For a long time I have been a "lurker" on this discussion board. I am a devout Roman Catholic who has been trying to get to know my whole Church..eastern and western better. While I have found much useful information here, I have been totally disgusted by the continual and tolerated (and agreed with by many so-called Catholics) slurs on the Liturgy of my Church. The Orthodox posters on this board are anti-Catholic plain and simple and have no place here. Were a Roman Catholic to be making the same statements about the Eastern Liturgy as these people are making about the Roman Mass, they would be banned from posting. And too many of you Eastern Catholics are allowing and in many cases agreeing with them! We are supposed to be family, no matter what our rite! I hope and pray that this is not representative of all Eastern Catholics, if so, then maybe you should die out in the Catholic Church. I recognize that the Roman Church has not always treated you fairly, but believe that with the coming of the II Vatican Council and especially with the thoughts of our Holy Father JP II, a new time has begun in the relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church...it is time to move on from the past. We must learn from past mistakes and do all in our power to prevent them from occuring again, but above all we must love and respect one another. In another place there is a discussion between which are you...Eastern or Catholic. There should only be one answer...both, they cannot be separated. If they can, then you are not Catholic. I pray that God will enlighten the posters on this board to have a more Chistian and loving acceptance of not only the Othodox, but also their Roman Catholic brothers and sisters and their Rites as well. But I won't be here to see it. I am shaking the dust from my feet and moving on. If I want to hear the evils of Romanism, I can read the literature my Jehovah's Witness neigbors are always trying to give me...but at least they are polite when I decline to accept it.

Maria

I am one Latin Catholic who does not believe that criticism of the new Roman liturgy, especially as it has come to be celebrated in most of the western world, is a bad thing. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has been critical of the post-Vatican II liturgical renewal. Anyone who reads the documents of Vatican II (not the post-conciliar documents) can see quite plainly that the reform of the liturgy envisioned there is not anywhere close to what we see in most of our Latin rite churches.
I think Maria that you are being quite unfair to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics on this list who have criticized what the west has done to its liturgy. I do not see their criticisms as attacks on the Roman Liturgy. It seems to me that Orthodox believers such as Serge and Brendan, for instance, would like to see the Roman Liturgy returned to its full splendor. So also would such groups as the Adoremus society. So also would many good and holy Catholic priests that I know. So also would I.

Ed

Thanks, Ed.

Olya, is that you?

http://oldworldrus.com

Maria,

I don't recall seeing any criticism of the Latin liturgy. I've seen some criticism of the abuses of it but what right minded Catholic wouldn't criticize the abuses?

BTW are you Diane Marie?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Maria,
Please forgive me if I've sounded anti-Catholic: that certainly has not been my intention. I love traditional Roman Catholic spirituality and liturgy, and consider myself very open to the west.

I think there is also a difference between "Roman Liturgy" and "Novus Ordo Mass." There are many different liturgies used in the Church of Rome-perhaps in the US the Novus Ordo English version is the most common. While I wish that this was the standard for most RC parishes in the U.S., I'm afraid its not
http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html

web page

Please don't leave-there is a diversity of opinions on this site, probably more so than any other I've visited.

God Bless,

Michael King

Dear Maria,

I too am an RC as all here know. Yes, at times I do get irritated by the impressions I receive but at the same time I understand the feelings of the Eastern Members.After all I am a guest here on their Forum. Having said that, when I post I am listened to with courtesy.

I have to say I have received a lot of support , particularly recently when I was greatly in need of help and I have made some good friends who are thousands of miles away from me.

I feel I have learned a tremendous amount from all here - Catholic and Eastern , and I am most grateful for their patience and forebearance.

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of all of us, my Mistress keep you in Her tender care.

Angela

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

My Fellow Posters (and Lurkers),

"Regarding the position of the priest celebrant, Thomas Day has some excellent things to say about that, particularly the "Star Wars throne room' look of too many American NO sanctuaries. "Puffff... hissss... bring Luke Skywalker to me! Now let's join hands and sing “Isn't God a Nice Guy!” Have a nice day.' Seriously, distorting the altar like that changes the service from Godward common prayer into "the Father Bob Show'. His face is in the spotlight, sometimes literally, and perhaps enjoying the ego boost he feels compelled to perform and ad-lib (to show just what a charming guy he is), as in "Good evening, ladies and germs'. Ugh."
(Posted by Serge)

There are so many things I want to say in response to postings like the one above and to others which express disdain or mockery, overt or subtle, for the Latin Liturgy or our liturgical ways. What I say I really want to say in a spirit of love and peace.

It seems to me that Maria is not speaking about constructive criticism of abuses which appear in the celebration of the Liturgy of the Latin Church. Nor, it seems to me, is she speaking of postings which recognize that the current Liturgy, called the NO by some, is the legitimate form of worship in our Church. Nor is she talking about respectful discussion of ceremony even if the poster expresses unhappiness or dissatisfaction with it in respectful terms.

Nor am I. What I speak about is the ongoing inappropriate insertion of the Latin Liturgy into threads where it distracts from the discussion already under way on another topic. I am bringing to your attention the language with which points about our Liturgy are made. Like the quote above, they are mocking. They are inappropriate and they are unnecessary. Did I say, they are ongoing!

Certainly everyone has the right to his or her opinion. Some people appreciate the form of worship in the Latin Church and some don't. some poeple appreciate the form of worship in the Byzantine Churches, in the Catholic or the Orthodox Communions, and some don't. People have a right to express those opinions.

But, it seems to me that there should be no support on a Forum provided by a member Church of the Catholic Communion for mistatement of fact, for misinformation, for misrepresentation of the reality of the liturgy of any Church of that Communion. For that matter such behavior concerning the liturgy of any of God's Churches including the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is unacceptable, dont' you think?

I am certain that it does not follow forum rules to use words to express hatred of a rite of any of our Churches. It is incongruous for a Forum such as this one to tolerate words which treat any liturgy with disrespect or mockery. If I am not mistaken, respectful talk about such things is included among the guides for posters here.

I've been posting here for a long time now. During that time my focus has been on learning of the East from those who are in the East (not necessarily geographically of course). It has been difficult to maintain that focus because the Latin Liturgy so often becomes a negative focus here.

I reviewed my postings recently. It amazes me that I have spent most of my posting space here dealing with behavior which surprises me. I have posted over and over to posters who have misrepresented what the Latin Church teaches, who have misinformed about what the Liturgy of our Church is about and how it is celebrated, or how it came about. I have identified clearly places in postings where there are examples of such things when I have responded to them.

Another significant portion of the postings consist of pointing out words and writings which overtly or subltly belittle or mock our Liturgy or practices. Still another portion deals with the postings of writings in which the treatment of fellow posters seemed to be out of character on a Christian forum.

I don't want to belabor the point, but it has reached the point where even some of the Eastern posters have spoken out about the situation. The Latin Litury has become a whipping boy. It has been suggested on the Byzantine Forum by posters, not Latin Catholic, that members of the Latin Church would have been cut off, by the poster, from communion with our Church 30 years ago because they have been label liberal. Things are so bad that a posting earlier in this thread contains the notion that the Latin Liturgy is not the same as the Novus Ordo Mass.

Come on! The Pope celebrates it.

Our Liturgy has been presented as lessor and as not exemplifying well some abstract construct model of liturgical practices which is alleged to be traditional. It has been suggested that it is the responsibility of Orthodox believers to help restore our liturgy so that it will be easier to bring about reunion.

One of the places where I go to to learn about the East is the Indiana Orthdox list. My fellow posters, would such behavior be tolerated there?

I am not the only poster who has raised the issue of improper treatment of the Latin Liturgy. Don has raised it. Olga raised it only to be told that the poster she has issues with was really pro Catholic Orthodox and that she should apologize!

