The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 10 1 2 7 8 9 10
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
Stuart

It is a pleasure to have such an eminent scholar as yourself respond to my humble missive. As to the first point, it is still a requirement, as I understand it, that fixed altars, as opposed to movable tables, contain relics. Even when the altar faced the wall it held relics. Those relics were and are located on the part of the altar where the priest consecrates the Eucharist. Of course, on the altar in question that would be on the side on which the priest in the picture is elevating the host. It would be inappropriate to use the other side of the altar which would dishonor the saint whose relics are present. Of course, this is just speculation on my part since I am not about to go to the church in question to investigate.

Although I am not a historian like yourself, I believe the 1928 BOCP was the one the proceeded the current revision. It is the one used as the basis of the Anglican Use liturgy.
Were you suggesting using the 1892 or the 1789 versions?

You are right about the next point, having your bishops kidnapped, your parishioners and priest shot and your churches blown up does take some precedence over what happens in Venezuela. Actually, almost everything takes precedence over what happens in Venezuela.

As for the Neocatechumate Way I would agree with you that they should have been repressed long ago, along with a bunch of other movements. The experience with the Lefevrites and the Legionaires of Christ demonstrates how successful the Church is at suppressing fringe groups. Although a very casual search of the net will show anyone that while the RCC has its serious nut cases, the Orthodox have a plague of them. Simply crying that they are non-canonical hardly absolves the whole of Orthodoxy from any blame since there seems to be very little meaning to the term canonical in any practical sense as the existence of the OCA proves.

You are right about the last point but isn't that the same thing one could say about the Ruthenians and other Eastern Catholics as well as the PNCC. Bishops are the problem. It is true you can't live with them and you can't live without them.

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by JimG
The first picture is of an Ordinate congregation using what is a regular Roman Catholic church and, of course, the priest and the altar face the people which is the norm in such a church. I have attended Our Lady of Atonement parish in San Antonio many times and the altar faces the wall as is traditional in Anglican parishes.

No, Jim, you are mistaken, the picture really is of a bonafide, independent from the diocese Anglican use "Ordinariate" Roman Catholic Church that intentionally chooses to "face the people" and turn their altar around. Unlike in England, there is no mandatory ad orientem worship, they are free to do as they please. They have owned their own church building for many years, I assure you that it is is not a regular RC diocesan building. Nor is Christ the King the only anglican use parish in the USA that is discouraging ad orientem worship.

http://www.ctktowson.org/ http://www.ctktowson.org/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christ-the-King-Catholic-Church-Towson-MD/132389240275978?ref=bf https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christ-the-King-Catholic-Church-Towson-MD/132389240275978?ref=bf

Take a look at their websites.

What JimG calls the fringe - I call the slippery slope of post-modernism. The 1979 /1976 BCP, which the Book of Divine Worship imitates for the most part, is an ecumenical new order of mass copy cat and dos not reflect the use of true anglo-catholic parishes, everyone knows that. One uses the 3 year lectionary that was made up in a "committee of experts" the other uses the 1500 year old 1 year lectionary that was carefully slowly formed by countless bishops and saints of the historic faith.

Some are happy being in a compromised position, others find it dangerous.

I'm not inflammatory, but I am honest.

BTW ROCOR WR churches are allowed to use organs, the one in Tullytown, PA uses an organ every Sunday, it is up to the individual priest to determine whether or not to use or buy an organ.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Xristoforos,

This parish did not come out of an Anglo-Catholic ethos, nor the TAC, nor the Episcopal denomination.

From their site:

About Our Parish

Christ the King Church is a community of faithful Christian believers of all ages in the Greater Baltimore area. Founded in April, 1996 as a parish of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and later in the Anglican Church in America, Christ the King became a Roman Catholic parish in The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, under the provisions of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.

On June 24th, 2012, Christ the King, together with its clergy and congregation, was received into the Ordinariate by the Rev. Msgr. Jeffrey N. Steenson, Ordinary.

