger have called for a switch back to the more ancient position of ad orientum (facing East) than the inovation of pro populum (toward the people). The latter was really a political agenda stance based on the unsubstantial assumption that in the early house churches the eucharist was a dinner party where the presider, like any good host, faced his guests. Sounds reasonable, however there is NOT A SHRED of evidence that this ever happened. However it is continuously cited by liturgists as the reason for the "reform" of the current Mass.

A Roman Bishop's order would have no effect on a televised Byzantine Liturgy on EWTN. (This despite our friend Bob's assertion that we are "just a part of the RCC.") In fact, it would show that the traditional way to celebrate Liturgy is not something that goes against the Magisterium (or Vatican II for that matter).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

1) I would like to know how a Roman bishop can "order" those folks to celebrate Mass with their backs towards God when I only remember the Vatican documents suggesting that a free-standing altar *might* allow for the priest to face east. No where was it said it was mandatory, or was it?

2) Why did said bishop issue said edict when a year before he was on EWTN doing an ordination for those folks facing east? Did he get flack from other bishops?

3) Do the priests in that beautiful church get to face God instead of the people when it is not telivised?

4) If facing East is the way to go, why does JP II face the people, then? Maybe he doesn't agree with us and Cardinal Ratzingy? Or he doesn't want more confusion? I'd ask him but I doubt the letter would get to him!

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

To answer your questions to the best of my knowledge:

1) For more information on this subject, follow the links below:

http://www.adoremus.org/1199-Foley.html

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/111999/111999g.htm


2) Some say he was influenced by other bishops to "crack down" on Mother Angelica. If you recall she had generated some controversy in her criticism of the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles.

3) AFAIK the Mass is celebrated facing East in the new shrine church - I think the altar is set up so one cannot do otherwise. At least that how it looks on TV.

4) The Pope does face East in his private chapel in the papal apts. You have to remember that the Holy Father is such a generous and well-loved shepherd that people WANT to see him - and to "perform" [for lack of a better word] rituals for him. I remember going to a papal Mass here in the US that had some absolutely dreadful liturgical dancing. It was not very worthy of worship. The only thing that I could think of to console me was the idea that the Pope is like a grandfather, and the "kids" like to put a show on for him to show them how much they love him and to demonstrate what talents they have. I realize that this probably plays into the hands of those who accuse Catholics of papal idolatry. But I think that the Holy Father is very gracious in accepting these things, even though they probably make him uncomfortable.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Laus Tibi,

Actually Tridentine or Pian are quite correct. The Roman Rite underwent many transformations. In Rome itself, the ancient Roman Liturgy gave way to the Leonine reform, which in turn gave way to the Gelasian reform, which in turn gave way to the Gregorian reform. The pure Gregorian was eventually supplanted by a Gelasian/Gregorian synthesis with Gallican and Gothic additions which was introduced to Rome from the Ottonian Germanic kingdom.

Outside Rome various rites and usages were in place. Trent and St. Pius V unified and codified the Roman usage and demanded its observance and virtually exterminated the local rites every where but the Ambrosian in Milan, the Bragan in Braga, and the Mozarabic in Toledo and some older Roman variants used by some of the religous orders.

This is not to suggets that the Gregorian reform has nothing to do with the Tridentine reform or even the Pauline reform. However, to say the Roman Rite as reformed and codified by Trent is exactly the same as the Gregorain reform is incorrect and historically inaccurate. The Roman Rite saw much transformation in the years betweeen St. Gregory the Great and St. Pius V. Some Latin Traditionalists, however, seem to turn a blind eye to historical fact and talk themselves into believing the Tridentine and Gregorian reforms are the same in order to make the Tridentine reform look more ancient and jusitfy their demands to return to the Missal of St. Pius V. This is both wrong and unnecessary. Those who are attached to the Tridentine reform should be able to use it, but there is no need to invent reasons to justify it in my opinion.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Gee whizz, I thought this was the Byzantine Forum???? I must have stumbled into the Evils of the Contemporary Roman Rite Forum by mistake????

LOL

Seems like that stumble is easy sometimes. I've had that same experience here from time to time Don!

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Dear Don,

We Ukrainian Catholics have to deal with our own evils . . .

Merry Christmas, if you celebrate it today, Brother Don!

If not, "Christ is Baptized! In the Jordan!"

Alex

I am unclear as to this strong feeling about eastward stance.

In my Byzantine parish, if the priest actual faced east, I would be looking at his profile during Liturgy. When we have three priests concelbrating with him, they surround the altar on all four sides, clearly evocative of the Latin principle of the altar as the center of worship, trumping eastward stance. I have never know (but please educate me if others have different experiences) in a Byzantine concelebration, the principle of priestly eastward direction being followed in preference over the principle of the

Several writers have rightly pointed out that the Counciliar reforms did not absolutely mandate facing the people in the Roman Rite. Part of this is due to the fact the the contrary practice was not mandated before the Council, despite popular mythology. Prior to the Council, the Roman liturigical rule simply had the priest stand as the church was built. Nothing prohibited facing the people. After WWII when many French and Belgian churches were destroyed by the war, new ones were built with freestanding altars and the current Latin practice was followed without any change in rubrics.

K.

Alex,

Thanks my friend! Yes, we celebrated Epiphany this weekend and it was my first experience to see the Blessing of Waters. I had read the ritual some time ago, but this was the first time to actually see it done. My new family has some pretty AWE-FILLED rites! :-)

Don

Kurt,

You reminded me of a piece of learning that I cannot document currently but did come by honestly!

I learned that the practice of genuflecting reflects the traditional Latin respect for the altar of sacrifice as the center of worship. Even in Churches in which the Eucharist is not reserved in the place of worship, the custom is to genuflect. At least that was what I learned in my training.