The poster with whom Olaga was addressing then referred to his recent posting of a mocking description of the manner of distribution of the Eucharist in our Churches to explain to the people on that thread why Olga was upset! He even reposted the remarks which led to Olga's comments in the first place. Let me repost the remarks:

"Thanks, Anastasios. On one of the Adoremus threads or "Rite or Wrong' I said comparing Byzantine Rite Communion under both kinds to the American Novus Ordo free-for-all with Hosts fingered like hors d'oeuvres and chalices grabbed from lay "ministers' for self-Communion is a sick joke. Nothing at all about the Roman Mass per se."
(Posted by Serge)

It seems that no one else thought to note that the distribution of the Eucharist by lay ministers is part of our Liturgical practice. The poster was indeed talking about an authorized litugical practice in the Latin Church. Olga was left hanging. That practice is not an abuse and is part of the Mass per se as it is realized in the real world!

Maria has raised the issue. Let me refer you to several threads on a couple of Forums that contain examples of what we are responding to:

"'Eastern PreSuppositions' and Western Liturgical Renewal," Forum : East and West Page three of postings in the index for that forum.

"Anyone Familiar with the Journal Adoremus," Forum: East and West Current index page.

"Rite or Wrong," Forum: Byzantine Faith or Worship
Current index page.

I include the whole threads so that you can peruse the total range of postings in their context.

In the thread Comparative Liturgics, begun by Brendan there is a frank discussion on these issues. As I stated there:

"...it appears {that} some other posters, see ... inappropriate behavior. They and I see some posters simply inject the Latin Liturgy into threads where it does not belong distracting from the topic already under discussion there. They misrepresent its meaning or content or value. Some of their language is belittling or mocking It has become a whipping boy. "

Like Angela, I find acceptance and kindness here. I try to return that. I learn here. I try to share information here when appropriate.

I do not believe that I or the other posters who raise the issue of the treatment of the Latin Church and its Liturgy enjoy having to do it. I know that I don't.

I'm not even attributing evil intent to anyone. I am saying that there is treatment of things that people hold dear that is not accurate or kind or courteous or fair. There are things being said here that belittle and divide us rather than bring together and enlighten us.

I am not going anywhere. I am here to learn. I hope that I can focus on that. But, like you, I love my Church and its liturgies and practices.

We are not perfect. I know that that's hard to believe, but its true. We are a work in progress by God! He's not finished with us yet!

If you think that we need to be reminded of it, please use the words that you want addressed to you by others. Treat the things that are important to others in the way that you want them to treat those things that are important to you.

I think that's all any of us are asking. Is that too much to ask?

Just a thought, I wonder how many lurkers walked away without saying anything? I wonder what message they carry about the people here and the Churches that they represent? Will they say of us, "We know that they are Christian by their love?"

I have not written to offend anyone. I believe all of the posters here to be honorable. However, sometimes I wonder if some of the the behavior, which appears to be evidence of invincible ignorance, really is.

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

Fraternally,

Steve

JOY!

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Thank you Steve, you said it that with much greater clarity and charity than I could have.
Don

Dear Don,

Thank you for your kind words. Please keep me in your prayers. It is taxing to have to deal with the topics I addressed in a place where Christian Love is supposed to be the norm. It's hard to hold onto the love!

Steve.

Like many here, I am saddened that Maria has felt persecuted by those posters who indeed frequently "bash" the liturgy of the Roman Rite. Despite what some may say, the so-called "Novus Ordo" is the Mass of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church and has been since the current missal was published in 1969, under the authority of Pope Paul VI.

I personally don't see what all the "hoopla" is about the Roman mass. Perhaps it is quite different from the Tridentine Rite used prior to the reforms, but please, the current ritual has been in use for over 30 years and can hardly be considered new anymore. I am not one of those who had the opportunity to experience the mass as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council, so for me, it is somewhat difficult to imagine what it was like in "all its splendor" but I do think that it is time for everyone to admit that the missal of Pope Paul VI has been, is and will most likely be the mass of the Latin Church for a long time, at least the rest of our lifetimes. Those who harbor false hopes of a return to pre-concilliar liturgical forms are simply not dealing with reality - nothing more, nothing less.

While I do not have extensive experience with the Roman Rite in countries other than the US, I cannot believe that there are such major differences from place to place, that it would not be recognizable. To me, when I watch the mass as celebrated by the Holy Father in Rome and in all of the countries to which he has traveled, I see virtually the exact same service that is celebrated in every Latin parish I have attended here. While language, music and cultural traditions certainly vary, the structure, wording and manner of celebration appear to be universal. So people, what are the great differences across the globe, that exist in the liturgy of the Roman Rite?

The Byzantine Rite also has its share of colloquial differences that we refer to as various "recensions" of the liturgy. Ruthenians, Greeks, Russians, Arabs, etc each have their own particular styles that make up the experience of worship among these traditions. While the words and structure of the liturgy remain basically the same everywhere, chant, vestment style, mannerisms, postures, hymns and more, all vary from people to people. Liturgical uniformity is unknown to the East, where the liturgy has always been viewed as an expression of both faith and culture. If there was more uniformity in the Roman Rite prior to the reforms, I would venture to say that there was also something lacking in regards to "enculturation" or the commingling of people's every day experiences with prayer to their God who is truly involved in their lives. I know some people don't see the need for this.

Our rite may appear to some to be more reverent and mystical than the Roman today, but on the other hand, it bears little resemblance to pre-Vatican II Latin liturgy. Just because the priest and congregation all face the same way and the sanctuary is contained within an "iconostasis" does not mean that the same ideology as the Tridentine Rite is being employed. In fact, the Byzantine liturgy has always been one in which priest and congregation continually interact through dialogue, processions, etc. The altar is not fixed against a wall, but free-standing. The liturgy was always in a language the people could understand, except for some instances in recent times when Church Slavonic or ecclesiastical Greek have evolved into literary languages which are not the vernacular. This is changing though, in places that have developed "liturgical" languages, to restore the service to a living expression of faith.

All of my life I have been a Greek Catholic, but have had many opportunities to participate in the Roman liturgy, both as a member of the congregation and as a concelebrant. I have seen what we would term as "good" and "bad" liturgy, depending on the particular parish, occasion, celebrants and abilities of the other ministers (music, choir, reading, etc). The same can be said for liturgies of the Byzantine Rite. Sometimes they are executed perfectly, with such devotion and beauty that one would think they were in heaven. At other times, the service was done so poorly that, if it were my first time, I would never be moved to return again. Celebrants get sloppy, cantors are ill-trained, congregations can be indifferent - all of these factors can have a bearing on any liturgical celebration. This does not mean that the liturgy cannot be beautiful and inspiring and, being the Eucharistic sacrifice, in any tradition, it is never a waste of time.

I have had the privilege to attend wonderful Roman Rite masses that have truly inspired me to prayer, devotion and Christian living. Sometimes, I enjoy the chance to attend a mass, to put a different perspective on my normal, everyday Byzantine ethos. The change in atmosphere can be worthwhile and refreshing. When traveling, I normally take the time to stop at the nearest Roman Catholic church, make a visit and if possible, attend mass and pray privately. There are many churches that are quite traditional in architecture and decoration, in which, except the arrangement of the sanctuary for the current liturgical prescriptions, I see very little that would be different from 1952. I do admit that many of the newer-built churches are designed in very poor taste, with few devotional objects and quite bland and unbecoming for a Catholic church. This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the local diocesan bishops and their building commissions. In some places one has to wonder what went wrong.

The structure and content of the present Roman mass is fashioned after historical liturgical forms that reflect the church's continuity with the early community. The integral elements of Christian liturgy - enarxis (entrance-assembly), scripture readings, petitions, offertory, canon (eucharistic prayer), communion, thanksgiving and dismissal are quite present in the current missal. From my observations, the basic parts of today's liturgy in and of themselves, are not that different at all from the previous Roman rite. Agreeably, there were many reforms taken to present a liturgy that is truer to the functions of worship than much of the heavy laden, Tridentine ritual. The "novus ordo" is much simpler, to the point, and thus understandable, than the previous missal.