As a former Anglican parish with Charismatic roots, our Sunday Mass features both traditional hymnody and contemporary praise songs, coupled with the forthright preaching of the Word of God, all centered on the celebration and reception of the Holy Eucharist

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
My understanding from my Anglican friends is the 1978 BCP introduced a number of changes with which they did not concur, which is why traditional parishes use the 1928 version.

On the altar: I have served at the Divine Liturgy numerous times in the Crypt Church of the Shine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, which has a free-standing altar (marble) atop a raised platform. In every instance, the bishop celebrating the Liturgy faced east. whereas, I presume, a Latin celebrant would be on the other side of the Table. I personally, have never heard of this rubric you cite, but it strikes me that maintenance of the Tradition of celebration versus apsidem would take precedence over any potential dishonor to the saints whose relics are embedded in the altar. I am sure they will understand..

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
I have never attended a Roman Catholic church, either of 'Anglican use' nor of the Ordinariate.

As I understand it, Rite I of the more recent prayerbook essentially preserves the older service. Many were disappointed with the changes in the language. (And indeed, the language of the older rite is beautiful.) There is a small irony in the fact that the newer rite is more catholic. Some of the traditionalists who rejected the newer prayerbook rejected it precisely on these grounds, for example, the Reformed Episcopal Church. But many Anglo-Catholics prefer the older rite too.

I would expect that there is a little more diversity within the Ordinariate than you are suggesting, Xristoforos.


Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
As for the last picture, anyone who thinks the Neocatechuminate Movement is representative of anything but a fringe group in the Roman Catholic church is just silly. Clearly this is the invocation of an extreme image from an extreme group to incite the reader.

Agreed. I also wonder why the movement has not been suppressed.

Over 20,000 "Neocatechumenal communities" with over a million members have been formed in parishes around the world.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/neocatechumenal-way-initiators-meet-with-pope-francis

"The Neocatechumenal Way, an itinerary of Christian formation, were among the communities, movements and lay associations present on Saturday’s vigil with the Holy Father. An estimated 15,000 members of the Way from Rome were present at the meeting held in St. Peter’s Square."

That my friends is most definitely not fringe.

Good grief, there are far less people attending anglican use or latin masses in the world than neocat masses....

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Number of members is not a useful criterion for determining orthodoxy.

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by StuartK
My understanding from my Anglican friends is the 1978 BCP introduced a number of changes with which they did not concur, which is why traditional parishes use the 1928 version.

Yes, this is precisely it, Stuart. That's the patrimony that should be readily easily able to use in anglican use of the roman catholic church. What did the Liturgy of St. Tikhon of the Antiochian Orthodox WR do but put the 1928? What did the Sarum use of ROCOR do but go to a slightly earlier date, the collects and propers of the Tikohn and Sarum are identical. THAT is the patrimony that anglican use should be using on an everyday basis.


Analysis of Western Rite Orthodox A... devout Roman Catholic in good standing) [psallitesapienter.blogspot.com] http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2009/12/western-rite-orthodox-anglican.html

Quote
Except for a few days of the year that havent changed, you can't use those with the novus ordo lectionary, on an ordinary Sunday it doesnt make sense. I'm not saying the Anglican use of the RC is hopeless, but it really needs serious improvements , many of which the Orthodox versions already contain.But to be fair, let these (unquestionably valid!) liturgies be contrasted now with Rome's first try at providing Anglicans with a Use of their own, in the Book of Divine Worship...

Firstly, the B.D.W. is based largely upon the U.S. 1979 B.C.P, whereas the two Orthodox liturgies are based upon the U.S. 1928 B.C.P. I must say that the 1928 is probably more what traditionally-minded Anglicans prefer.

Secondly, I must say, unfortunately, the B.D.W. appoints the use of the modern Roman Lectionary in place of the B.C.P. system of readings, which derive from the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite. From what I know, the Orthodox forms utilize the B.C.P. system, suitably augmented.

