www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Papacy

Dear Father Adam,

Very well said, but I think that we cannot make idols out of religious culture and forms.

The Roman Liturgy has been undergoing change progressively for centuries, and even much more so than the liturgies of the Churches of the East.

I think that the book is not yet closed on the current Roman liturgy and only time will tell if the Novus Ordo is maintained, or whether the majority of Latin Catholics will press for a return to the Tridentine LIturgy.

When that happens, I hope they will adopt a Creed without the "Filioque" and with a stronger Epiclesis!

That would be a true return to Tradition!

Niech bedzie pochwalony Jezus Christus!

Alex

But weren't the many ethnic-greek popes as supremacist as the others just like the Gremans and the Romans?

I think that Father Adam's comments are very good. I really think that the current liturgical crisis in the West will work as an obstacle to Church unity.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, in their study about the liturgical reform were, perhaps the first persons who, after dialoguing with Greek Orthodox Bishop of Mexico H.E. Paul de Ballester, who was an observer in Vatican II, brought the probable alienation of the Orthodox after the reforms, to public discusion. They wrote:

The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result (utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies) can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion under both species.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

It would be interesting to know that one of the authors of the New Mass, Father Max Thurian (who, at that time was leading the Presbyterian Community of Taiz�), not so long ago, published an artcle which was very critical of the modern Catholic Mass and some of the changes that were done, those which tended to desacralize the liturgy.

Orthodox writers like Franky Schaeffer are very pesimistic about the reforms in the Roman Mass, mentioning that the Orthodox liturgical treasure was too sacred to get it jeopardized with a union with Rome. According to him, Eastern-Rite Catholics, or the few people who can attend the masses of the Fraternity of St. Peter may feel save in their parishes, but that the spirit of Vatican II would also arrive there.

However not all of them are so negative. Fr. Schmemann said that some of the reforms if they were done correctly could get the rites closer to the pre-schism liturgy than the Old Mass, for example.

Dear Remie,

Actually, the Greek Popes were almost as good as the current Slavic one!

I think that the more the Latins study the Eastern Orthodox Church, the more they want to be like us.

Why? Because the East is guided by Patristics, High Christology and a conservative traditionalism that generally doesn't feel it has to make apologies for holding onto doctrines established long ago.

And I think there is nothing more ridiculous than an Orthodox Christian modernist.

I personally believe that the post-VAtican II period was one of "let's experiment to see if we can get the modern world excited by the Church."

The modern world CAN get excited by the Church.

As long as the Church is true to Itself - and Itself is none other than Christ!

Alex

God's Peace to all here,

What I find lacking in the Post Vatican II, is not necessarily the Novus Ordo. I can and is celebrated Piously and with great reverence worthy of a Mass. I attend one daily to the great benefit of my soul.

Far too many parishes take it upon themselves to add 'innovations' to the N.O. in ways that are frankly Protestant and possibly unchristian.

Warm and Cozy seems to be more important that reverence and sacramentality. A Celebration became a Party. Ecclesiastical Architecture now implies no Majesty, No sense that , by walking into a church, you are walking into God's Presence in Heaven.

So it's not the fault of the Novus Ordo per se, it's just how it's commonly implemented.

Pax Vobiscu,

Brendan

After the fall of Aksum the Ethiopian Empire became somewhat decentralized, the Emperor used to roam the country creating a new capital like every couple of years. The Church, while maintaining a consistent tradition and faith, was like wise not very centralized. The Coptic Bishop assigned to Ethiopia was usually nothing more than a rite and sacramental performer that did not speak Ge'ez or any other Ethiopian language. In other words his role was very limited. The authority in the Church was always the Monasteries with leadership expressed mostly in the “Echege” the Abbot of the Monastery of Debre Libanos, the chair of Tekle-Hymanot. This position and the position of the Patriarch of Ethiopia is now a combined seat but it did not become so until the Patriarch became Ethiopian.

So the Monks always had an anti-state bias to them. Therefore the main and most influential Church tradition was not under the power of the state.

This is my understanding: The Pope is the Bishop of Rome that became much like an "emperor' over his Church. The College of Cardinals is modeled after the ancient Roman Senate. Had Christianity came to Rome when it was a Republic and the Senate had more influence over the King then the Church's Cardinals would have had more influence with respect to the Pope, because the secular authority that it was modeled on functioned in that way. But it did not happen that way so what evolved in the Roman Church is essentially a central leader that is like an emperor of an Empire and not the leader of a republic.