In the Byzantine Rite as well, the present liturgikon contains elements that were added over the centuries and many are repetitious or obscure, the purpose of which is not at all understood by the people praying them. If one were to go back in time, and attend the liturgy in Hagia Sophia during the era of St. John Chrysostom, the service would hardly resemble what we have today. In fact, in many ways the worship of Chrysostom's time would bear a closer similarity to the "novus ordo" than does our modern day Byzantine Divine Liturgy. This is because the basic structures and functions of liturgy, mentioned above were much more obvious and simplified than today's standardized ritual that includes additions and adaptations from over 1000 years. This is not to say that I believe the Byzantine liturgy should be reformed at any time soon. Maybe it should, maybe not and I would not be opposed to a study of this need, but for us easterners, liturgical reform would necessitate, (as it did in the Roman Church) the input and cooperation of the whole church that uses our rite, Orthodox and Catholic, a situation that I cannot foresee in the reasonable future.

By definition, liturgy is "the work of the people" or "what the people do" in regards to worshipping God as a community. Therefore, it must be alive, relevant and able to communicate to the people using it. This was the goal of the fathers of Vatican II and beyond, who sought to bring the liturgy, along with other aspects of the church, into modern times and restore to a large degree, their purpose and meaning.

To many people, the "new" mass lacks dignity and solemnity and for these, there is something missing. However, I believe that a lot of people are simply resistant to any kind of change and the mass was one of the few places that they felt change would never reach. When it did, these people were shocked. I am sensitive to the feelings of those here, especially many who make excellent contributions to the forum on other topics, who have an affinity for the Tridentine Rite and see the current mass as irreverent. I hope not to offend them by offering my feelings about this issue. But, I also understand how people feel who find the novus ordo a comfortable and spiritually fruitful way to celebrate the Eucharist. There are so many ways in which the "mass" can speak to us today and likewise much that we can ourselves bring to the celebration. There is flexibility in the Roman Rite that we do not have in the Byzantine Church. As a Greek Catholic, I can appreciate this other living expression of faith and look forward to those occasional times when God allows me to participate in the worship of my Latin brothers and sisters. Let us all be sensitive to each other while remembering that the 1969 missal is the mass of the Latin Catholic Church. God bless. Joe

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Joe ]

Steve, if emotionally you can't handle the debates here, then why don't you voluntarily get off the forum? Just like the television — if you don't like it, flip the channel or turn the thing off. The record speaks for itself and my friends have defended me.

"'Eastern PreSuppositions' and Western Liturgical Renewal," Forum : East and West Page three of postings in the index for that forum.

"Anyone Familiar with the Journal Adoremus," Forum: East and West Current index page.

"Rite or Wrong," Forum: Byzantine Faith or Worship
Current index page.

Actually our self-appointed 'Net nanny has done me a favor: all of these threads began with someone else bringing up the Roman Rite and/or criticizing abuses in the NO, as their titles clearly show. NONE involves me or anyone else speaking out of turn by gratuitously bringing up those topics in threads dedicated wholly to the East. If you don't like such threads, fine — don't read them!

One of the places where I go to to learn about the East is the Indiana Orthdox list. My fellow posters, would such behavior be tolerated there?

ROTFLMAO! Yeah, there's a hotbed of charity and goodwill towards Catholics. You hang out there, yet have the temerity to calumniate me, calling me a Catholic-basher?!

I've done nothing on the aforementioned threads other than repeat points — and quote and copy Day's witty style (humor sure does p*ss off the opposition) — made by Roman Catholics (including Day) themselves.

So Steve, Don, Olya, Maria — GET OVER IT.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Maria,

I am sorry to hear that you feel that us Latin-Rite Catholics have been unfairly criticised by the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

I do not take the same view. I love the Latin-Rite liturgy, but, as many of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic people have posted on here (and in most cases in a very constructive and charitable way), there are current difficulties with it which we need to work on reforming. We shouldn't always look upon a criticism as a disliking or disregarding. All of us need correction and improvement at times and the Latin-Rite liturgy is not immune. There is so much we can learn from our Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. Pope John Paul II has even encouraged us to "become familiar" with Eastern Christianity (see the opening paragraphs of Orientale Lumen). I have only recently started posting on this board but I have been tremendously blessed over the past few years with the insights I have gained from the posters on this message board. I have Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends here in Australia and I have NEVER felt that they have unfairly criticised the Latin Rite Church and liturgy. I love them and I want them as friends for life. This is not to say that they're all Saints, but I have gained a tremendous amount from them spiritually through knowing them and attending their liturgies. There is much we can learn from the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, just like there is much that they can learn from us.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the majority of Eastern / Oriental Orthodox & Eastern Catholic posters on this board for their fervent love of their faith which not only spills out into their own respective churches but which also encourages us in the Latin Rite to grow in love for our faith and for the reunication of full communion of the truth faith. I desire full communion between all Christians, but most fervently between the two great Apostolic faiths, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

May God bless you all - Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic in all that you do.

Love in Christ from the land down under, Aussie Man.

PS: Serge, on a personal note, I have found your site to be very objective and balanced, and I find your views on Western Christianity very well thought and articulated. I have been studying in depth the Catholic - Orthodox issue for a few years now, and like I said to you in another post, I have found in particular your Q&A on Catholic / Orthodox differences to be a very useful piece to refer to both Catholic & Orthodox friends. Although it is only short, I have found that after referring it to them they have (1) A much better idea of where the "other side" is coming from; (2) a greater respect and appreciation for the "other sides" differences. Keep up the good work. As we like to say down here in Australia, "good on ya mate".

Roman Catholic Friends,

You surely have the right to have your liturgy treated with respect. The Latin liturgy should not be a major topic of discussion here, because it is not our liturgy. But since you have raised the issue here may I gently ask, without mocking, concerning just two matters which do seem to be major abuses in the Roman liturgy which you seem to have defended as correct practices.

(I may have misunderstood the intent of your posts. If I have please forgive me.)

First, It is my understanding that lay "Eucharistic ministers" are only to be used in case of dire emergency. Yet, I know that they are used regularly in virtually all parishes. A close friend recounts how a lay eucharistic minister even served several priests and a bishop at a recent dedication of a new Roman Catholic Church. My friend, who is a priest, was greatly offended. I believe he had a right to be deeply offended. Do you consider this an abuse or not?

Second, the Gregorian Chant is supposed to be the standard for Roman Catholic liturgy according to VC II. English translations have been made, approved, and widely distributed. Yet, almost no American congregation uses them. Is this an abuse or not?

I believe both practices cheapen the beauty and reverence of the Roman mass. Even if they don't in everyone's eyes they certainly do in mine.

I think that there is a depth to Roman spirituality that is being lost by these abuses. It does not make me want to mock your liturgy but it certainly makes me sad.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Serge,

Thank you for your concern for my emotional well being. I'm doing fine, thanks, and my spiritual father agrees. Rest easy, it never entered my mind to leave.

Perhaps my request to Don for prayers alarmed you. Do you not agree that expressing oneself with patience and love at any time but especially in trying circumstances is taxing? Prayer does help Serge!

Posted by Serge:
"Steve, if emotionally you can't handle the debates here, then why don't you voluntarily get off the forum? Just like the television — if you don't like it, flip the channel or turn the thing off. The record speaks for itself and my friends have defended me."

I am sorry that you feel the need to attack ad hominem, though. Debates done with love and respect are good. Exchange of information done in love and respect is good. Constructive questioning and criticism done in love and respect is great!

It is not that which bothers me. Ad hominem....? Quote of pueile humor about sacred things....? I find it difficult to fit those things in. It is a puzzlement! Perhaps, sometimes the behavior on the channel is simply beyond the pale. The channel is fine.

It speaks highly of your friends that they defend you. It speaks highly of you. I would expect nothing less.

