www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Maximos IV Saigh

dear Dan,

If you look back, I did add a disclaimer to my original post about "cafeteria Catholics". I think perhaps we are both being a bit too defensive here. I too will drop the subject. I'm not trying to provoke an argument.

Bill

Bob,

I will write it again. The reason this came up here is because I needed help in defending the Eastern Rites participation in VCII. Some were kind enough to give it. The rest started when Moe hijacked the thread.

I remember when in the ninth grade I got it in my head to go after the toughest guy in our high school during gym class. We were playing some game which was a mixture of football and soccer. I think the teacher must have been a sadist. My nemesis was a senior as just as tough as anyone I've ever met. Every time he got the ball I ran at him as hard as I could. I just bounced off him and fell to the ground like a rag doll. Then every time I got the ball he creamed me. It really is a wonder I wasn't killed. But for some reason, and I think I know why, I just kept going after him. I had something to prove to myself. (I may tell you what it was sometime.) Anyway, for some reason Moe reminds me of myself. I guess he'll just have to get over it.

BTW If you want a good Latin mass with conducted by a priest under 60 who is duplicating priests trained in Latin go to St. John Cantius in Chicago. The Latin mass is not a dead mass.

But I'm quite happy with the Divine Liturgy.

Now, I will not come back here again.

Dan L

Dan,

There is a book, Speeches of the Fathers of Vatican II or something similar. It contains most of the major interventions in the Council. Patriarch Maximos IV, Archbishop Elias, and other Eastern bishops made quite a few interventions.

Suggested by these hierarchs were:
Vernacular Liturgy, Communion under both Species, Permanent Deacons, Concelebration, and a few others. When I get the chance I'll find the book and put some quotes from it here.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dan, this appears to be unsubstantiated nonsense and further proof to me that praestantia ritus Latinae is alive and well in some quarters.

The Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, is quite clear about the place of honor of Gregorian Chant and Latin. Now if the documents themselves talk about these things, why do they maintain that an Eastern Patriarch would presume to try and destroy this tradition?

On the contrary, remind them how tireless Patriarch Maximos was at demanding the rights of Eastern Catholics to be precisely that, faithful to tradition.

These people at best do not know what they are talking about, and at worst are slandering one of the greatest bishops and Patriarchs of recent Catholic history.

The Missal of Paul the VI was not promulgated until I think about 1969, five years after the close of the Council. It was promulgated by LATIN liturgical commissions of which Maximos IV was not even a member.

Rome chose what they wanted to include or not include from those interventions at the Council when developing the Missal of Paul VI. Those interventions and documents involved ALL of the bishops of the Catholic Church.

Patriarch Maximos had absolutely no direct involvement in any Roman liturgical commission, and since he even refused the Cardinal's hat would likely have run the other way yelling for the intercession of the Theotokos in Arabic had he actually been asked to do so.

If these posters are considering speaking quite frankly about one's own venerable liturgical tradition, as Maximos did at VII as "destruction of the Roman Rite" I have serious concerns with their motivation, perspective, and real understanding of the history of the Council. Remind them of Leo XIII and Orientalium Dignitas. What Maximos spoke of was nothing outside of what has been received from the holy Greek Fathers.

If they have a problem with that, they are either profoundly uninformed or worse, resistive of a substantial portion of Catholic tradition.

Remind them also that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself signed the Constitution on the Liturgy, Lumen Gentium, and the Document on the Eastern Churches.

Bob -

The original question and intention of this post was not about the Latin Mass or the use of Latin in the Roman Church. The original point of this thread, which nearly everyone seems to have missed, was an Eastern Catholic looking for information to use to refute charges against an Eastern Patriarch.

Something which only three posters have answered.

Others have taken this thread off track.

Dan,

If you are lurking about in this thread - From what little research I have had time to do I would agree with the opinion that the alleged statements (since none are quoted and no citations given in the original source thread) would have almost assuredly have to be taken out of context in order to arrive at the conclusion than an Eastern Patriarch would have any significant impact upon the use of Latin in the Western Church.

I think the person with whom you were discussing this has simply not fully thought through his argument and is venting his frustration as wide and far as he can.