Do you or does another reader or poster know of a source that documents this attitude and the appropriateness of the practice?

Thanks for any information that you can share.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Kurt,

What you say is actually true; my church for instance does not actually face east (wish it did though).

Facing east of course is theologically meaningful because Christ is the Sun of Justice, and the Sun rises in the East. Early Christians prayed facing east to meet the rising sun. Once in India, I actually climbed a big rock at 6 am and prayed matins facing east as the sun rose. Very moving experience.

What I guess is important in my mind is that all parties face the same direction, as the bishop, who is Christ's earthly icon, presents the sacrifice to the father. We the faithful, who by our gathering together form the Body of Christ, follow along with the bishop/priest into eternal life.

For practical purposes, I hate attending Roman liturgies where the priest faces towards the people. It is horribly distracting to me. It also seems to suggest that we are turning the celebration into some sort of community affair, facing one another. Totally unnecessary, as by our gathering together we realize the Church.

Please cite examples for these post WWII Belgian priests. I am not denying what you say is true, I just have never seen this and would like to be able to assimilate all the pertinent evidence.

It seems that since the pre-1970 RC Church and all Eastern Churches have the priest facing the same direction as the people, that this is a universal custom, as all liturgies involve a preliminary service of the word followed by a service of the eucharist.

I pray for a restoration of facing east or at least all facing the same direction, to be restored for our Latin bretheren.

anastasios

anastasios,

Thank you for your post. If I am reading you correctly, you are with great scholarship making the case for facing east as a legitimate Christian liturgical practice and expressing your personal preference for it. Obviously, no fault in that.

As you note, this is a a practice that is often already modified as in your church and mine where we pretend south is east.

I think it is fair for you to say it is distracting to you. But if that is a valid concern, then the Latin Church must decide what is least distracting to its members; which I believe they have determined the contrary (and as we would expect from them to us, that is their judgement to make).

I do have to disagree with "It also seems to suggest that we are turning the celebration into some sort of community affair". The Liturgy IS some sort of community affair, which I think you acknowledge by noting "by our gathering together we realize the Church". We are gathering together rather than marching in military formation, right?

Again, we Easterns while rightfully placing value on eastward direction are not rigid about, and while it is commonin practice, it is secondary in theory, shown not only in the fact our churches are build facing a variety of direction, but that in concelebration, the priests gather around the altar rather than line up facing east (evn if east is south, not to sound Orwellian).

K.

If you read some of the 1950's issues of what is now "Worship" magazine, you will see examples of the French & Belgian churches.

I thought this was the Byzantine Forum???? I must have stumbled into the Evils of the Contemporary Roman Rite Forum by mistake????

Compared to past in-person experience with the complacency of the Byzantine Catholic Church regarding the aberrations one sees in the Novus Ordo (if you're in communion with it, you can't just ignore it, pretend it's irrelevant to you or that you can't do anything about it*), I am grateful that some on this forum, even though it is unofficial, have the cojones to attack those evils.

*Nor can you do so if you are Orthodox, have not turned your back completely on Latin Christendom and declared it heretical like some of your co-religionists, and care at all about ending the Schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I must comment here as there were a couple of things that need clarification as to the Mass as celebrated by the Friars at EWTN.



As for the direction the priest faces during the Mass.

When the convent was attending the Mass at the old chapel the priest faced away from the people, because he was facing the nuns. The Mass at this time was the convents Conventual Mass, so it was being celebrated for the nuns.

In other words the nuns were the people which the priest was facing.

When they moved to the new chapel, the nuns are off to the side of the altar, so the priest faced the people in front of the altar. It was never celebrated with the priest's back towards the people.

The reason that they stoped showing the Mass from the new chapel is because of the camera placements, which is what the Bishop had a problem with. They plan to return to televising this Mass at a future date when they can address the camera placement issues.

As for the Divine Liturgy, it has been celebrated and is done according to the rubics of the Divine Liturgy, that is with the priest faceing the sameway as the people.

I just felt that this needed to be said.


In Christ,
David

Dear Serge,

Yes, but . . .

I sometimes find that what passes for "aberration" is in the eye of the beholder.

Leaving the Novus Ordo alone for the moment, I turn to the Eastern Churches.

Whether one reads the Gospel facing the Iconostasis or to the people . . . now there's something that determines one's heretical status or no!

And prostrations during the Liturgy? When doing them, does one go all the way or not?

In the Ukrainian Church, there are those who feign expertise on the differences between a "Ukrainian icon" and a "Russian icon."

One priest had enough and said he was calling the icon-writer back to "de-Russify" John the Baptist.

And that icon-writer was from Jordanville to begin with!

To beard or not to beard, now there's a question!

Etc. Etc. Etc.

So, yes, I can see where the Novus Ordo gets into a heap of trouble with us Easterners.

That is, if we can take ourselves away from our own internal squabbles long enough to comment on it.

These questions are important. But as long as it doesn't get to the point as illustrated in Erasmus' monk who, at the Last Judgement, will present a beautiful pair of silk gloves to our Lord as proof positive that his skin never touched money.

Alex

Дорогой брат в Христе, Саша!

Yes, divide and conquer — when the devil can't get you with liberalism he'll try to turn traditionalists on each other instead.

Whether one reads the Gospel facing the Iconostasis or to the people . . . now there's something that determines one's heretical status or no!

I've always seen, at every Byzantine Rite Liturgy I have ever been to, the epistle chanted facing the altar and the Gospel read facing the congregation.

And prostrations during the Liturgy? When doing them, does one go all the way or not?

I never see full prostrations because most of the time Liturgy is on Sunday when they aren't allowed in church as it is little Пасха, a joyful celebration of resurrection.

In the Ukrainian Church, there are those who feign expertise on the differences between a "Ukrainian icon" and a "Russian icon."

Три Росии — один Русь, один народ! Это всегда был и будет.