Now, when those whom you understand to be calumnating you praise you, that is high praise indeed for you is it not? Seems to me that you should perceive me to be in that group. Sad though, I have not calumniated you or anyone else.

I simply asked for all of us, including you and me, to post with love and respect. Is that the calumny of which you speak?

Steve's Words Quoted and Posted by Serge:
"'Eastern PreSuppositions' and Western Liturgical Renewal," Forum : East and West Page three of postings in the index for that forum.

"Anyone Familiar with the Journal Adoremus," Forum: East and West Current index page.

"Rite or Wrong," Forum: Byzantine Faith or Worship
Current index page.

Posted by Serge:
"Actually our self-appointed 'Net nanny has done me a favor: all of these threads began with someone else bringing up the Roman Rite and or criticizing abuses in the NO, as their titles clearly show. NONE involves me or anyone else speaking out of turn by gratuititously bringing up those topics in threads dedicated wholly to the East. If you don't like such threads, fine — don't read them!"

Serge, please read my responses there. I think you will see that I and others have noted and discussed issues relevent to this topic in those postings.

I like to learn and intend to read as much as I can. I love my Church and her Liturgy. When I perceive an untoward behavior toward her or words which belittle her, I will say so.

I think that most of my comments in those threads were posted in that context concerning specific issues. I tried to do that with directness but with respect and love for those I was addressing and for their beliefs. I will speak up for my Church. I simply cannot do otherwise.

Steve's Words Quoted by Serge:
"One of the places where I go to to learn about the East is the Indiana Orthdox list. My fellow posters, would such behavior be tolerated there?"

Posted by Serge:
"ROTFLMAO! Yeah, there's a hotbed of charity and goodwill towards Catholics. You hang out there, yet have the temerity to calumniate me, calling me a Catholic-basher?!"

Don't hurt your head or anything else! Serge, please don't expand the shoe unless you need to get into it. I haven't called you anything.

In regard to you, I was talking about specific examples of behavior and an attitude that is limited in nature it seems to me. In this thread I simply reposted two parts of your posting in which the Latin Liturgy or our liturgical ways were cleary made the object of school boy humor.

I noted that this seems to me to be inappropriate behavior that consisted of mocking our liturgical ways. Is there another way to see those postings? I pointed out that Olga raised her concern about one of them and the ensuing way in which she was told that she was incorrect and that you are procatholic and that she should apologize to you.

I must admit to being surprised by your tone and reaction to my visits to the Orthdox List at Indiana. I don't choose to classify the posters there. That is an Orthodox site; it is not mine to comment on in a public forum.

Like here, I go there to learn. I, like Maria, am a lurker at times. There is no cause for me not to go there. I go to your site too. I am a catholic learner and reader with catholic interests. I have a catholic taste in sites too.

Posted by Serge:
"I've done nothing on the aforementioned threads other than repeat points — and quote and copy Day's witty style (humor sure does p*ss off the opposition) — made by Roman Catholics (including Day) themselves."

The words were others, Serge, but the judgement that they have value and insight into the practices of the Latin Liturgy and our liturgical ways is clearly yours. Somehow it would surprise me if the people you quoted were to be found on the Pope's suggested reading list for those wanting insight into Catholicism or into Latin Litrugy.

It was your posting delivering your message in whatever words you chose to quote. It was inappropirate. Not something from the balanced you from whom I've come to learn.

Dividing people into classes can be useful. We've had that discussion before. I think it's where I pointed out that I thought it inappropriate for an Orthodox poster to suggest that memebers of another Church, the Latin Church in that case, should have been cut from communion 30 years ago because you determined that they belonged to a group which did not exist outside of mental constructs. I still believe that it was an improper use of mental constructs and bad ecclesiology.

I'm sorry that you choose to see me and those who disagree with you as the opposition. For you to label as opposition those who recognize mocking language about sacred things appears be counter productive to me. But it is your post! You call it humor; I recognize it as inappropriate behavior.

I choose to see you as my brother in the Love of Christ. We disagree. I simply bring to your attentions some behaviors which I and others observe to be in appropriate among christians.

Posted by Serge:
"So Steve, Don, Olya, Maria — GET OVER IT."

So, Serge, I am not going anywhere voluntarily. I doubt that the others will either. I hope that Maria will come and stay!

This forum is the Byzantine Forum, not your private preserve. I am a guest here as you are. I like this place. I like you! I just happen to think that you cross the line when you talk about the Latin Liturgy and the Latin Church as you sometimes do.

I will get over your inappropriate behavior and intemperate words. I will point them out if they come in the future. I will do so with all of the Love that I can muster.

I hope that my presence here doesn't bother you. But, then there are some things which just can't be helped without prayer.

Hey, Please keep me in your prayers. It is taxing to have to deal with the topics I addressed in a place where Christian Love is supposed to be the norm. It's hard to hold onto the love without the prayer!

In turn, I will lift you up to the Lord when I pray.

Peace!

Steve
JOY!

Steve, if you want to put your head up your bum and pretend everything is fine in the RCC in the US regarding liturgical practice, that's your problem. I won't stop telling the truth on this forum unless the administrator throws me off.

Aussie Man: cheers, mate!

http://oldworldrus.com

I too am a bit of a lurker here. I am also a Latin, which makes me a guest on the Byzantine Forum.

I have never taken offense to the criticisms raised about the new Roman Mass: but then, I would tend to agree with most of the criticisms. I see no reason why Byzantines cannot discuss the Roman Mass on a Byzantine forum, even when it involves the occasional joke.

Just my 2 cents.

peace,
Jason
http://www.d.umn.edu/~mich0212/

P.S. Serge, I love your website.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Kyrie Eleison ]

Jason,

Thanks for everything you wrote.

http://oldworldrus.com

To me, silly Christian that I am, the necessary element is love of God and love of neighbor.

The "rite" stuff is necessarily secondary. "Rite" is defined as 'community authorized practices'. Thus, when there is a problem with one or another realization of the "rite" then folks would object. So, some RCs go nuts about the apparent manifestations of the serices; others love and live it gladly. Same with us Byzantines: Do Slavonic or DIE! Do English nad make it gender-appropriate or DIE!

Such a nut house of a Church.

Unfortunately, some folks think that this is all cut and dried theology and eccclesiology. The fact remains that the baptized community is messy, disorganized and sometimes outside the realm of 'canonicity' depending on which canonicity one proposes.

Personally, I don't give a damn. My brothers and sisters in baptism are mine. I'd give my life for any one of them (and I KNOW that they'd do the same).

I get real nervous when someone tells me that the jurisdictional stuff is critical to one's salvation. I just don't buy that.

For me, as an Eastern Catholic, I love my patrimony; but I also love the Holy Father in Rome. JP2 has been the most loving and saintly man for the whole Church (East and West) and has tried to understand the realities of the non-Western Christians. And, it seems to me from my readings, that many Orthodox have a great respect and love for this wonderful man. (Just like for Mother Teresa.)

Good people, believers and Christ-followers, recognize those who are just fundamental, Gospel-believing and sacrificing people. We respect the history and customs of our baptized people, but we realize that there is a whole boatload of BS that is just carried along as baggage. And we've got to get rid of that stuff, because it just impedes our ability to be lovers of God and our neighbors. I (and YOU too!) have an absolute obligation to save our souls based upon what we do, day to day. Serve the poor, the homeless, the nutsy-cuckoo, the misinformed, and the 'heretics'. That's what Christ wants. The bonus points for salvation DON'T depend on some 'visa' from one Church or another. They come from service to the 'least of My brethren.'

Blessings, y'all! And lots of opportunities for service. Love y'a all.

Blessings!

To our 'lurker' sister Maria, there are a number of issues that are existing simultaneously.

First, as Byzantines, who are perforce of the Unia, find themselves part of the Roman community, we are kinda forced to deal with the problems of the Roman Church. Most of us don't want to; what happens in the Roman Community is the province of the Roman Community.