The Coptic Pope may have used the name "pope,' been likened to a pharaoh, and claimed all of Africa as his jurisdiction, but he never ever for one second pretended that he had some kind of executive veto power in the Church with respect to the Bishops.

[[QB]God's Peace to all here,

To you and all members of this list!

What I find lacking in the Post Vatican II, is not necessarily the Novus Ordo. I can and is celebrated Piously and with great reverence worthy of a Mass.

That`s a good point, but the problem with Novus Ordo is that as much rites exist, as as much there are parishes and priests in the world. The missal of Paul VI itself gives a lot possibilities to choose between this custom or an another, these words and those others. But many priests "decorate" the mass with their own inventions. So the mass in the parish X is never the same as this in parish Y. I dont want to count all difficulties with the Novus ordo, but I from my side, have discovered the mystical beauty of the old mass during my holidays in Austria. The traditional priest has celebrated with so many concentration, the holy words of the canon (anaphora) read in abolute silence, the people who were gazing at altar...All this was so piercing that I remember it till today. Than I have learned to celebrate the old mass myself in the seminary of ST. Peter Fraternity. I celebrate the new mass everyday, but is a great feast for me when I can celebrate the traditional mass from the Missale Romanum. There are many details similar to the Eastern Rite: the celebrant kisses the altar very often,turns to the faithful in special moments, what is similar to the openning of the Royal Doors in Eastern Rite. The new mass is strongly simplified, what makes it just alike many protestant services. But with the new liturgy has came the new architecture, as well. Please, compare the old churches with those built in our time. I mean the churches of the Latin Rite, of course. These new are cold, bare and getting more and more alien to somebody who was accustomed to the sculptures and images of Mother of God and other saints.

I attend one daily to the great benefit of my soul.

So do I, beacause I have no choose. Bishops agree very seldom to give a priest a right for using the old missal publicly.

So it's not the fault of the Novus Ordo per se, it's just how it's commonly implemented.

Dear Brendan, the new mass creates the new theology and this new attitude to God and to prayer. So we have got the new church during last 40 years. I don`t want to say that changes are unwanted, all what lives must change, but the changes should build the liturgy on the living Tradition, and not destroy it.

God bless you all!

POSTED BY REMIE:

"But weren't the many ethnic-greek popes as supremacist as the others just like the Gremans and the Romans?

I think that Father Adam's comments are very good. I really think that the current liturgical crisis in the West will work as an obstacle to Church unity.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, in their study about the liturgical reform were, perhaps the first persons who, after dialoguing with Greek Orthodox Bishop of Mexico H.E. Paul de Ballester, who was an observer in Vatican II, brought the probable alienation of the Orthodox after the reforms, to public discusion. They wrote:

The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result (utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies) can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion under both species.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

It would be interesting to know that one of the authors of the New Mass, Father Max Thurian (who, at that time was leading the Presbyterian Community of Taiz�), not so long ago, published an artcle which was very critical of the modern Catholic Mass and some of the changes that were done, those which tended to desacralize the liturgy.

Orthodox writers like Franky Schaeffer are very pesimistic about the reforms in the Roman Mass, mentioning that the Orthodox liturgical treasure was too sacred to get it jeopardized with a union with Rome. According to him, Eastern-Rite Catholics, or the few people who can attend the masses of the Fraternity of St. Peter may feel save in their parishes, but that the spirit of Vatican II would also arrive there.

However not all of them are so negative.... "

******* ******** *******
Dear Remie,

I have read with interest your statement of opinion that there is a liturgical crisis in the West. I am not sure what that crisis is. Do you refer to the fact that some of our brothers and sisters have broken communion with the Pope because of unhappiness with liturgical Changes?

That is indeed a crisis with which the Roman Church has been trying to deal. The Indult for the use of Tridentine Mass is one example. Some of those who self separated from our Communion have returned to that Communion. This is a cause for joy to us.

Aside from those who have self separated, I think that it is safe to say that most of us in the Western Church do not see ourselves as being in a state of liturgical crisis. We celebrate the mysteries in a manner that reflects who we are and that makes us to be what we are. Fr. Adam is right in that. We are the Western Church in the Catholic Communion and we are faithful to our traditions. The Pope celebrates and lives in this tradition also.

