www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anyone familiar with "Adoremus?"

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

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

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

http://oldworldrus.com

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

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


As for the direction the priest faces during the Mass.

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

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

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

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

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

I just felt that this needed to be said.


In Christ,
David

Dear Serge,

Yes, but . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etc. Etc. Etc.

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

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

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

Alex

Дорогой брат в Христе, Саша!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://oldworldrus.com

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

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

K.


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

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

-- Ed Klages

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

From the 1983 CIC:

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

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


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

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

Serge,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

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

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

Steve,

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

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

God Bless,

Michael

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

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

Don

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

K.

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

Dear Steve --

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

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

Brendan

Dear Michael,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I pray for the pain to diminish where it exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you again, Michael.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

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

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

With Love in the Brother in Whom we both live,

Steve
JOY!

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

Steve,

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for the encouragement and recommendation of my site.

http://oldworldrus.com