For most Byzantine Catholics, what is happening in the Roman Church is of interest, but is NOT a reality upon which we can comment. It is the Roman community; and they -- and they alone -- who must resolve any issues that arise.

Same for us Byzantines. We alone must determine what is to be done.

Some congenital conservatives are going to have an antipathy to ANY innovation in the liturgical worship -- whether Eastern or Western. And they are not likely to 'understand' what is going on in the RC communities.

For me,and for most of us 'cradle' Eastern folks: we love our Roman Catholic counterparts. And we 'suffer' at the stresses that can divide the community. (But, we don't want to be dragged into the argument!) And we both hope and pray that there can be some resolution.

So, don't think that we are antipathic to the sufferings of the Roman Church, nor are we automatically antipathic to the concerns of the Roman community. But we have our own problems and we are striving (sometimes in strife) about who we are, where we should be, and how we should live. And, because of our small numbers, we are very concerned about our very survival as a Church.

If the RCs make a 'mistake' and 5 million leave the Church, it is an extreme tragedy. If we make a mistake and 5 million leave, then we no longer exist. AT all. Period. Extinct.

So, I beg our "Big Dog" church brethren: if you are really concerned about our welfare as part of the Church, if you REALLY believe the two-lungs model proposed by the Holy Father and Vatican II, if you don't want to live with the reality of a strangled/suffocated Christian community caused by the Roman community, then please: give us a break. Leave us to our own devices. Let us have our own 'rite' (=whole lifestyle of belief) and let us sink or swim according to the graces of the Holy Spirit. We may offer some suggestions about how one should live the Christian life (including some comments on the vicissitudes of the current Roman rite liturgy), but it is NOT intended as a condemnation; just some familial comments. Just like an aunt or uncle can make some comments or suggestions about what you're doing.

My blessings to all. To my Constantinopolitan brethren and to my Roman cousins: peace, joy, happiness, long-life and tons of grace. OH yeah: and to our Oriental Orthodox brethren: Absolutely the best to you all!

Dear Serge,

Posted by Serge:
"Steve, if you want to put your head up your bum and pretend everything is fine in the RCC in the US regarding liturgical practice, that's your problem. I won't stop telling the truth on this forum unless the administrator throws me off."

Sorry that you see it that way.

I'd certainly protest if someone suggested that you should be thrown off the forum. You have too much to share! Of course, it might be difficult to know since you suggest that strange position for my head! Wherever did you learn bout that approach to reality?

Say the truth that you see. I will say the truth that I see. I think that if you look, most of the time that you have something to say, I have nothing to say. I mean it when I say that I learn from You.

All that I have been saying is isn't it appropriate to say what we say with love and respect. Can't we reach that level of discourse about the Latin Liturgy? Everyone can observe, comment, do fraternal correction. All can and do state opinion and disagree. No one I know has suggested that that was inappropriate.

It's the disrespect, the mocking words, the put downs. It's the downright disregard that the NO is the Liturgy of the Latin Church. As such it deserves to be dealt with with respect. That is the issue.

You aren't the issue for me, Serge. So please don't make me the issue here.

Is it possible for us not to reduce this discussion to an ad hominem level, do you think?
When have I expressed any the notion that there are not abuses of the Latin Liturgy or that they should not be addressed? I've never said that. When have I said that people shouldn't say that they don't like our Liturgy. That is merely your perception.

It's how they're addressed here in words by posters that becomes problematic for me at times. Most of the posters here have never heard from me in a posting addressed to them in any form concerning this issue.

There's been lots of analysis, discussion and criticism of the Latin Liturgy that have not been addressed at all. It's opinion. It's addressed in a way that is not belittling to the Latin Liturgy or to fellow posters.

I'd like not to have to address it at all.

A good sleep to you!
Steve

Dear All,

Maybe I'm unwise coming back in at this stage - but I've had a night's sleep to reflect on what was on this thread up to my original post and now I've caught up again.

I'm not going to quote specific incidents - if you want to find them it's not difficult.

My problem is the attitude that seems to be coming out at the present time. I seem to be frequently left with my jaw on the ground after reading some posts. Posters are being attacked verbally and, to my mind ,often without sufficient grounds.

I frequently [ using a British expression ] will call a spade a spade, or if I am really cross a 'bloody digging implement' but I don't go as far as a 'mechanical digger'. I trust you get my meaning !. Language seems to have become very expressive and hurtful to some of us. Yes abuses of practices and liturgy happen in all our Churches - I am aware of it, and to many of us these abuses are exceedingly painful but do they really have to be dragged up all the time in very emotive language ? Is not the place for these to be addressed within that particular church [ meaning local] not here in public ?

I feel that I must also add that I have become very aware of Steve's increasing irritation in recent weeks - his posts when I first came to the Forum , to my mind, were masterpices of language, leaving us in no doubt as to what he felt , but they had been well thought out and were calm and reflective. Now he is frequently writing in sorrow and it shows.

I had been very tempted to reply to one post recently but drew back as I felt that the attitude would have been along the lines of' You're RC and have no business here.' I did not post and I repent of my cowardice. I should have supported my fellow poster - he had done nothing wrong in my eyes.

Please, please PLEASE could I ask for more thought about the way we all respond. Language is important and particularly where we cannot see each other in the flesh and observe the body language which accompanies the spoken word.

I still intend to stay - if you will have me.As I said I have learned a lot here and I know there is more to come !

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of us all, my Mistress, keep us in Her care and bring us all to Her Son .

Angela

and now I await the flak which will surely come my way

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

I have a question for those more familiar with Roman particulars than myself. Many complaints are heard here about the position of the altar and the celebrants in the "novus ordo." I have been taught that there is a major difference in ideologies in the two rites. In the Byzantine Rite, the priest faces east (the altar) and leads the people in prayer to the Father. His purpose is to preside at the liturgy through a leadership role in the sacrifice. Therefore, he and the congregation all turn to God together. In the Roman Rite, the priest also leads the people, but in this case, more as an actor, taking the role of Christ (in persona Christi) in reenacting the sacrifice of Calvary and the ritual of the Last Supper. In these terms, I can understand the difference in positions. I have heard it said here, that the idea of the priest leading the people in prayer and all together praying in the same direction was also the philosophy of the Tridentine Rite. I don't know if this is true or not.

Now, to explain what has been my understanding of altar positions: Is it not true that altars in major cathedrals and basilicas of the Roman Rite were always free standing? Did not the pope (and maybe other prelates) always celebrate mass facing the people, or did he face away from the people but merely use a free-standing altar? I thought that for at least the pope, the liturgy was somehow celebrated in the same position that it is today. If not, then why have the altars in St. Peter's and the other patriarchal basilicas always been free-standing? Thank you to whoever can answer my question.

While the concilliar document may indicate that the Gregorian Chant is the norm for Roman celebrations, I don't think it was ever thought that it would be used always and everywhere. I don't believe that it was utilized at the average mass in the average parish before Vatican II, was it? Did every church have a solemn, sung mass every Sunday? If they did, the majority of faithful did not attend it. Instead, low masses were popular, maybe with the use of popular hymns which, while maybe not the same style as some of the liturgical music today, could still not be considered in the category of chant. We've come a long way since the "folk masses" of the 60s and 70s, which did however, right or wrong, reflect the style of the day. Today, there is some beautiful liturgical music being composed that is both classical and singable. It surely is a long cry from the monotone, mumbled low masses of pre-concilliar days in which the faithful did not participate but read private prayers or prayed the rosary because they could not concentrate on or understand what was going on at the "high altar."

