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

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 accesible 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.

Dear Charles,

Well, you don't HAVE to agree with me!

It is a free continent, or so I'm constantly being told by many government aparatchiks!

A good Holy Week to you!

Alex

And here I come out of Moe's corner. You've hit the nail on the head, brother!

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.

It's kind of like people who never get over the closing or restructuring of a parish. Although the bishop, (who has to make the decision knowing there will be fallout), has the best interests of the diocese and the faithful at heart.

Bill

I tried to quote Moe's post of 3/22 1:30, without the first sentence, because I didn't quite understand it, but I don't know how to make the quote thing work. So please refer to Moe's post of 3/22 1:30.

Sorry, Bill

I also don't get how Paul VI was so terrible. However, things would be so much easier in this world without "Humae Vitae", now wouldn't they?

Bill

I hope someone is able to make some kind of sense out of what I posted above.

Will this help?

I am not a fan of discussion of RC praxis here, but I tend to agree that, while mincing no words, the remarks are more challenging than insulting to RC's.

My question here had and has nothing to do with Roman praxis. My question had and still has everything to do with the effects of the Eastern Catholics upon VCII and whether or not that had anything to do with the demise of the Latin Mass. Excluding some snottiness I have been able to discern that while Bishop Maximos was a leader in bringing the council around to an appreciation for other languages than Latin he had no direct influence on either the creation of the Novus Ordo or the demise of the Latin Mass.

A couple of the posters here seem to have developed an irrational (although I suppose they would say that it is rational) hatred for me without even knowing me. I don't get it. I've never done any harm to you. What's the point.

If some of you don't know the answers to the questions I ask then why are you commenting about my questions? I'm serious about my questions. If you don't like my questions or don't understand them or don't have answers for them why not go start your own post?

This silliness is really tiresome and very unfair.

dan l

Sorry, Dan,

I didn't mean to imply that it did. It's just that the thread got quickly hijacked in that direction. Being wary of such discussions I felt the need to express my own regrets for extending the hijack. I hope that if people want to pursue the topic they will give you the courtesy of starting a separate thread.

I also hope that you noticed that neither I nor Bill in any way supported the first sentence containing the latest gratuitous swipe from your neighor in Indiana. I hope you think of each other this Saturday night: R'cim bratije i nenavidashchim nas.

djs,

Thank you. Let whatever it is between Moe and I die with Christ this Saturday.

Amen.

I would also add that there are still some issues I'd like to discuss about the Eastern Catholics and VCII. 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.

There are legitimate questions that still need to be asked and answered about our relationship with Rome and with Orthodoxy. That's why this particular forum exists I would suppose. Eventually I will ask them. But not now. It isn't worth the hassle.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

Seeing that there aren't very many people involved in this thread I feel implicated as being one of the ones you have termed a hater.
If you read the quote from Moe as djs so kindly posted for me, I was agreeing with his statements about the Novus Ordo and left out any reference to you. I apologize if you felt I was making reference to you. I am a bit too quick I guess to defend the Roman Church. I regret having taken the thread off topic.

How could anyone blame the Eastern Patriarchs for anything they think went wrong at VII?


One last comment and I will retire from this thread.

Dear DJS, "One man's ceiling is another man's floor".

Bill

Bill,

I don't see how Moe's comment was either a defense of or an attack upon the Roman Catholic Church. Some RC's like the NO and some do not and prefer the Latin mass. There is no evil implied in either choice, though Moe seemed to imply that somehow their was. I would gather that you think that a Roman Catholic is somehow a Cafeteria Catholic if they prefer the Latin Mass. I think that most RC I know would disagree with that assessment and would probably even take offense.

Frankly, whether you or I think someone who prefers a particular liturgy over another is a cafetaria catholic is a bit insulting don't you think? A cafeteria Catholic is one, as I would suppose, who rarely goes to Church, or one who whines "I'm Catholic but I don't agree with everything the Church teaches", or one who believes in divorce or baby killing or things of that nature. Those who prefer the Latin mass over on the other board are people who by their actions are definitely not cafeteria catholics. I would leave a board that was dominated by such people. On the contrary these people are loyal Catholics, loyal to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, who are not Sedavists but have found an Indult mass which is rather difficult to find, but who also attend Novus Ordo when they can't get to a Latin mass.

Please, don't insult our Catholic brothers and sisters.

Again, all I was hoping to discover was the Eastern Catholic role, if any, in VCII especially as it regards the demise of the Latin mass. I've discovered some of what I sought.

Now, I will drop the subject.

Dan L

Dear djs,

I now believe I took your comment at the bottom of the quote out of context, too. Sorry.

I think I'll just go lay down for awhile.

Bill

Whenever the discussion turns to the subject of the Latin Tridentine Liturgy, I have to wonder who will be the priest who celebrates.

I have worked with many priests during the course of my career. I have also been in the midst of furious arguments about having Latin Tridentine liturgies for funerals.

The question I have is where do I find a priest who has had a single course in Latin during his seminary formation? The younger priests I have worked with during the past 25 years haven't had ANY Latin in their formation--and I mean anyone now under 60. I remember well a senior priest of our diocese solving one such problem for me a few years ago. He told the person who was making such a fuss that no one had the language training anymore, EVEN IF they could find the missal, the vestments, and the other requirements of performing the Latin Tridentine liturgy's ritual as it is prescribed.

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 Tridentine Liturgy had its share of problems, too. We had sloppy liturgy; we had 20 minute rushed liturgies; we had people calculating exactly when they could arrive to make their minimal obligation. The few who now use this form are those who have a great devotion and celebrate in a very reverent fashion. But that isn't enough to support bringing it back in a wholesale fashion. We'll always have sloppy liturgical practice because not every priest has the same level of faith or devotion to what he is doing, no matter which ritual form is used.

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?

In Christ,

BOB

P.S.: 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.