I understand that you forsee that this "crisis" will somehow become an issue in ecumenical discussions. Given that there is no liturgical crisis apparent in the lives of the great majority of Western Catholics, I am at a loss to understand how. Thus far, from what I have heard or read, the Orthodox involved in ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Communion have not cited liturgy as an obstacle.

On another issue raised in your post, the Ottaviani Intervention, there are factual errors in your comments. You have referred to this action on the part of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci before. I have pointed out the errors before.

What end is served by repeating them?

Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci wrote a cover letter to Pope Paul VI asking him not to deny the faithful the liturgy that arose from Trent. The letter accompanied a report written by a self-styled group of Roman Theologians which was critical of the then proposed Novus Ordo. It was intended to be a private communication, but for reasons which can be found through a web search, someone released both the letter and the report.

Pope Paul approved the implementation of the Novus Ordo after a review of the report and a respose to Cardinal Ottaviani. Cardinal Ottaviani withdrew the letter.

This quote comes from "a group of roman theologians", not Cardinals Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci:

"The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result (utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies) can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion under both species.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent."

These "Roman Theologians, were, to say the least, unhappy with the prospect that Pope Paul was to promulgate the new order of the Mass (Novus Ordo). It is clear that Cardinal Ottaviani distanced himself from their cause. It is also clear that these "roman theologians" did not speak for the Fathers of the Council and the Pope. The Novus Ordo was promulgated.

Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci may indeed have spoken to Bishop de Ballester, but the words that you have put into their mouths in your posting were not their words.

Remie, I want to suggest to you that the spirit of Vatican II to members of the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit. He goes where He wills.

I hope that you will join me in praying that He blesses the work of Society of St. Peter and the Eastern-Rite Catholics (quoting from your post) as well as the rest of us as He has surely blessed us in the work of Vatican II.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Father Adam,

I am fascinated. It is not often that a priest of the Roman Church has raised issues of personal faith in a public forum in the way that you have here.

I assume that you are a priest in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I further assume that you have gone through the rigorous education process common to the training of our priests. I feel compelled to ask respectfully, are my assumptions correct?

When I read these comments, they puzzle me.

Posted by Fr. Adam:

"There are many theologicians who say pope has no right to change the rite. The old mass was saint and educated saints, the new is loud and something like a performance or a show. Pardon me these revelations, but I cannot agree with the opinion that a pope can all! He`s only a servant who should defend the Holy Faith , not change it as he would."

What leads you to make this conclusion? What Catholic theological opinion led you to it? It is hard to understand this coming from a priest who comes from the same Church that produced Pope John Paul II.

It seems that there should be many resources available to you for exploring and studying about the issues that you raise. It seems that there are many serious things that appear to cause you pain and dissatisfaction as you have expressed them here.

You have painted a seemingly negative picture of your experience in the Western Church in Poland. You have done so in a place where the posters and lurkers appear to be laymen and women, many of them not even members of your Church.

Have you expressed them to your bishop or to your fellow priests? Are you contemplating joining the
Society of St. Peter?

It is a puzzlement.

After reading your postings, I have a few specific questions. They follow:

1. What do you mean by living Tradition? What do you mean when you suggest the changes in the Liturgy of the Latin Church are destroying the living Tradition?

2. What do you mean by priests decorating the mass with their own inventions? Is this something different from the legitimate options existing in the missal of Paul VI?

3. Have you talked with your bishop about " all the difficulties" with the Novus Ordo?

4. What do you mean when you say that the simplified Novus Ordo is "just like many protestant services?"

5. When you say, "But with the new liturgy has came the new architecture" Are you suggesting that the Novus Ordo is somehow the cause of bad taste in Church architecture?

6. When you say "the new mass creates the new theology and this new attitude to God and to prayer. So we have got the new church during last 40 years," what do you mean?

Thank you for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Inawe and all dearest members!
Laudetur Jesus Christus!

"" It is not often that a priest of the Roman Church has raised issues of personal faith in a public forum in the way that you have here."

Maybe it`s not often. But sometimes happens. I mean, it`s the problem of confidence. I hope that the people on this forum are inteligent,interested with the good of Church and wanting to understand the difficulties of the other.