Should you have further opportunity to discuss this with him I would demand citations of these alleged quotes to ensure that they were spoken as reported. Though I think you might well find that the OP is paraphrasing based on memory of having read something somewhere once upon a time.

I think we Byzantine Catholics need to be interested in what happens in the Latin Church. As I have indicated before, the Latin Church is the 500-pound gorilla in the Catholic Church. It is so large, it invariably has some influence on the rest of us, whether we like it or not. Despite all our protestations to being only in communion with Rome, we are actually under the rule of Rome. I think Rome always bears watching, if only for our own interests and well-being.

Dan and Carole (and my other brethren here):

Please forgive me if I posted on a tangent. I guess I didn't start with the original post.

Sadly, there are those out there who continue to lash out about these things and have little background or solid scholarship to back them up.

I've read the documents of VII and appreciate the comments of our oriental hierarchs. It simply proves the point that we need the insights of the East if we are to have a balanced Church. Apart we are all impoverished. Additionally, I believe that we must try to understand each other without preconceived notions about what another brings to the discussion.

As for those who make wild and unfounded accusations like the ones you mention, please remember the advice I gave on another thread some time ago. For some people, the best thing to do is to walk away. Don't let anyone destroy your peace--the peace that Christ gives that the world cannot give. (I think it was on a thread about Roman bullies.)

I'm looking forward to spending my eternity with a whole collection of Eastern priests, bishops, monastics, and other holy people continuing to learn about the unique approach to the Mystery of what the Lord has done for us all. I'm sure it will take eternity to understand it all.

Thank you for pointing my error out to me.

In Christ,

BOB

I don't much care for cafeterias - and I think that "cuisine a la steam table" is an abomination. But could I perhaps be a "Breakfast Buffet Catholic"? I've had some outstanding omelets at such breakfast buffets, to say nothing of highly edible crepes cooked to order, with any number of add-ons that make my mouth water. Just the right setting for a Communion Breakfast (remember those?).

Incognitus

Ladies and Gents,

I�ve been reading this forum for many months, and I actually registered to post some time ago. I�ve been content, however, to read and learn about the Eastern branch of our faith from the many knowledgeable folks who regularly post here. So I�ve been �lurking� about for some time, but I finally feel compelled to post on this subject.

Before I do, I�ll tell you a bit about myself so that I�m not a complete stranger. I was baptized in the Roman Rite, and raised RC. I�m 40 years old, so I have some very dim memories of the Roman Church during the transition years immediately after Vatican II. I received the religious education typical of Catholic Schools in the 1970�s, and attended Mass regularly with my family. I eventually drifted away from the Church in early adulthood, attending Mass only occasionally, and I didn�t find much spiritual fulfillment when I did attend Mass. I eventually married a wonderful woman who is also RC, and although she wished to attend Mass regularly my attendance was still sporadic. I still considered myself Catholic, but my faith was in crisis. When I went to Mass I was merely going through the motions.

Fast forward to 2002. I began what turned out to be an 18 month period of unemployment. Many people will experience a crisis of faith when something like this happens, in my case it turned out to be the cure to my crisis in faith. I turned to God and felt as though He was responding to me. I returned to the only faith I had ever known, the Catholic Church. During Mass I found comfort in the readings and in the Gospel. There were often references in the readings and in the homily that pertained to my situation at that time and they gave me the spiritual strength to weather the unemployment crisis. After 18 months I was blessed to find employment with one of the best companies worldwide in my industry.

The personal challenges I faced not only returned me to the Church, but they also led me to an examination of what I was doing in Church, to what the Mass was all about. Although I found great spiritual nourishment in the readings, the Gospel, and the homily, I found many distractions to my focus on the Eucharistic sacrifice in the way the Mass was celebrated. Choir directors adjacent to the altar frantically waving their arms while leading the congregation in singing what used to be traditionally Protestant hymns. The ushers dressed up as the three kings on Epiphany Sunday, leading the offertory procession while flashbulbs popped and video cameras rolled. In short, a bit of theater in the round. This led me to research the history of the Roman Mass, which in turn led me to investigate the various Rites of the Church and their history. This also explains how I ended up here!