One CAN have Mass/Liturgy "facing the people' reverently, and the Byzantine model of concelebration in the altar can be used as proof of that. In the days before the NO, indeed one COULD celebrate the Tridentine Mass that way. A very few did, but it was extremely rare. Facing a SYMBOLIC East, code for "one direction, priest and people — yes, sir, COMMUNITY! — praying together to God the Father, offering the Son through the Holy Spirit, is nearly universal in all the rites of Catholic, Orthodox, apostolic Christianity, the Church, even in rites that evolved separately (like postschism Roman and Byzantine).

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

It seems the true universal practice is one direction, towards Christ, as represented by the altar. This is the practice of Greek and Latin and the past Latin practice. Face the altar, from the north*, south, east or west.

K.


* Images of the ancient Sarum rite show this, the north end of non-free standing altars!

Alas, in one instance I was rather surprised to find a member of the congregation read (not chant)the epistle from a lectern behind the iconostasis and facing the congregation. But this is the exception which proves the rule...

-- Ed Klages

Here are the pretexts (yes, PRETEXTS) for this particular piece of episcopal legislation:

From the 1983 CIC:

Canon 678, Section 1:
In matters concening the care of souls, the public exercise of of divine worship and other works of of the apostolate, religious are subject to the authority of the Bishops, whom they are bound to treat with sincere obedience and reverence.

Canon 683, Section 2
If the diocesan Bishop becomes aware of abuses, and a warning to the religious Superior having been in vain, he can by his own authority deal with the matter.


I guess it doesn't matter that a general council had something to say about the matter of Mass at EWTN....*sigh*

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: NDHoosier ]

Serge,

Frankly, I think that the constant put downs of the most common Latin Liturgy, the Novus Ordo cross the line between expression of personal preference to Latin baiting/bashing. Serge, I believe that you are an honorable man. I have come to believe that your dislike for some of the abuses attendant on the change to the Novus Ordo has led you to cross the line in discussing our Liturgy.

I and others have replied with information that responds to your concerns. You dismiss believers in terms proper to political analysis. By whose authority do you critique with such disdain what our Patriarch and our bishops and we do in our liturgical practices. They and we are those charged with the care of our Patrimony and its liturgical expression.

Question, suggest, and then pray for us. Listen to our responses, then question, suggest and pray. I dont believe that your personal campaign to present the Liturgy of the Latin Church in the most negative light possible is appropriate behavior here.

Discuss without judgement our ways. Our Hierarchy will judge. They will teach us.

The Latin Church is not yours to command or to shape as you would.

The Latin Church does not need to get permission to make changes. If members of our church spoke with similar tone and language about the Liturgies of your Church, I believe that you would justifiably say that it is none of our business.

You are not the arbiter of what is to be done in the Latin Chruch. You have an opinion and have stated it. You dislike has been noted.

Please just don't belittle the NO here. Do that on bbs where bashing the Liturgy of the Latin Church is appreciated. This is not a forum for pointing out flaws in the Latin Church. Believe me we know our flaws; they are ours. Our renewal continues and we make mistakes.

If you have that need but want to do it where members of the Catholic Communion gather, I will again suggest that you start an ongoing thread where that is the topic. I'm not sure that our hosts would consider that appropriate. But, if they do, then persons who want to engage in bashing the NO will have a direct focus. Then those folks can talk about their dissatisfaction rather than inject that bias into discussions where it seems to be off the topic.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

While I won't get into the details of the NO mass, I think it has some bearing on Orthodox-Catholic relations.
Many Orthodox who were former Catholics converted at least in part because of the problems with the NO. Well, I would hope that wasn't the sole reason, but it probably started leading them down the road to questioning the Catholic Church.

Also, many Orthodox who want reunion probably want the Church of Rome to restore its liturgy. Take Frank Schaffer, for example-someone who I passionately disagree with, and is a good example of someone not on the ecumencial left wing of the Orthodox Church. In an infamous article in The Christian Activist, he stated that one of the barriers was the modern Roman Rite.

God Bless,

Michael

Actually, FWIW, I've seen the Gospel chanted *facing* the altar in many Orthodox churches.

I agree with Steve. It is the business of the Roman Church how they worship God, no one else's. Like telling a family how they should eat at their own table. There is a saying...methinks thou dost protest too much. Some hidden agenda here? If so do it in some other place. Most of us are here to learn or share about the Eastern Christian faith and traditions, not to bash the Liturgy of our Sister Church. We go nuts at any imagined or real slight of our Rites, lets not be hypocritical and commit the same sin.

Don

I have to disagree with my brother, Michael King. I beleive in our ecumencial outreach, our Catholic bishops must respect the authority and office of their brother bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Catholic bishops should not be side-stepping their legitimacy by engaing ex-Catholic Eastern Orthodox laity or Mr. Schaffer, or other unofficial or individual disgrunted activists.

K.

"The Latin Church does not need to get permission to make changes. If members of our church spoke with similar tone and language about the Liturgies of your Church, I believe that you would justifiably say that it is none of our business."

Dear Steve --

The liturgy is the business of the Church, and as such Orthodox can and should take an interest in the liturgical developments that have taken place in the Latin Church in the last 30 years. Of course, we cannot *make* the Latin Church do *anything*, and surely I don't think that people like Serge believe that they or that Orthodoxy has the power to do that! Beyond that, however, it is important to understand that, in a fraternal sense, Orthodox are obliged to offer their comments and critiques regarding the Latin Church's liturgical form -- not to make it Byzantine, but rather in the vein of critiquing the impact of several innovations that again seem to evince a course of unilateralism for the Church of Rome among apostolic churches. I think that these critiques should be offered in charity, but I do think that they should be offered. In honesty, I believe that the Latin Church will only benefit from these.