The number of eucharistic ministers may exceed that originally envisioned by the Vatican, but other things have changed, such as communion under both species, using multiple cups that need to be administered. I do think that it is against the spirit of the indult for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, to use lay ministers when there are extra priests available, sitting in the rectory or socializing. I know this happens and think that those priests should come into the mass to give communion, as it once was. Other than that, both the ministers and the manner of distribution of communion are perfectly licit in the Roman Rite presently and, while we naturally cannot fathom this style of the liturgy of holy communion in our church at all, it is not up to us Byzantines to judge its acceptability in the Latin Church. For us, the manner and consistency of communion do not normally warrant the use of extraordinary ministers or multiple cups without the species of bread.

In regards to the "throne room" look that a modern Roman church is said to resemble, I know some of us don't like it but: the bishop's throne or presider's chair was an integral part of the sanctuary in Hagia Sophia and other golden age churches. The first thing the bishop did upon entering the church was to go to the chair, which was located behind the altar, in the apse, and greet the assembly with the peace, "Peace be with you." Then they sat and the readings began, from the bema. In our liturgy today, we still maintain two places for the bishop to sit, on the amvon, because he is not supposed to be present until the little entrance and at the high place, the original presider's chair. I think we all know this.

Angela, I don't see any flak bait in what you wrote.

Joe, let's move this Q&A to the thread "Comparative Liturgics', dedicated to the Roman Rite and comparing it to the Byzantine and other Eastern rites.

Serge
A fighter but one who will obey the Marquess of Queensbury rules

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Sorry I got off on a tangent above.

Apropos the liturgical celebration, the earliest agape meals were around a table or reclining. When the congregations got a bit larger, the Eucharist was celebrated at a table by standing clergy with the people around it. Subsequent developments involved putting a railing around the altar area to prevent the people from crusing in on the celebrants. (There is a model of this in the Byzantine museum in Athens.) This appears to have been the main practice (at least in the East) from the late first century up to about 500 or so. The altar was then moved and raised into a position closer to the end of the building; the railing remained and was surmounted with icons.

This became our iconostasis. The railing survived, sans icons in the West and became the sanctuary railing or 'communion rail'. (Interestingly, the communion rail of the West became the 'rood screen' still seen in Anglo churches.) It supports an image of the crucifixion in the English tradition; for us it has the Last Supper, but surmounted only with a cross not with Mary and John.

The question then arise: should the priest face the people or face the altar with the people? The answer is: yes. It depends on what you choose to do in your theology.

It is not a choice of 'good' or 'bad', but rather a question of preference -- vanilla or chocolate.

While there are clear elements of 'good liturgy' or 'bad liturgy', it's not a question of East or West; it's just a question of doing good liturgy -- planning for it, preparing (not winging it), training acolytes and singers, getting good flowers and plants as decoration, setting up good lighting, etc.

I think that because the Latin ritual has a certain amount of leeway in "real-izing" the liturgical texts, there is bound to be more potential for problems. In the East, we're very staid; and we have all kinds of 'rules' on how to hold the Gospel book, when to bow, when to cross one's self, who is permitted to stand where, and all sorts of paraphernalia that needs to be carried, exalted and venerated (cross, kadilo, etc.)

This is not to say that we don't have liturgical schlemiels in the East. Oh, indeed we do. And so does the West. (Why, oh why, don't we really train our priests in music and the arts so that the congregation does not end up with K-Mart liturgy!!!)

So, I would hope that in all charity, we should understand that any of our historical Christian liturgies are wonderful in themselves and can lead people to God through the graces of the services. (Even the Anglican and Lutherans!!)

We may have our own individual preferences -- high Church or low church; lots of lay involvement or no lay involvement; lots of congregational music (with or without guitars or pipe organ) or choirs, incense by the pound or just a little, brocaded vestments or plain white albs and cinctures, commissioned extraordinary eucharistic ministers or priest/deacon only, etc.

It is the manner of the celebration that is to be examined and critiqued. This is OK; but let us be aware that in critiquing the manner of celebration of liturgy, we are not denigrating the "text" or the "form" of the liturgy. Nor the Church of the West nor the Church of the East. Just bad liturgical form and practice.

Indeed the "Ordo Missae" is celebrated by the Pope, but he has small armies of assistentia, singers, and sacristans to make the liturgy more artistic and celebratory. But most parishes are lucky if they have enough servers available and non-tone-deaf cantors. But we all have to do (and live with) the resources that are available. We just have to keep on trying. (I recall the small parish in Oberstdorf whose pipe-organ died on Christmas Eve. The choirmaster composed a hymn and it was sung to guitar accompaniment. Silent Night.) The Holy Spirit is still around!

Blessings! Evlogitai! Benedictiones! (Sorry, forgot the Slavonic.)

Surely the majority of you have experienced "uncultured" posters on other forums. There will always be some poor soul who lashes out verbal abuses like a child throwing himself on the floor in a tantrum. It seems that this forum too is not immune to these posters either.

Personally I take it all in as untasteful attempts at humour and/or attention. And yes, I have to admit there are a few posts that I simply skip over.

Saying all that, there are far more interesting posts here from the majority of people. Most of you are insightful and educated. To those people I would like to say I appreciate your thoughts and expressions.

Loretta

To Joe's post above: "While the concilliar document may indicate that the Gregorian Chant is the norm for Roman celebrations, I don't think it was ever thought that it would be used always and everywhere. I don't believe that it was utilized at the average mass in the average parish before Vatican II, was it? Did every church have a solemn, sung mass every Sunday? If they did, the majority of faithful did not attend it. Instead, low masses were popular, maybe with the use of popular hymns which, while maybe not the same style as some of the liturgical music today, could still not be considered in the category of chant."

Actually, yes, every parish was required to have a High Mass on Sunday morning. (And oftentimes Vespers on Sunday evening). Gregorian chant WAS the standard music for the High Mass. Other hymns were interspersed (at communion), especially at 'low Masses'. In France and Germany, 'vernacular' hymns mirroring the liturgical texts were sung (to organ accompaniment) while the acolyte recited the appropriate Latin response. In Germany, the mirror hymns varied from diocese/region to region. "Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet.." (God be praised and blessed = Gloria in excelsis Deo). There is absolutely no question: the Roman rite of the past centuries was very strictly controlled and regulated. And Gregorian chant was a crucial element in the formation of children in Catholic schools. In Boston, there was a yearly, grade-appropriate examination on the chant that each kid HAD to pass. They's show you the shape of the notes and you had to name them: punctum, podatus, scandicus, scandicus-declensinus, etc. And you had to be able to sing from the 4 bar staff. I know: I got sent to Catholic school to save me from the public system which was incredibly underfunded. My first public school was dedicated on the same day as Lincoln's inaugural. It still had the gas-light fixtures in the classrooms. (And they still worked!!! And no, I'm not that old.)

So yes, the Catholic educational system (including Sunday Schools) required Gregorian chant, liturgics, catechism, and church history. To this day, I can still chant the commons of the Mass in tone 8 "de Angelis". In Latin, of course.

Blessings!

Thanks for your reminiscences, Dr John. In theory, yes, you're right, that's how it was supposed to be (solemn Mass with chant as the Roman norm everywhere, every week). I have tried to move this discussion to the thread set up to discuss the Roman Rite, "Comparative Liturgics'. My commentary on Joe's remarks is there.

Like me or hate me, Loretta has a point. If you don't like a post, post-er and/or thread, don't read them!

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dan writes:



Dan, your understanding is mistaken, which is why Byzantines should be extremely careful in their criticism. Individuals who have made it clear that they do not accept the Church's policy on EEM have picked up on the English word "extraordinary' and attached that definition to it. It has no other basis. If you look at its use elsewhere in Church life, it includes all sorts of other 'commonplace' practices. Auxilary bishops are 'extraordinary' as a bishop is properly the leader of a local church. Altar boys who are not real acolytes are 'extraordinary'. Reception of the Eucharist only in the form of bread is 'extraordinary'. In fact, the practice of charging tuition at Catholic colleges is 'extraordinary'.

The list goes on. So be very careful at taking the reactionaries and their political agenda at face value.