My university background was in history, and what I knew of Church history was essentially what I learned in my secular high school and later in college. Very little church history was taught in my elementary school religion classes. My view of the Church�s place in history was largely formed by my secular education. I was well aware of the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Church and the feudal power structure, Popes and Kings. I knew very little about Vatican II, the saints, or the ancient traditions of the Roman Rite. I think it was quite intentional that those subject areas were not covered in my Catholic elementary school.

When I began to spend time looking into these things I was shocked by what I didn�t know about my church. I had seen the changes in the seventies, and I wasn�t fond of those. I made my first communion kneeling at an altar rail that has long since ceased to exist, although it was several years into the celebration of the Pauline Mass. When people began to take communion in the hand I never did, and the practice bothered me deeply. I just never knew exactly how much of the Roman tradition had been abandoned after Vatican II. The logical step was to attend both a Tridentine Mass, as well as a Byzantine DL, in an effort to find out what my tradition used to be like, and to further my knowledge about the Eastern part of our Church.

The first Tridentine Mass was a low Mass, and even having read about it before hand, the difference was astonishing. I realized immediately how focused one becomes on what the priest is actually doing, particularly during the consecration, when Christ becomes present at the Mass. The second week the Mass was a high Mass, with many of the prayers sung by a choir in Gregorian chant. It was beautiful and very moving and the effect was such that when I next spoke to my Mother, the only thing I could think to say was �What in the world did they do?� in reference to the �renewal� of the liturgy. I asked her if she missed it, and she answered �Of course, but they told us this is how we were going to do things now and we were brought up not to question it.� I find that very sad. I also think that it is partly responsible for why so many liturgical abuses were allowed to occur, particularly in the United States.

I also attend the Byzantine DL (Ruthenian) on occasion. I find the Eastern approach with its emphasis on the spiritual and the Risen Christ to be a perfect complement to the traditional Roman emphasis on the Sacrifice of the Cross. I am blessed that both of these Rites are available to me within several blocks of each other here in St. Petersburg, FL. So that is who I am, I consider myself to be a historically informed Catholic, who is attached to the traditions of his Rite. I enjoy studying and learning about the Rites of the Western and Eastern Churches and I find spiritual fulfillment in both traditions.

Now that I�ve run on about who I am, I�d like to address a few of the points the other posters brought up.

In regard to Dan�s original question �Was Maximos IV Saigh really the Vlad the Impager when it came to the Latin Mass? Some really resent his efforts at VCII in destroying the Latin Mass for the West when was an Eastern Bishop. How much responsibility does Maximos bear in the destruction of the beautiful Latin Mass?�

My understanding is that the driving force behind the overhaul of the Mass was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who was the Secretary of the commission that oversaw implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This commission eventually became part of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, with Bugnini appointed as Secretary. Much of what was eventually enacted, or what was allowed to occur, far exceeded anything that Vatican II actually called for in the original documents. Bugnini was really a driving force in the progressive movement; I haven�t seen Maximos referred to.

Moe- �The holy Patriarch of course, I have never seen Dan as being especially wise or offering well deserved nor constructive criticism. Most Roman Catholics I know, and I know thousands around the world, think that the changes in the Roman Rite were anything but destructive, rather they believe it made it easier for them to enter into and participate in the Sacred Mysteries.

The only ones I know of who are against the changes made are those who think they are better educated and more inspired than the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and Post-Concilial theologians and liturgists. The changes were made for valid reasons and according to Church law and custom. Those who would deny the authority of the Church to change her Liturgy are nothing more than cafeteria Catholics.�

Moe, I find your comments very insulting. In the first instance, most Catholics today know very little of the Roman Rite or its rich traditions prior to Vatican II. It simply isn�t taught. The hope seems to be, if we ignore the first 1,900 years long enough, they�ll be nobody left who remembers. This last Sunday I attended the Palm Sunday Tridentine Mass. As we left the Chapel to process with the palms the earlier Novus Ordo was getting out of the main church. The priest led us in biretta and traditional vestments, followed by the choir signing the hymns. Most of those from the main church looked at us with jaws literally dropped, as though we had just appeared from another planet. The older folks seemed to smile then bow their heads in reverence as we passed. Fond memories perhaps?