The other point, made by Michael King (and unfortunately muddied by the reference to the polarizing figure of Frankie Schaeffer) is that many Orthodox -- not just Frankie Schaeffer -- have quite a bit of discomfort with the present form of the Latin liturgy. Therefore it is an issue that has some ecumenical impact. It is not a dogmatic issue, and therefore it is of lesser importance on that level, but on the level of building a sense of communion, a sense of one-ness, there is a significant impact on that level, particularly for those Orthodox who are not living in the West.

Brendan

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your considered response to my posting. I appreciate your concern for the sensibilities of Orthodox folks and the impact of the Latin Liturgy, specifically the Novus Ordo on them. I'd like to share some reflections about your comments.

"While I won't get into the details of the NO mass, I think it has some bearing on Orthodox-Catholic relations."

Of course it does, Michael. But ultimately what is or is not the look and feel and content of that Liturgy is an internal matter for the Latin Church. As Brendan notes elsewhere, it is not a dogmatic matter. Careful work was done to find the roots of our Patrimony and to reflect them in our liturgical practices to enable men and women of our time to come to God through them as He wants.

I am sure that our liturgical practices are not the hearts desire of some Othodox Christians or others. I have no problem with anyone saying that. I have no problem with someone saying that he or she prefers the liturgical practice of any of God's Churches more than those of our Church.

Discussion on this issue has taken place here often over the time that I have been posting here.
I come here to learn of the Byzantine Church. In the process I have been graced with the gift of learning from Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters. Posters from other churches and beliefs as well as those of no belief have enriched the learning for me.

In my comments here about the Liturgy of the Latin Church, I address only what I perceive as: the misrepresentation of opinion as fact; the statement of personal preference as a statement of what should be; the constant insertion of the NO in threads where it is not the topic and where the sole purpose of the insertion seems to be to deny its appropriateness or legitimacy; the analysis of our Liturgy in terms that present it and analyze it in the context of political mental constructs; the misrepresentation of fact about its meaning or history; or the presentation of misinformation about the Latin Church or its Liturgy. I share information about our Church as it seems appropriate to do so.

I believe that, in my postition, you would do that also. I would expect no less.

I believe that you will find that in most of the discussions of the Latin Liturgy in which I have participated I have done what I have outlined above.


"Many Orthodox who were former Catholics converted at least in part because of the problems with the NO. Well, I would hope that wasn't the sole reason, but it probably started leading them down the road to questioning the Catholic Church."

That is the business of God and those who are now Orthodox who were once members of the Catholic Communion. I agree with you, though, and hope that it wasn't the sole reason.

The Latin Church is incomplete without all of her members. It is with sadness that I observe the walking away of men and women from the Catholic Communion no matter where they are going.

The purpose of the Churches is worshipping God and building His Body and through her serving His world and bringing it to Him. The Liturgical actions of any Church is the responsibility of the Hierarchs and people of God in that Church.

When some find that God is calling them elsewhere, that is personal to them. It is not a reason to call into question the Liturgical practices of the Church that they leave, it seems to me.


"Also, many Orthodox who want reunion probably want the Church of Rome to restore its liturgy. Take Frank Schaffer, for example-someone who I passionately disagree with, and is a good example of someone not on the ecumencial left wing of the Orthodox Church. In an infamous article in The Christian Activist, he stated that one of the barriers was the modern Roman Rite."


The Novus Ordo has been directly influenced by the Eastern Catholic Hierarchs and experts. The Latin Liturgy arising from the mandates of the Council, I believe shows that influence. There is an interchange between and among the Churches of the Roman Communion.

My point is exactly that the Latin Church has restored its liturgy! That was the purpose of the changes. It did it so that the Liturgy is consonant with the authentic traditions and practices of our Church. The restoration was and is being guided by our Hierarchs with the involvement of the people that God has gathered to Himself in her.

The process of change was and is painful. Many Latin Catholics have endured that pain and have acted. That has led to the availablity of the Tridentine Liturgy use in our Church. That pain and other things, unfortunately in my opinion, has led and is leading others to separate themselves from our Church.

We believe that the changes in the Latin Church are of God. We pray that members of our Sister Churches who are enduring pain and wish for our Church to deny its Liturgy, will respect the fact that the Liturgy grows from us and causes us to be Church.

I pray for the pain to diminish where it exists.

That being said, I agree with Brendan that we must talk about Liturgies other than our own. We need to learn about the many ways in which God presents Himself in Churches other than our own. We must because we are Christian and the Master has prayed that we be one.

We are laymen and women for the most part. We can learn about Liturgies. We can ask questions about them and their meanings and their histories. We can discuss. We can disagree. We should present our positions with love and respect for the Work of the People of god.

It seems to me though that we need to remember though that the Liturgy under discussion is not on the block for cleaving. It is not on stage for use in a discussion that portrays it as one of the evil works of liberals. It is the working of the Spirit in that Church.

It is a Liturgy that reflects the current best attempt of a Church to do Liturgical actions that are consonant with its Patrimony. It deserves to be talked about in that light. Those who practice that Liturgy hold it dear and are our brothers and sisters in Christ. If it is in need of renewal, we can point out our view, then gracefully allow the Hierarchs in that Church address the needs with their people.

We should and do start threads which address many topics. It just seems to me that all too often the discussion is not on the topic under discussion but rather is diverted to the faults of the Latin Liturgy.

Question, suggest, and then pray for us. Listen to our responses, then question, suggest and pray.
Share without rancor your fraternal correction of our ways with your peers here.

Our Hierarchy will judge their import when their peers from other Churches present their concerns in the forum appropriate to them. They will teach us.

If someone has the need to discuss the faults of the Latin Liturgy, I will again suggest that he or she start an ongoing thread where that is the topic.

I'm not sure that our hosts would consider that appropriate. But, if they do, then those folks can talk about their dissatisfaction rather than inject that bias into discussions where it seems to be off the topic.