Thirdly, and rather notoriously, the modern Novus Ordo offertory prayers are inserted holus bolus, including those dreadfully lame ICEL translations of the "prayers over the gifts".

Fourthly, the whole Roman Canon - in a pleasingly traditional translation - is inserted as the Eucharistic Prayer. It appears that it was a step too far for Roman liturgists of the 1980's to try and modify the Prayers of Consecration and Oblation to produce a satisfactory Anglican Canon. But stay! Two more Novus Ordo intrusions are present: the actual words of consecration are taken from the modern ICEL version, and likewise the Memorial Acclamations are inserted.[i][/i]

I think that the Roman Catholic Churches they need allow these books to be used with ease. Otherwise, things don't really add up and have any consistency.

www.sarum-chant.cahttp://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~renwick/Annex/Sarum%20Hymnal%20Part%201.pdf http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~renwick/Annex/Sarum%20Hymnal%20Part%201.pdf

Sarum English Performing Gradual beta. [humanities.mcmaster.ca]
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~renwick/Sarum%20Performing%20Graduale%20beta.pdf

Plainchant Gradual (Burgess/Palmer), parts 1 and 2 [media.musicasacra.com] http://media.musicasacra.com/books/plainchant_gradual_1-2.pdf

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Not all those in the Ordinariate emphasize liturgy.

There are those among them who have joined the Ordinariate (or an Orthodox Western-Rite parish) in protest against the moral (as opposed to simply liturgical) laxity in Anglicanism, including, as they say, "priestesses" and "bishopesses."

Some prefer the Catholic Ordinariate over any Orthodox Western Rite because, according to them, Orthodoxy is less definite on artificial birth control, divorce and abortion etc.

Alex

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
The numbers however do reveal a lot about a church ...

Roman Catholic attendees USA 75,400,000 (75 MILLION)

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic 646,243 (this may not be regular attendees but it is the only number I could find)

Melkite in USA ??

ROCOR - estimate across 154 parishes 67,000 (very very generous)

so ROCOR has .000893 of a percent vs Roman Catholic
and about 1% of all ORTHODOX IN USA (statisically Zero)
and comprise about 10 percent versus Ruthenian presence in USA

Ruthenians come in at .008617 of a percent of Roman Catholics
and .122629 percent of all Orthodox in the USA

Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism in the USA 7% Orthodox
(in communion with each other?????)

Please correct my math if you find it wrong (including inflated numbers of attendees in the churches)

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic 646,243 (this may not be regular attendees but it is the only number I could find)

Actually, 85,000, according to Ron Roberson's latest survey (and probably high)

Quote
Melkite in USA ??

Approximately 25,000 (adjusted downward from 29,000, so probably close to the mark)

But what was your point?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Haydukovich,

Yes, what do the numbers reveal?

Alex

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic 646,243 (this may not be regular attendees but it is the only number I could find)

Where did you get this number? Seems like it is about 600k too high. I know the Ruthenians have played with the numbers in the past to justify having 4 eparchies. But I thought that was corrected some years back.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Originally Posted by Job
Quote
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic 646,243 (this may not be regular attendees but it is the only number I could find)

Where did you get this number? Seems like it is about 600k too high. I know the Ruthenians have played with the numbers in the past to justify having 4 eparchies. But I thought that was corrected some years back.

That is the 2010 number for all Ruthenian Eparchies incuding Europe.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
The discussion is about ROCOR - and the Western Rite.

I was just trying to wrap my head around how many people are affected - what the total impact is.

If the Ruthenian number is THAT wrong - then surely the USA ROCOR must be smaller than the USA Ruthenian (I think) - the number of Western Rite attendee's must be very low indeed.

I just think it is very interesting to look at numbers of laity especially when the discussion is the impact of such an announcement in ROCOR.

I did some internet searches for the numbers - I was a bit shocked at the 646,000 number for Ruthenians as what I read said it was quoted as for America - hey it came from the internet it must be right ...

Thank you for the corrections.

Page 9 of 10 1 2 7 8 9 10

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5