Why was it necessary to take away our entire Liturgy, our vestments, our liturgical calendar, our minor orders, and countless other things to make it easier for people to participate? In the Eastern Church the priest still faces God, only the priest and deacon handle the Eucharist, the cantor is generally behind the congregation, but there is no concern about lack of participation. Everyone participates fully.

I do not feel I am more educated than the Fathers of Vatican II. It is clear, however, that Archbishop Bugnini and his commission went far beyond the intent of the Council. This has been well documented. The Bishops of certain countries went further still. There were also certain historical beliefs held at the time of Vatican II in regard to how the very early Roman Rite was practiced which have not held up to historical examination. So the commission was actually using some bad information when it made certain determinations in regard to the liturgy.

The changes were made according to Church law and custom, but more was changed in one decade than had evolved over fifteen centuries. The ramifications were staggering. Attendance at Mass has plummeted. Kenneth C. Jones �index of leading catholic indicators� shows 70% of Catholics between 18-44 no longer believe in transubstantiation. Something is seriously amiss. I don�t believe this was ever the intent of the majority of Bishops at Vatican II, and the historical documents prove this. No one is denying the authority of the Church to change her Liturgy, but the process of a gradual evolution was changed to a radical reform with almost a complete loss of tradition.

Cafeteria Catholic? I think not.

ByzanTN-�I have to agree with you, Alex. You can't lay blame for liturgical chaos at the feet of any Eastern Patriarch or the fathers of Vatican II. Vatican II made reasonable, organic reforms to the Latin Rite Mass to make it more accessible to the people. The chaos needs to be placed exactly where it belongs - at the feet of Paul VI. You could even make a case that he went against the will of the Council when he promulgated his Novus Ordo. My opinion, of course, but his pontificate was a disaster.�

Well said. There was a study done in 1969 by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci which was highly critical of the Pauline Mass, and resulted in them writing a letter to the Holy Father. It went unheeded. Much more information here Ottaviani Intervention [ihsv.com]

Bill from Pgh- �Although I wouldn't have used "cafeteria Catholics", more like disgruntled or disenchanted or disenfranchised; You get the idea. The Tridentine Mass IS offered for those who would like to attend it.
If you're attending it because you don't accept the Roman Mass then I would venture to think you are not in full communion with the Latin Church, ie, the See of Rome.�

I don�t doubt the validity of the Pauline Mass at all Bill, as long as it is celebrated properly. That means in accordance with the G. I. R. M., which hasn�t always been the case.

The Tridentine Mass is offered in some places, by indult. If the Bishop chooses not to grant the indult (some absolutely will not), those faithful are out of luck. One often finds that the place and time given for the Mass are most inconvenient, very early or very late, at out of the way chapels. It is hidden away, and again, my feeling is that the intention is to marginalize the Old Mass. We are lucky here in St. Pete that that is not the case.

The Holy Father commissioned nine Cardinals in the late 1980�s to examine whether the Tridentine Mass had ever been banned by Pope Paul VI. Their finding was that Paul VI could not suppress the Mass, and that it could be celebrated at any time. They voted (8-1), I think, to recommend that Pope John Paul II issue a statement to this effect and also allow priests to celebrate the Mass of their choice without an indult. An outcry from several major national Bishop�s conferences led the Holy Father to decide against issuing such a statement.

Theophan- �The question I have is where do I find a priest who has had a single course in Latin during his seminary formation?�

This is certainly a problem, and one that needs correcting. Latin is still the official language of the Western Church, and Vatican II made clear that it was to remain so. Why it is not being taught in seminary confounds me.

�But the real question is how one as a layman participates in the Latin Liturgy if he is not fluent in the language. The Council called for a restoration of a full and active partipation of the laity--something sadly lacking in years before the liturgical changes in so many places but so much a part of the Eastern experience. So to restore the Latin Liturgy it would seem that we would have to have Latin school during the week for children and adults, much as some of the Orthodox Churches have Greek, Russian, or other schools to teach the language to the next generation.

Liturgy is not meant to be some ritual that we watch from a distance. It's also meant to be a tool of evangelization--teaching and correcting us as we are part of it.�

The Latin Missal is actually quite easy to use. It takes several Masses to get up to speed, but you soon find that you are following the actions of the priest in minute detail. I find it brings a greater awareness to what is actually happening in each part of the Mass. I pray the Mass with the priest, aware of precisely what sacrifice is being offered. The choir sings from the back, enhancing the spiritual experience.