Thank you again, Michael.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

By the way, Serge, I agree with other posters who urge visits to your site. It has much information that is most useful.

There are issues about which I disagree, but that happens in the best of families!

With Love in the Brother in Whom we both live,

Steve
JOY!

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

Sorry if I've sunk to ad hominem here on the forum, but rites are fair game, including things like complaining about latinizations, and as several members agree, bear on both RC-BC relations (perhaps in a future Church where the BCs really are independent, on the way to ending the Schism) and Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Also, doesn't the East claim a major connection between theology and liturgy? The separation of the two is one of the longstanding problems in the Latin Church. Which perhaps is why some Catholics can be perfectly orthodox in their beliefs, then go worship like Protestants.

The Novus Ordo has been directly influenced by the Eastern Catholic Hierarchs and experts.

Another chestnut. Thomas Day does a good job cooking it in Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo? Fr Serge Keleher, a Russian Catholic priest, in an article in Eastern Churches Journal agrees: an epiklesis and token deacon do not equal major Byzantine influence on the Roman Rite, to compare Eastern Communion under both kinds to the American NO free-for-all with people handling Hosts like hors d'oeuvres and grabbing the chalice from Aunt Maggie to self-commune is a sick joke, and the so-called "renewal' is obviously a secularized, Protestantized drift AWAY from the Christian East!

Thanks again for the encouragement and recommendation of my site.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Steve and Serge,

I speak as an Eastern Catholic who attended Novus Ordo Masses at school for ten years and this is my take on the subject.

As with everything, it depends how the NO Mass is celebrated.

I've been to many Eastern Catholic liturgies that were done carelessly.

I would suggest that the problem here is not with the NO Mass per se, but with the attitudes and approaches of those who participate in them.

Is the NO approximating to Protestant religious culture?

Absolutely! And there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with what many Western Christians have told me is the forbidding, Imperial Byzantine style of our Churches and Liturgies.

We've only really heard from the Orthodox on the Roman Liturgical renewal. I've heard more than many earfuls from RC's who had a lot to say about the Byzantine liturgies they attended, much of it negative.

Fr. Keleher was a Ukrainian Catholic priest when he was in Toronto under Bishop Isiore Borecky.

I can tell you that he tended to force the liturgical issue, in a somewhat controversial way, by doing things in concelebration that no other priest did to the shock and dismay of the congregations.

The "High Orthodox" liturgical style isn't for everyone. It isn't for every Byzantine Catholic parish or even Orthodox parish.

If we see things only through the prism of our own liturgical tradition, well, I think that is rather narrow and it tends to smack of an attitude I myself am disturbed about among the Orthodox, that is, "if it isn't the way we do it, it shouldn't be done."

Quoting ancient sources etc. won't do much good since the liturgy is always growing and developing.

The Roman Church has decided to settle on the NO. Let us respect that and see the "good" in it.

The Orthodox have enough liturgical issues at home to keep them busy, if Schmemann is to be believed (and I do).

I personally don't like the critical tone of Roman liturgy by our Orthodox brothers (who are great fellows otherwise!!).

As I told Brendan, he has more in depth conversations about Orthodoxy with Eastern Catholics than he does with members of his own Communion.

(It's a great Communion too!).

O.K. Brendan and Serge, you can come and get me.

But at least give me a blindfold first!

Alex

"I've been to many Eastern Catholic liturgies that were done carelessly."

True.

"Absolutely! And there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with what many Western Christians have told me is the forbidding, Imperial Byzantine style of our Churches and Liturgies."

But how is it that Protestant religious culture is as legitimate as Byzantine/Imperial religious culture? I would draw a distnction there, although I understand that others would not.

"I've heard more than many earfuls from RC's who had a lot to say about the Byzantine liturgies they attended, much of it negative."

As have I, unfortunately.

"it tends to smack of an attitude I myself am disturbed about among the Orthodox, that is, "if it isn't the way we do it, it shouldn't be done.""

Honestly, I don't see anyone advocating a Byzantinization of the Latin rite, Alex. I don't think that charge is accurate or fair.

Christ is borne!

It seems to me that a lot of people have have teh covert syndrome, id est, my new beliefs, Church, spirituality, &c. are better, to the discredit and complete rejection of the old. I know this because my folks gave me a long talking-to about the convert mentality when I transfered from the Latin to the Rusyn Church. That said, there is nothing wrong with the new Roman Missal. I have read the parts, in Latin, contained in the '73 Sacramentary. I believe the problems stem from poor implimentation to the Missal, beginning with a p*ss-poor translation (see Liturgiam Authenticam). The "Liturgists" were/are more interested in putting on a good show, than worship. Many of those in power in the Latin parishes pushed their own agendas, using inherent clericism and ingorance of the Joe in the pew to do so, "in the spirit of Vatican II," as their battle cry went. Thus it is today, a Latin Church, stripped to its bare bones, with little life outside of the Sunday due (that is changing now in a precious few places).

God bless.

Serge,
In all Chairty,

"Sorry if I've sunk to ad hominem here on the forum, but rites are fair game, including things like complaining about latinizations, and as several members agree, bear on both RC-BC relations (perhaps in a future Church where the BCs really are independent, on the way to ending the Schism) and Catholic-Orthodox relations."

My point exactly, what game are we playing. Is it let's change the way that the Latin Church worships or behaves so that it will easier for it to return to Orthodoxy? Is it lets support those who are in revolt against the authority of the Pope? Is it let's get these Byzantine Catholics to agree that they are in communion with error? Is it portray the Latin Church as the bastion of that evil liberalism? What are we hunting?

What ever game it is, I'm not playing.

Pushing an Orthodox agenda or an agenda consonant with conservative politics is simply inapproprirate. This is a place for others to learn about Byzantine Christainity which is a precious jewel in God's Churches. Where is that outlook in what you say?