"I assume that you are a priest in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I further assume that you have gone through the rigorous education process common to the training of our priests. I feel compelled to ask respectfully, are my assumptions correct?"

Your hope is completely right. I am in communion with the Pope and hope to be in till the end of my life. I also were in the seminar 6 years as any other priest did.

"When I read these comments, they puzzle me.'"

I am sorry, if my post has made you any distress. I haven`t wanted it. I just wanted to share my attitudes with other people who are interested in topics such al Liturgy, rites and spirituality.

"What leads you to make this conclusion? What Catholic theological opinion led you to it? It is hard to understand this coming from a priest who comes from the same Church that produced Pope John Paul II."

My conclusion came after reading many Catholic Liturgists. I mmention only Father Klaus Gamber, an excelent liturgist from Germany and Card. Ratzinger with his fantastic book "The spirit of the liturgy". Church which produced JPII is not the same we working in now. It was the almost pre-conciliar Church of unforgetable Card. Wyszynski who prevented the Church of Poland befor "novelties" in the faith. Those novelties were brightly spred in West during 60-ties.


"You have painted a seemingly negative picture of your experience in the Western Church in Poland. You have done so in a place where the posters and lurkers appear to be laymen and women, many of them not even members of your Church."

I am sorry, once again, it was not prudently from my side. My experience is not only my, but of many priest , as well. And not only in Poland, also in Germany and Austria. There is no doubt that our Church is in deep crise.

"Have you expressed them to your bishop or to your fellow priests? Are you contemplating joining the
Society of St. Peter?"

We talk often as the priests about those difficulties and try to find a solution. To join the Society of St. Peter is my deepest desire, but I haven`t became permission from the Bishop.

1". What do you mean by living Tradition? What do you mean when you suggest the changes in the Liturgy of the Latin Church are destroying the living Tradition? "

Living Tradition is a continous development. The liturgy of today is produced "for today" on the Liturgits` desk.

"2. What do you mean by priests decorating the mass with their own inventions? Is this something different from the legitimate options existing in the missal of Paul VI?"

Of corse there is. For example the music which is good for a bad disco and not for the holy Mystery of the mass.

3. Have you talked with your bishop about " all the difficulties" with the Novus Ordo?

I tried, but His Excelence does`nt see any problem. Here is often called the reason that now is the mass in vernacular and familiar to people.

4. What do you mean when you say that the simplified Novus Ordo is "just like many protestant services?"

I mean that the Liturgy of Word is emphasized, the Liturgy of the sacriface almost eliminated.

5. When you say, "But with the new liturgy has came the new architecture" Are you suggesting that the Novus Ordo is somehow the cause of bad taste in Church architecture?

It is not the matter of the taste. I mean above all the removing of the tabernacle from the centre of a church.It could be more and more written but I have to go to church right now. I apologize for the unkind for many post. I didn`t want to offense or insult anybody. I don`t want to criticize Church in wholle. Please, pray for me a sinner. With greetings
Fr Adam

Bless me a sinner, Father Adam,

Niech bedzie pochwalony Jezus Christus!

You are O.K. in ALL my books, Father!

If the only thing our Lord has to say against you on the Final Judgement Day is that you were too traditional as a Catholic, you will be very, very happy - for all eternity!

Alex

Dear Father Adam,

In aeternum. Amen!

Thank you for your response to my questions.

I concur that it is not often for a Roman Catholic priest to do as you have done! I understand the confidence that you feel when you post here; the other posters and the forum are very welcoming. I agree that the people on this forum are intelligent. Like you, I find them to be interested in the good of the Church.

I am not sure, though, that the primary focus of this forum is to understand the difficulties experienced by us in the West as the renewal continues. There are, to be sure difficulties. But I am not sure how what you are sharing is connected with the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

That being said, I hope that you will allow me to continue our conversation, if you will.

I know that priests here, like there, discuss issues and seek solutions. I hope that you find them.

I think that you would be a great addition to the Society of St. Peter. I will join my prayers to yours that you are given permission to become a member.

I was glad to hear that you spoke with your Bishop. Does he agree with anything that you have posted here? Specifically does he think that the current liturgy of the Latin Church is not "continuous" or just for today on the desk of liturgists. Is he not correcting abuses in music as they exist?