The Council never intended Latin to disappear from the Mass, only that certain parts be said in the vernacular. These would include the readings and the Gospel. It was envisioned that the congregation would know the responses in Latin. All of this is permissible and was indeed envisioned for the Pauline Mass, but it is rarely done. I can see no harm and plenty of good from teaching Latin, the language of our Rite, to our children. Vernacular was the tradition of the Eastern Churches, ours evolved to Latin (vernacular then) very early, and remained Latin. One could attend Mass anywhere in the world with perfect understanding.

The Pauline Mass could be celebrated with portions in Latin, with the congregation responding, with readings and homily in English. This would constitute full and active participation. One of the biggest problems with the Pauline Mass is that the ICEL translations used are far from accurate. This doesn�t seem to be as much of a problem in the romance languages. On certain days, portions of the Byzantine DL I attend are sung in (Old Slavonic?) I find no loss of participation when this occurs, and I follow along quite easily in the lectionary.

We shouldn�t have to restore Latin, it was never meant to be abandoned. Plus it's a beautiful language. Priests who are fluent in a romance language do a particularly good job with it.

�Why this topic keeps coming up on a Byzantine board is beyond me. The problems of the Latin Church are the problems of the Latin Church. Our Byzantine and Oriental brethren have their own problems and they are more important to them than this one.�

The reason this comes up Bob, is that many RCs seeking a sacred and reverent Liturgy seek out the Eastern Catholic Churches. Very often we are characterized as running away, when we are actually seeking. I think it is important for our Eastern brethren to understand that the other lung is ailing, and I hope we�ll get some support as we seek to restore our traditions. Personally, I find the Eastern congregations seek out the visitor and make him/her feel at home.

Dan- �I think some people are misinformed about the motivations of those who love the Latin mass but I'll let them get their own answers if they desire them from elsewhere.�

Spot on, and I hope I�ve answered some of the questions of those who often see RC�s attached to the Old Mass as a lunatic fringe. Certainly there are some out there who are over the top on both sides, which is why I rarely visit the RC forums.

For you ECs and Orthodox, imagine this. It is decided by a synod of bishops that a reform of the Byzantine DL is needed to encourage more active participation of the laity. The commission put in charge of this is led by progressives. So they turn your priest around, remove your iconostasis, greatly simplify your vestments. The priest sits in a large chair facing you for great portions of the Liturgy. Rainbow colored stoles are the order of the day. Then they remove many feasts from your calendar and do away with the Great Fast. Several new Eucharistic prayers are invented. You suddenly have altar girls, and everybody, their brother, mother and aunt is up on the altar and distributing communion. Your chant has been replaced by Protestant Hymns, and the choir director is front and center. In short, the Church you knew no longer exists. Thousands of years of tradition are gone in 8 years. Now one generation down the road, your adult child finds a church which celebrates the Liturgy according to the �Old Rite�. They come home and ask, �What happened?� That�s how I feel.

Vatican II accomplished much. Certainly it is praiseworthy that the Eastern Churches were encouraged to return to their traditions, and to remove latinizations. More social and community involvement is to be commended. More lay participation on the parish level is to be commended. But did we have to give up our Sacred Liturgy of 1500 years to accomplish this? There is no evidence to show that the Pauline Mass is substantially closer to the original Roman Rite. The evidence for the versus populum orientation is lacking. Certainly the altar wasn�t filled with lay people, and the Protestant hymns had yet to be written.

The Roman Rite evolved into what it was over almost 2000 years. Our canon was fully developed after the first 400 years, the Mass by about 700AD. Over the next 600 years it absorbed the elements of other Western Rites it superceded such as the Gallican Rite. It was rich in tradition and meaning. The Pauline Mass is neither, but it could be fixed.

Theophan- �Beyond all of this, Christ is still made present during the new Liturgy as well as the old. Is Christ not sufficient for the needs of the soul under the new forms?�

When Pastors talk of Mass as a �reenactment of the Last Supper� versus the Sacrifice on the Cross I am not so sure. Our traditions are what connect us to all who came before, the apostles, the saints, the martyrs, and ultimately to Christ. The Church has suffered from this loss of tradition, this connection to the past; it is time to restore it.