Look to the words you have chosen to talk about the way in which our Church worship in the postings under rite or wrong. I think that the description of Liturgical action that is different from what you personally and Day personally would like to see as star wars, is a clear example of what I am trying to point out.

You have points, can you not make them without mocking that with which you disagree. It ill servers the cause of ecumenicism, in my opinion. It is bashing the Latin Liturgy approved by our Hierarchy and accepted by our people. Personally, I think you could achieve your ends without doing this. Of course though, that is your option.

I am obliged out of respect for my Church and the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches with which we share communion to point out such disrespect and belittling. I ask again, in fraternal love, for you to stop mocking the Latin Church, its Liturgy, and its practices. Question, discuss, pray! Do not engage in polemics and nay saying.



"Also, doesn't the East claim a major connection between theology and liturgy? The separation of the two is one of the longstanding problems in the Latin Church. Which perhaps is why some Catholics can be perfectly orthodox in their beliefs, then go worship like Protestants."

The Latin Church claims that connection also, Serge. That was a major reason for Council and the renewal. Your assertion sounds makes it sound like the Latin Church believes one way and prays another. That is clearly false to anyone who lives, believes and prays in her.

I think Brendan in another thread talked about the difficulties in enculturating the faith and its practices. What he said seemed to a framework for a discussion on your continuing claim that
Latin Catholics go worship Protestant. We, you and I and Brendan have gone over this issue before. I am sorry that you cannot distinguish the Liturgy celebrated in the Latin Church from the worship services held in Protestant Churches.

In my opinion, the issue is not to be found in the Latin Liturgy. I know that the idea of misusing mental constructs and drawing erroneous conclusions has been discussed here. Respectfully, I am positing that your conclusion here is result of such misuse.

Quote:

The Novus Ordo has been directly influenced by the Eastern Catholic Hierarchs and experts.

Another chestnut. Thomas Day does a good job cooking it in Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo? Fr Serge Keleher, a Russian Catholic priest, in an article in Eastern Churches Journal agrees: an epiklesis and token deacon do not equal major Byzantine influence on the Roman Rite, to compare Eastern Communion under both kinds to the American NO free-for-all with people handling Hosts like hors d'oeuvres and grabbing the chalice from Aunt Maggie to self-commune is a sick joke, and the so-called "renewal' is obviously a secularized, Protestantized drift AWAY from the Christian East!"

I stand by the record of Vatican II on this issue. I also stand by the reports of periti and self reports about Eastern Hierarchs contributions to the Latin Church there. I choose to trust them. I do not know Thomas Day's date of commission to speak authoritatively about Catholic beliefs and practices? Does he have one?

I must go now. But I would like to point out the words with which you describe what is a reverent taking of Jesus shared by one memeber of His Body with another. Again, Serge you're doing it!

Please in the Spirit, in fraternal love....

In Love in the Brother in Whom we both live,

Steve
JOY!

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Given that while on this earth, Our Lord's came in phyiscal contact with every sort of sinner, taxcollector and whore, does this mean that Aunt Maggie ranks below these persons?

K.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Brendan,

Having wiped the tears from my eyes following your comment that I wasn't being fair, I would like to say this . . .

The Western Rite experiments within Orthodoxy have been subject to great Byzantinization pressures, surely. I've been to some Orthodox conferences (I know most of you won't bite) and this is a real problem.

Whenever issues have arisen, the Orthodox Church has always recommended that Rome follow what the Orthodox believe should be the right way (e.g. the epiklesis in the Orthodox Tridentine Rite).

There are Catholics who value the Orthodox liturgy and would like to see ways of bringing in more of its spirit into the Roman Liturgy. I don't mean more incense or prostrations, but the public nature of the liturgy as a communal celebration etc.

I apologise if I ruffled your Orthodox feathers, old boy.

But, like Jan Hus said, if you could show me where I err specifically I will recant - and before you burn me.

Alex

Dear Kurt,

To be fair, I think Serge was quoting this from Serge Keleher. I don't think he has an "Aunt Maggie."

If you wanted to be offensive to Serge in general, I am pretty much convinced you succeeded.

Was that necessary, Friend? And would you kindly apologize on behalf of all of us Byzantine Catholics for that offense given to an Orthodox brother?

If not, I won't understand.

Alex

Alex --

I was referring in my prior post to the other postings on this thread. I don't think Serge or other Orthodox posters have advocated a Byzantinization of the Latin rite -- unless facing liturgical east is a Byzantinization (I guess then maybe the Latin Rite was always Byzantinized...?)

Brendan

I did not mean to imply that Serge has an actual aunt who lacks virtue. I am sure that is not the case. I simply meant the "Aunt Maggie" that Serge made a reference to.

I apologize for the implication that was the case.

K.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Let me step in here again.

Kurt: Serge's aunt is not a loose woman. You should apologize.

Serge: The Roman Mass is not a sick joke. You should apologize.

Olga Nimchek

Dear Brendan,

Sorry, I'm having a bad day and now Edwin is mad at me . . .

You are right, but if someone could outline what an "acceptable" Roman liturgy would be (apart from the Orthodox Western Rites) then maybe then we could see if anyone is advocating Byzantinization of the Latin Rite.

I personally don't see much wrong with the Novus Ordo, provided it is done properly.

No one is trying to take away your Rite to to comment on RC liturgy. After all, you've been RC most of your life, correct?

It is just that Orthodox sometimes come across as saying that their liturgy is perfect and subject to no change.

Yet, Orthodox theologians have said otherwise.

I would like to hear more on how the Orthodox Liturgy should be changing and who can say more on this than yourself and Serge?

Is the structure of the liturgy such that can reach out to the unchurched in Russia and Ukraine today, for instance?