K.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Kurt,
Thank you for picking up on what I had so obviously missed.
Here in this rather chilly very wet place, today
we are no longer referred to as Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers because, I presume, of the difficulty in remembering what an Ordinary Minister is. We now just have the title of "Eucharistic Minister" as I was reminded when the notification came in for the training evening - the first of 3 for this year. Maybe the title is just a UK 'thing' ?
Angela

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Dear Maria,

I too am sorry you feel you must leave this Forum.

But I hope you will stay, if for no other reason than because I am here in your corner. And so is Steve and Angela of Glasgow!

We form a kind of "tag team" as we wrestle with such issues.

And after reading Dr. John's posts, how can you not simply adore him?

Serge has a way with words too . . .

But Serge is Russian and he is Orthodox, and he has a profound understanding of Western religion and culture, a truly Renaissance Man!

It is just that Serge doesn't like it when someone steps on his foot, as they say in Ukrainian, and nobody really does!

But Serge is O.K. The few times he's gotten on my case and left me sobbing, he's always apologized and told me to stop crying already since he feels guilty . . .

Serge can also take it with the best of him. And if you feel he or any other has crossed the line, please just say so. Excommunicate him, if you must.

He's not in our Church that we can excommunicate him? That hasn't stopped others here before . . .

Hope you'll stay. Please feel free to "sic" me on any Orthodox you feel uncomfortable with.

Alex

Dear Angela,

My sister is an Eucharistic Minister at a parish here. The title for the person assisting in the distribution of the Eucharist in our Archdiocese (Miami) is also Eucharistic Minister. I assume that is the title in most of the Latin Church in the United States.

The presentation of the Eucharist at the hands of the Eucharistic Ministers in the places I've worhipped in the United States and abroad has been reverent and respectful on the part of EM and recpient. I'm sure that it is there, too!

Like you, our Eucharistic Ministers receive ongoing mandatory education and training and serve only in the parish which appoints them. Thank you for your service to the rest of us.

I am glad that you are here.

Steve

The Amchurchers shove another camel under the tent, making people think "extraordinary' means "normal'.

Read my writings on the Comparative Liturgics thread, the place for such debate about the Roman Rite. This conservative is harder to pigeonhole than some think. "Reactionary' doesn't fit. I know the type. About a third of my suggestions have the Novus Ordo in mind specifically and aren't Tridentine at all, and while some of my ideas draw on my Byzantine experience, I never advocate dumping the Roman Rite for the Byzantine. And how many reactionary Cathodox do you know advocate learning from uniquely Anglican practice?

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Thank you for your support Steve.

For me it is a very great privilege, and at the same time a most humbling experience, to be permitted to assist in the distribution of Our Lord's Body and Most Sacred Blood.

"Lord I do not presume to come to this Thy Table trusting in my own righteousness but in Thy Manifold and Great Mercy . .........."

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of us all, my Mistress keep us all in Her care.

Angela

Dear Serge,

That's O.K., Friend, you've made your point, we understand, there, there, we agree with you . . .

Actually, how about a survey?

How many here believe that Serge's debates and comments about the Novus Ordo Liturgy should remain on his excellent website and not here, as Serge has suggested?

That way, nobody has to leave here and yet there is a democratic venue for people to express their views elsewhere.

Vox populi . . .

Alex

talk about passive-agressive, what were 'sick jokes' are now only matters to which Serge has an alternative 'suggestion.'

As to the vote, I'll leave my proxy with Steve or Dr. John, whoever claims it first.

Kurt

Alex, I think that his website is the best place for "Serge's debates and comments about the Novus Ordo Liturgy" and not in this forum.
Don

what were 'sick jokes' are now only matters to which Serge has an alternative 'suggestion.'

The contradiction insinuated by this troll doesn't exist. Replace the sick joke I have seen over the years, multiple times, in American RC practice with reverent practice, which is entirely possible and even desirable in the NO. Let's move this stuff to Comparative Liturgics. My intentions are out in the open, too.

http://oldworldrus.com

Thank you Steve and Angela for your descriptions of the ministry of the Euchatistic Ministers in the Roman Rite. Many years ago I was one in a local Roman Parish and, like you, had extensive training and frequent re-training. I have always be impressed with the great devotion of those ministers I have had the honor of knowing. I have great respect for those who take the time and make the effort to to perform this service.

Don

Don: fine, put your head up your bum and pretend there's nothing wrong. Your choice. Perhaps you want EEMs at your Ukrainian Catholic church. But if you don't, and they come, don't say I didn't warn you. I see from your latest on this thread you do approve of them.

Like I wrote Steve, I won't shut up here unless the administrator kicks me off.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge,

Calm down, Friend, calm down!

Besides, what you suggest is a biological impossibility.

May I suggest "head in the sand?"

It's not good to get so upset on New Year's Day!

Alex

Alex,

I am sure all of Serge's assertions are things he knows from personal experience, so please don't question him.

I take it he is now claiming he can accept lay distribution if done properly.

I have to say, every time I have recieved from a layperson (I must concede, that would a single occassion), it was done reverently.

On the other hand, I also recall receiving in a Roman parish, early in my life and being unimpressed by the robotic priest repeating in a monotone, without looking up, in an assembly line fashion "...Body of Christ, Body of Christ, Body of Christ...) not even noting the people coming forward. (And this was a 'traditionalist' parish). Much different than the Byzantine practice of eye contact, being called by name and a sense of attention.

Kurt the Troll :p

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

I take it he is now claiming he can accept lay distribution if done properly.

No, troll, I want to replace EEMs with priests, deacons and men in minor orders.

Don, your experience would have been better had you been an acolyte or subdeacon.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Given the Latin Church has abolished minor orders, for good or ill, isn't that a bit of an excessive demand for someone who isn't even a member the that Communion? How about at least substituting your previous pharse "I would suggest" rather than the demanding "I want"

Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river...

I agree with Serge 110% here!

When I was attending a Latin parish, the EEMs where at times very reverent, at other times not. I would chose to get in the priest's line, if at all possible.

In this diocese, the only requirement to be an EEM is to attend a 2 hour class, once.... You are encourged to attend when they have this class but you do not have to. The class consists of about a half hour to an hour of "touchy feely" type stuff, then practical stuff, such as where you stand, what to say, what to do when you are finished, and when to come up into the sancutary (before the priest takes communion as the EEMs in this diocese recieve with the priest).

I know many times when EEMs were wearing shorts. And I know of at least once when an EEM was wearing shorts, those plastic flip flops, and a tank top.... This EEM was a female.

I know EEMs are used in someplaces because there really is a need, and that they are used well. But there are places where the use of EEMs is abused and they are not taught anything except the mechanics.


David

Given the Latin Church has abolished minor orders, for good or ill, isn't that a bit of an excessive demand for someone who isn't even a member the that Communion?

BRING THEM BACK! And actually, the positions of lector and acolyte still exist, except 1) they've been downgraded from orders to the more Protestant-sounding "ministries' and 2) they only exist exactly as minor orders did before the changes — vestigial steps to priesthood undergone by seminarians. Want real reform? Bring back the orders and make them real, functional parts of the community, down in the trenches, out in the parishes. This isn't happening precisely because of Amchurch's power. It would pee on their anti-sacerdotalist parade, a march intended to clericalize the laity and downgrade the apostolic ministry.

How about at least substituting your previous pharse "I would suggest" rather than the demanding "I want"

Troll: No.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

How interesting, being a 110% troll.

Any more votes for my trolldom?

Kurt

When were the minor orders abolished?

If they were abolished in the Latin Church then why does the GIRM and Canon Law (Can.230) speak of acolytes and lectors?


David

Stop Amchurch!!! Rockwell has proven they are part of the Masonic-Taliban conspriacy to destroy our way of life and the fatherland. The fact that no such organization by that name exists proves their secretive power.

If we do not stop Amchurch all we will have left are our camps in Idaho.