If anyone wishes to research the points I�ve made here, simply type �Novus Ordo� into Google and you�ll find many sources of information, both for and against the new Mass. You�ll also find a number of articles on how it can be celebrated in a sacred manner true to the traditions of the Roman Rite.

Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to read this long post, a good Holy Week to all.

Doug, going back to lurking

Doug,

My eyes literally teared as I read the agony you live. It really is beyond belief what the Roman Catholic Church has done to itself. I'm pretty sure I know what I would do if we were forced to change as the Roman Catholics have been forced to change.

According to Pope John Paul II a major assignment for the West is to learn the Light of the East. It is clear that we must offer that light to our Western brothers and sisters. I believe that a reverent liturgy is at the heart of that light. We must continually raise the bar in our own liturgical life in order to be the best witnesses that we can be. I have forgotten most of he Latin I ever knew. Yet, while I couldn't follow along perfectly I could follow the general outline of the Tridentine High mass and I've only attended twice in my life.

Just how you all recapture a sense of the sacred which is the motto for St. John Cantius is not ours to dictate. Our task is simply to correct misapprehensions about our own past, share the light we have with as many people who will hear, and to become the best God makes us to become.

You are a brother in Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

My apologies. The Book is Council Speeches of Vatican II edited by Yves Cardinal Conger. Unfortunately while it does contain many interventions from Eastern Fathers none are Latin Liturgy related.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Doug,

Thank you for sharing so many insights and feelings as well as your deep faith and appreciation for matters liturgical!

I point fingers at no one, but I like it is just so "special" when any Eastern Catholic points a finger at an RC who wishes for the Tridentine Mass as if to doubt his loyalty to the Catholic Church.

We Byzantine Catholics have made it a profession to jump on Rome at the slightest provocation (and I believe, rightly so in most cases).

Why shouldn't Roman Catholics express their desire for the Tridentine Mass?

What is wrong with that?

As for disobedience, it is the liberal Catholics who are most disobedient on Catholic moral teachings.

I know a number of Tridentine Catholics (in full communion with Rome).

They are solid Christians who set an exemplary witness to Catholicism.

During the papal visit here for World Youth Day, I attended the Martyrs' Shrine in Midland for the Mass by the papal entourage.

As I arrived early, a group had come in for a "folk Mass."

I remember folk Masses from my Catholic high school days.

But the singing was so much like a Christian Lawrence Welk show and worse that I actually felt my stomach turn and had to leave.

The Director of the Shrine, a good friend, looked to see what was wrong with me. I didn't want to offend him, so I said, "Father, I need to make a call to my boss . . ."

Rome is well within its "rites" to return to the "old ways."

If one of the reasons the Novus Ordo was adopted was to make conversion for Protestants easier . . .

Then again, if another was to get more Catholics to come to Church . . .

On the other hand, if it was to enrich the mystery of the liturgical/sacramental life of Catholics . . .

Oh, all right, I'm sure one could measure the success of the Novus Ordo in SOME way!

A blessed "Triduum Pasche" to all!

Alex

Alex,

"If one of the reasons the Novus Ordo was adopted was to make conversion for Protestants easier . . .

Then again, if another was to get more Catholics to come to Church . . .

On the other hand, if it was to enrich the mystery of the liturgical/sacramental life of Catholics . . .

Oh, all right, I'm sure one could measure the success of the Novus Ordo in SOME way!

A blessed "Triduum Pasche" to all!"

You could take this on the road. Start off as a stand up comedian and end up with a revival of faith.

I love it! I love it!

CDL

Dear Professor Dan,

FYI, I once won an award for a stand-up comic routine on a cruise ship . . .

A girl was dressed up as a vampire and I was her "dental hygienist . . ."

We were cruising the U.S. Virgin Islands and I told the audience that vampires live off the blood of virgins.

"No luck, last night?" I asked the nervous vampire standing next to me. She shook her head in disappointment.

"Well, I don't think it's all my fault," I said. "How was I to know that the Virgin Islands is where they send people for recycling?"

Alex