The Novus Ordo has become the liturgical whipping boy here.

Is that not offensive to our Latin brothers who post here?

And what do the Orthodox bishops and theologians participating in ecumenical talks have to say about the Novus Ordo?

If agreement is reached on all things, would they still hold out against reunion until such time as the Novus Ordo is replaced?

I don't think so, but what do I know?

Alex

I never said the American NO free-for-all Communion IS the Roman Mass so I have nothing to apologize for here.

Good examples of the Roman Rite?

• Tridentine Mass, 1962 Missal, as is, in Latin
• "", 1965 Missal with parts in the vernacular — this a slightly pared-down Tridentine Mass with no prayers at the foot of the altar, Last Gospel or Leonine Prayers
• "", 1962 or '65, completely translated into the vernacular à la English (Anglican) Missal (verbatim translation of Tridentine Mass)
• Anglican Use but with the original Miles Coverdale translation of the Gregorian canon — no fudging of the consecration to say "for you and for all' (yes, the AU is largely Cranmer's Prayer Book but those parts fit in with the ethos of the Roman Rite)
• Any of the Antiochian Western Rite versions (the Byzantine epiklesis they tack on isn't necessary)
• Novus Ordo in Latin (no mistranslation problems), priest facing versus apsidem about equally often as versus populum, no altar girls, no Eucharistic ministers, no junk hymns, just the chants of the Mass itself (Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Gradual/Sequence, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus, Agnus Dei, Communion verse) — and with incense
• """, same as above, but in a fresh, authentic translation, much like the English Missal but thous and thees aren't necessary
• Communion in the hand and under both kinds for laity are fine — imitate how the Anglicans do both (and some think me closed-minded and unecumenical! Snort!)

Freestanding altars? With Anglican Laudian frontals covering all four sides in vestment-style brocade? OK. Better for the priest to walk around the Holy Table while censing it. But keep shelf altars too. Long, sweeping Gothic vestments? A liturgical-movement specialty — yes! Alongside fiddlebacks. Congregational participation in the chant? Yes. Concelebration? OK, in versions where it's provided for. Deacons — and I mean real deacons, including married deacons — decked out in dalmatics? Absitively.

None of these are attempts to pseudomorph the Roman Rite into the Byzantine, but all play up natural affinities with it.

OK, here are two mild Byzantinizations that would not be out of place. At Communion, have two altar boys, men who are ordained acolytes, or the deacon and subdeacon (or two deacons), all vested, stand on either side of the priest and hold a long white or red "houseling cloth' (actually a medieval Roman Rite item that disappeared in the early 1900s) to hold under the communicant's chin, or hands if s/he is receiving making a throne for the Lord with the palms like the Episcopalians. This can be done with kneeling or standing communicants. If one doesn't want to do Communion in the hand, a deterrent is for the priest to practice intinction with one of those mini-chalices set in a bowl-like vessel — he dips each Host in the Precious Blood before placing It on the person's tongue.

Thanks, Alex, for defending me against even passive-aggressive personal attacks. I have no Aunt Maggie, nor did Fr Serge refer to one.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Ouch !! Serge you are making massive generalisations here [ or quoting them ] again.
Sorry I've had a bad day and come to this rather late. Normally I would not comment on this type of thread but I can't let this one past.
Your description of the administration of Holy Communion is not worthy of being posted here. Maybe the American RC [ yes, I will use the term this time - I'm irritated to put it mildly !] Church does seem to suffer from what I would regard as abuses but we aren't all like that. Here we are instructed [ and I use the term instructed advisedly] as to how to help in the administration of the Sacrament with reverence and awe. The Hosts are NOT handled like hors d'oevres and the Chalice is not grabbed by anyone.

Serge please, in all charity/love I ask you to pick your examples with prudence
Angela

I would like to hear more on how the Orthodox Liturgy should be changing and who can say more on this than yourself and Serge?

Legit options, all existing side by side, for our rite:

• Russian usage, as is*
- In Russia, option of translating to modern Russian as indeed the Holy Synod mooted before the Revolution, IF it's necessary (the two languages, Slavonic and Russian, are pretty close — the Slavonic wordings are as embedded in the culture as the thou-and-thee Our Father and Hail Mary in English)
- English
• Ruthenian recension, 1944
- Existing option of translation into modern Ukrainian
- English
- Existing option: audible anaphora
• New Skete usage (as an option, NOT to totally replace Russian usage) with its different iconostas (St John of Kronstadt used a low iconostas too)
• SS. Peter & Paul, Ben Lomond, CA, usage when it was Fr David Anderson's liturgical laboratory
• Greek usage minus the organ
- Option of translating into demotic Greek in Greece?
- English
• Arabic (Antiochian, Melkite) usage
• Existing Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian usages

Some more thoughts:

I like Roman Rite Vespers and Matins, and their offspring, Anglican Evensong and Matins — including in the current Roman offices (though I prefer the greater number of psalms in the pre-Vatican II versions) — where the psalm readings are many and prominent. I would like to see the Byzantine Rite as used in churches of Russian heritage return to using the kathismata at these offices instead of the truncated version of Vespers taken from the All-Night Vigil used now, in which the many and variable psalm readings disappear and are replaced by the ritual repetition of Psalm 1, "Блаженъ мужъ', week in, week out. The стихири, great as they are, functionally replace the Bible, which doesn't seem quite right.

For a daily prayer rule, instead of repeating Psalm 50, "Помилуй мя, Боже' twice a day, seven days a week, I recommend rotating the psalm between "Приидите, поклонимся' and the Creed based on the single-psalm readings given for morning and evening every day in the back of the Antiochians' Orthodox Study Bible New Testament and Psalms. (My priest's criticism of that book is there are no prayers to Our Lady given in back, which he thinks is a giveaway of the writers' Protestant background.)