We must protect our children from the AmChurch homosexuals (not that AmChurch's best critics have any children themselves).

In the end, however, we will be triumphant. AmChurch will die.

Tomorrow belongs to us!!!!!!

Dear Friends,

Interesting stuff, if tangential . . .

Can we get back to the point of where we think this discussion should belong, here or on Serge's website?

David?

And we're talking about the discussion on the Novus Ordo in the first instance.

Alex

Your right Alex,
Sorry , but the topic of EEMs is one of my many pet peeves.....

As to where this discussion of the Novus Ordo should take place. The real question is, should it take place here or not at all. I know the question of if it should take place at Serge's website was asked, but doesn't that really come down to asking Serge to censor his replies?

I have no problem with the topic continuing on here as it has been.

David

Dear David,

I'll count you as a "Nay" then.

However, what makes you think that Serge will be any less "biological" shall we say on his own website than he is here?

I think, and it's just my opinion, that Serge will have even freer reign, as will others, to express themselves on the NO at Old World Rus'.

That way, no one can take offense when they visit here and find their views getting their heads into more than just hot water . . .

D'ya think?

Alex

Stop Amchurch!!! Rockwell has proven they are part of the Masonic-Taliban conspriacy to destroy our way of life and the fatherland. The fact that no such organization by that name exists proves their secretive power.
If we do not stop Amchurch all we will have left are our camps in Idaho.

We must protect our children from the AmChurch homosexuals (not that AmChurch's best critics have any children themselves).

In the end, however, we will be triumphant. AmChurch will die.

Tomorrow belongs to us!!!!!!

Troll, an underground existence is not an impossibility for the Church in the very end times.

Traditionalists of all ethnicities, thank God, tend to reproduce. A lot. Amchurchers don't.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

David asked:
When were the minor orders abolished?

If they were abolished in the Latin Church then why does the GIRM and Canon Law (Can.230) speak of acolytes and lectors?

David,
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!
As a result of Vatican II, the Latin Church did away with ordination to minor orders. They remain as offices to which individuals may be installed. Today, individuals are installed as lectors and acolytes, but not ordained to those offices.
The Eastern Churches have retained the orders through ordination. Today, an Eastern cleric is tonsured, then ordained to the minor orders of candle-bearer (acolyte), lector and sub-deacon.
Major orders for both Eastern and Western churches are, of course, deacon, priest and bishop.
Hope this helps.
Rev. Deacon El Pekarik

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Deacon,

And where, may we ask, do you stand on the issue of discussing the Novus Ordo Liturgy - here or on our Friend's website, Old World Rus'?

Don't be shy now!

Alex

My website, consisting of at least a score of pages and hundreds of links, actually has only one page and a handful of links dedicated to the subject.

The topic belongs here.

http://oldworldrus.com

Reverend Father Deacon,
Thank you for the information.

I have a lot to learn when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Alex,
I think the discussion should stay here because this is a forum. I am not aware if Serge's website has a forum facility, I have been there but only when I have questions and am directed there.

Sorry Serge, one of these days I plan to sit down and really explore your site.


In Christ,
David

I am not aware if Serge's website has a forum facility

No. Is there enough interest to start one?

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

I guess this means that if a majority here don't want the topic here, it will be "out there" without a home.

Does "OrthodoxyorDeath" have a website?

"Yeblya?" Can't seem to find it in my Russian dictionary, oh, yes I can . . . Serge!

Alex

Да, Саша, I ran out of patience and one point tried to silence the troll, using a Russian literal four-letter word for emphasis. I later edited that sentence out.

http://oldworldrus.com

Ahh, the True Faith must now go underground. But we are taking our womenfolk with us (well, at least those of us traditionalist who are not afraid of women). From our Idaho retreat we will return.

We will keep our traditional way. Living from the land.

http://www.old&russy.com

Dear David,

Unfortunately, you can only vote once!

The problem is, if it is a question of having people leave this forum over the NO debate, my suggestion was to find it another home.

I think there would be a great deal of interest in a discussion forum on Serge's site, to be sure.

One topic might be: "Human biology: Anecdotal comparisons and functions."

To keep people like Kurt at bay, there could be a "Troll Booth."

Just some thoughts . . .

Alex

Dear Serge,

That's fine, Friend!

At least you didn't say "Kholera Yasna" but I think you have to be from Galicia for that to have any pejorative meaning!

How about a Forum on your site?

Alex

SILENCE THE TROLL! WE MUST SILENCE THE TROLL!

http://old&russy.com

Based on the large number of children I saw at the Tridentine Mass this Dec. 24, and the little darlings at my own church, it seems traditionalist men do not fear women one bit.

Thanks for the interest in starting a forum on http://oldworldrus.com

If I hear more interest I may start one!

Alex: "troll booth'! ROTFL!

http://oldworldrus.com

No more Russian lessons?

Maybe Serge, you could teach us something you learned at the Nelson Rockafeller School of Sign Language?

I haven't had this much fun since I dated Serge's ex-girlfriend.

http://old&russy

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Seriously, based on the Russian experience, and the Byzantine Catholic experience in Ukraine, a truly underground church can exist in a big city, in someone's flat with the windows covered and the door locked ( "Двери, двери, премудростию вонмем' ), in a factory or office in the middle of the night ... only most people don't know it's there.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Ahh, yes, but better to be with all your friends in Idaho than in the sinful city where they have moving pictures and women in pantsuits.

troll, troll, troll your boat....

http://old&rusted

Kurt,

While I have advised in the past Serge to not take you so seriously, I really think you need to cut out comments like this one. Remember, you are the one who advertised your single status and desire for a girlfriend on the forum last year.

anastasios
(I *know* Kurt hasn't dated my ex-girlfriends: one has a kid and is living in sin, and the other one is in India!!!) :-)

Serge,
If you start a forum, I will come. Not that I have all that much constructive to say, I will still visit.

As they say, if you build it they will come.

Alex,
I am not trying to be mean, uncharitable, or hard hearted but...... (as a side note, I when I hear a comment like this I know they are going to be mean...... :p )

If the choice is between losing a lurker, someone who's only post is to say that they are leaving, or to silence a productive, insightful, poster because they have offending said lurker, I would side with letting the person leave.

If one wishes to run away with out a fight or a comment, then is it really worth keeping them?

Anyways, I don't really think this forum was set up as a democracy, if it was then all of us would have access to the administrator functions.

Let the moderators and administrator decide this issue, it is not for us.

In Christ,
David

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

anastasios,

take me seriously? This troll doesn't even take himself seriously!!!

Anyway, the problem is now reverse, an excess of ladies is my life, if that is possible!! Who would have thought so many women would have the hots for a troll. A midget, maybe, but a troll?

http://oldgranddad.com

Deleted

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Thanks, David. If I hear from more people I may start one. But in the meantime, since the administrator hasn't revoked my membership, I'll keep writing here.

http://oldworldrus.com
http://lewrockwell.com
http://antiwar.com

Finally, some intellegent conversation!!! I luv it

www.freelunch.com

Dear David,

In that case, you've lost me.

Alex

Kurt,

I have absolutely no attraction to you whatsoever! Sorry!

Sincerely,

A Midget

http://oldandshort.com

Come on now. Remember, us trolls are only short vertically -- if ya 'no what I mean

http://oldmanriver

True, and midgets have big hands--you know what they say about people with big hands!

A Midget
http://bighands.net

Marybeth, hand me mah smellen' salts!!!!

I'm fairly certain who the lurker is. Let her go. Look what silliness has come upon this thread because of one snotty comment by one who comes back and forth and raises hell on more than just this forum.

Now, I will not come back to this thread but will comment on the "Comparative Liturgics" thread instead.

Dan Lauffer

Dear, in Christ,

As moderator of "East & West", I notice that this thread has wandered far from its original title. Perhaps it is time to let it end?

Thanks!

Elias