While I agree with your bishop that we are not in a state of crisis, I understand your love for the Tridentine Liturgy. I love it, too. However, I disagree with your assessment of the Novus Ordo. The sacrificial element of the Liturgy is crystal clear, it seems to me.

While difficulties exist, they are being dealt with by competent authority to the disquiet of other priests, I am sure. I agree with your bishop that the difficulties do not rise to the level of crisis.

Nearly a half of my life was lived in the Church before the Council. I understand the attractions of the way of life of the Church during that time. There was certainly at least comfort that came from the illusion of the immutability of the liturgy as celebrated during that time. There was also the comfort of the logical structure of scholasticism that supported the thinking of theologians during that time.

I cannot understand, though, why you say that our Church is not the same Church. Many things have changed. However, the truth is that the life of the Church after the Council is the result of the work of the leaders and people who were part of the Church before the Council. This included Cardinal Wyszynski, if memory serves me correctly.

At any rate, it seems to me the Roman Church is the Roman Church. It was then, and it is now. The externals and structures and procedures have changed because the Council decided it to be so and the Pope approved. I do not understand what you are referring to as novelties?

You are a priest of the Roman Church and have had the traditional six years of education, including four years of theological study.

That being true, I am still puzzled by your words that I quoted. In what way is the Pope not free to to what he did? The fact that he is Servant of the Servants of God does not mean he is without authority, does it?

Are you claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger says that Pope Paul VI or his successors or the Fathers of the Council were not able to do what they did in regard to the Liturgy? If that is the case, by what authority does Cardinal Ratzinger act now? I simply do not know what basis you had for your statement.

Father, I understand that there are priests who do not appreciate the renewed Liturgy. There are priests who disagree that the Eucharist is reserved out of the main space of the Church at St. Peter's in Rome and in other Catholic Churches. As you know, there are good reasons for all of this.

You are a Roman Catholic priest. It seems to me that you are charged to teach what the Chruch teaches and explain her practices whenever you identify yourself as such. Most of us here are lay people who trust that when you speak as a priest what you say is what the Catholic Chruch wants us to know. In the situation that you express an opinion that appears to be other than the that teaching on our practices, you will identify it as simply your own opinion.

In your posting, you seem to be saying that the Church and its practices have wandered from the Church and its practices in ways that make it to be not Church anymore, if I understand you correctly. That is why I am fascinated.

I hope that you do not find my remarks and thoughts to be rude or abusive. They are certainly not meant to be. After all, you share the priesthood of Christ and that is deserving of respect.

Thank you for hearing me out.

I ask your prayers for your fellow sinner.

Steve

You are O.K. in ALL my books, Father!

Posted by Alex:

"....

If the only thing our Lord has to say against you on the Final Judgement Day is that you were too traditional as a Catholic, you will be very, very happy - for all eternity!"

Dear Alex and Father Adam,

I agree!

May the Lord show the same mercy to all Catholics of good Faith, "traditional" , middle of the road, the maligned liberals and those who are unlabelled! Followers of Christ, all!

Steve

Dear Steve! Thanks a lot for your words. You have reminded to me that I am a RC priest and it` s my duty to explaine things as Catholic priest should do it. It`s a mmter of my fascination with the Old Liturgy, but I have written too strongly against the post-conciliar Church. It is my church, as well. I have just watched in a Catholic TV a document about the Vatican Council. It was the best preparation before the third Millenium, so one prooved in this documentary. I believe it. When I criticized some things, I didn`t want to criticize the pope or any other person in the Church which I honour.
I want to justify myself about those words of the Card. Ratzinger. In his book he says the liturgy was prepared too quickly and is sometimes too much simple. But he doesn`t say it`s wrong, neither do I. I am going to talk with my bishop this time once again. As our bishops didn`t agree to settle the Society in Poland, I`m ready to go to Germany, I need the permission only. So , please, remember this my need in your prayers.Thank you for your words which are very prudent. I sometimes speak or write too much than I would. It`s so Slavic. All my Sisters and Brothers they feel themselves offensed by my "too hot" post I`m begging for your pardon. I understand, It wasn`t clever to explaine difficulties of the West Church on the Eastern forum. Sorry. God bless you all and let us pray for each other!
Fr Adam, unworthy.

"On Judgement Day, The Lord will not ask me how many prostrations I made in prayer or how great was my ascetical practice but if I clothed the naked, visited the sick"

-Mother Maria of Paris