I have no problem with shortening services! I can be moved even by a pared-down Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy lasting 40 minutes (which I have been to several times), as long as there is an iconostas and the church and Liturgy retain a basically Eastern physiognamy. (Don't skip the incense, though.)

*It is always good to have the original, traditional usage as a living presence in the Church as a reference and a sort of backup one always can fall back on in case experimentation goes wrong elsewhere

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear friend, Angela,

Sorry you have had a bad day. I remember well the Roman Catholic Church in Britain is in better shape than in the US.

I have seen what I described many times in US RC churches.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Alex,

I think that you are fair and balanced! I will stand staunchly along side of you and repeat to all who listen to me, "Alex is not unbalanced!" (Sorry just couldn't resist.)

Seriously I think your comments were fair and that in them you had a clear vision of what is being done to the Latin Liturgy by some of our Orthodox Posters here. It is becoming the whipping boy. I believe that that is unfair even when it is done under the guise of balance in ecumenical discussion.

I'd rephrase one of your observations if I may based on the discussion here. Under the surface of the ecumenical fraternal correction concerning the Whipping Boy tends to lurk an attitude I myself am disturbed about among the Orthodox who post on this issue. Some of these posters project the attitude that if it isn't the way we do it or think it should be done, it
shouldn't be done.

So, my friend, please keep your focus on these discussions and share what you see with us. I have found your insights here to be right on target.

Thank you!

Steve
JOY!

Dear Steve, et al.
Thanks for not getting too upset at me for my post-this was a REALLY hot topic for me about 3 years ago, but I'm (hopefully) over much of it now. Believe it or not, I have been to some tasteful NO masses, but they were at parishes that had either the NO Latin or 1962 Tridentine masses.

Serge-
Great points about the other Roman Rites! Unfortunately the NO gets too much attention, because its simply far more prevalent. If only every RC parish was like Our Lady of Atonement in San Antonio...sigh

God Bless,

Michael

A few years ago, following a special presentation at the local Greek Orthodox parish, I was talking with a gentleman in his early 50's [cradle Orthodox, first generation Greek-American,] who identified himself as the leader of the parish's youth group for high school aged kids.

After he found out that I was a Catholic, he asked me if I knew about any RC chuches in the area that still had the "Latin Mass". Apparently he had taken the youth group to visit at a neighboring Roman Catholic parish shortly before and he wanted to take them to a "Latin Mass" to show them how the Catholic Church "used to be when he was their age".

His comment on his experience at the parish church they recently visited was "'I was astonished to see how much had changed'".

This leads to a question on my part;

Who among Othodox scholars and/or liturgists have actually praised the Novus Ordo?

I'd be interested in knowing if someone knows of any who have because I've certainly not heard of any myself.

With continued Holiday best wishes [including feast days] to all!
Stefan

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Stefan-Ivan ]

If the Byzantine Liturgy was scoured of its centuries of monastic barnacles and pious traditions and recovered its ancient form ... we would have the NO. Of course, a barrier like New Skete would be the only necessary thing and no guitars. :p Don't forget: it was them monks who didn't even want singing! The fact that the bishop still sits outside the altar during all the pre-liturgy liturgy (litany and antiphons) before making his 'Entrance', should tell us that we have ritualized the preliminaries, especially making the pre-liturgical offertory into a mini-liturgy. If Orthodox doctrine and liturgical practice is a reaction to existing heretical beliefs and acts, then our liturgy is a 'reactionary' liturgy and not a service that reflect a first-move love and worship. We lost the touch and the spirit. For example, as a reaction to the iconoclasts we cluttered that altar barrier with icons to the point that we've distracted ourselves from why we were there. We slap on pious theologies about heaven and earth with sophisticated iconographic principles and canons to justify the extra-liturgical pie-in-the-skie theology. We have to go back to the font-source, the wellspring of worship.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

"If the Byzantine Liturgy was scoured of its centuries of monastic barnacles and pious traditions and recovered its ancient form ... we would have the NO."

Not exactly. The core of the Byzantine rite, as Fr. Schmemann has pointed out, was the 'cathedral' rite of Haghia Sophia in Constantinople, crystallizing roughly around the turn of the millenium. That rite was a hybrid developed based on influences of several Eastern liturgical usages (with a good dose of the Antiochian use thanks to St. John Chrysostom), but was not, itself, the product of monastic barnacles and pious traditions. These latter have, of course, crept into the Byzantine rite over subsequent centuries - but removing them would not return the Byzantine rite to something that resembles the N.O. -- it would still be a rather, elaborate, complex, 'cathedral' rite.

"If Orthodox doctrine and liturgical practice is a reaction to existing heretical beliefs and acts, then our liturgy is a 'reactionary' liturgy and not a service that reflect a first-move love and worship."

That's only partially true (and it's partially true for all rites, as the communicant dialogue in the Latin rite, introduced during the counter-reformation, attests). More basically, the rite reflects a movement toward God, as Fr. Schmemann and others have noted. The issue is our understanding of the rite as it exists - which is often deficient.

"We have to go back to the font-source, the wellspring of worship."

Liturgy develops organically. It is problematic either to suggest that no further development should occur (the trap fallen into by some Orthodox), but it is equally problematic to suggest that the developments that have occurred should be scrapped in favor of some pristine font-source -- because that can often result in the creation of an artifical, synthetic liturgical construct that is itself out of touch, but meets the paradigm of some liturgical thinker's aesthetic. There are things in the Byzantine rite that ought to be changed slightly, but more importantly the people who follow the Byzantine rite need to understand it better, to understand why we do what we do. Fr. Schmemann actually advocated very little (almost none) liturgical *reform* or *change* of word or ritual, but he did advocate a lot of re-thinking of understandings of what we are doing so that we can rediscover the depths of the liturgy we have.

Brendan