The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
arekeon27, Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg
5,845 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (Wenura Ravindu, 1 invisible), 68 guests, and 34 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,167
Posts414,956
Members5,845
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2012/07/more-ordinariate-disappointment/

Wasn't the establishment of the Ordinariates by Pope Benedict XVI suppose to help bridge the gap between the Mass in the OF and EF of the Roman Rite. Tradition and loyalty to the current Pope is really loosing pace in the Roman Rite. Thanks to most of their post V2 protestantized reform Bishops. Hope that never happens in the East.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by bkovacs
Wasn't the establishment of the Ordinariates by Pope Benedict XVI suppose to help bridge the gap between the Mass in the OF and EF of the Roman Rite.


I have NEVER read that it was. It might happen to work out in that direction at times, but NO, that was not the stated intention of the ordinate.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
I work as a director of music in a church with 5 NO and 1 EF masses each Sunday. Strangely, the EF folks think the whole point was for the NO people to imitate them. Not so! The majority of the NO folks do not want the EF mass.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
From what I have been reading the Pope wants the OF and EF Mass to be closer to each other. the hermeneutic of continuity as it is called. So the EF Mass folks do have a point. As for the OF folks, most do not understand the Pope and his liturgical renewal at all, and just plain ignore him in anything regarding liturgy. They think they know better than the Holy Father, when in reality they don't. They want to be more like Protestants in regards to their Mass. Sort of like the iconoclasts. Do away with anything that is traditional. As a Byzantine I would probably think it be wiser to side with tradition vs the "what we want" crowd. And unlike the Byzantine churches, the NO crowd want nothing to do with a beautiful traditional liturgy or as Vlads emissaries noted. "We knew not we were in Heaven or on Earth". That would enrage then quite a bit it seems. My view!

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Dear bkovacs,
You're painting several million people [in the U.S. alone] with an awfully broad brush.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
Maybe I am, but that is just how I see it. Been to many OF Mass parishes, an now I go to a Byzantine Church where I am much more content.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
I would disagree. My congregation wants traditional hymns, reverent mass settings, and correctly done NO liturgies in English. What they don't want is exclusive Latin, and masses like the pre-Vatican II liturgies - all choir and priest, and no people participation. I can't blame them for that, since vernacular liturgies are pretty much the norm for easterners.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
I prefered internal participation. As it is suppose to be in the Roman Rite. Versus the misinterpretation that has everyone doing everything possible. From doing the priests part, lectoring, female altar servers, gospel choirs, to having a laugh during the Mass.

Last edited by bkovacs; 07/29/12 10:05 PM.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
Active participation internally, meaning praying the Mass. If you read the Popes book on the Liturgy, you will get some sense into what I mean. This of course being directed at the Roman Rite. As for lectoring, in my previous post, please disregard that. I didn't have enough time to edit my comment. Lectoring is definately fine for lay people. But everything else can lead to many abuses in the Roman Rite, from what I have observed.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
I prefered internal participation. As it is suppose to be in the Roman Rite.

So much for the first thirteen hundred years or so of the real Roman Tradition. Funny how medieval innovations and abuses get elevated to "tradition" just because nobody remembers that they really are innovations and abuses. You'd really be shocked to have walked into a Roman Mass circa AD 800, or even AD 1200. You'd probably think (assuming you could understand the Latin), what's with all this Novus Ordo stuff?" Because what you would see and hear would bear very little resemblance to a Tridentine Mass, whether high or low.

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 142
Likes: 1
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 142
Likes: 1
Amen, Stuart!

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
And I highly doubt they would resemble what they came up with after 1970. Or what one would see at the LA Liturgical Congress, with Liturgical Dancers, incense bowls, dancing deacons and every other innovation. I have heard Roman Chant, which predates Gregorian Chant, and it sounded similar to Byzantine.

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLMusDev1.jsp
http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLLit.jsp

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by bkovacs
Active participation internally, meaning praying the Mass. If you read the Popes book on the Liturgy, you will get some sense into what I mean. This of course being directed at the Roman Rite. As for lectoring, in my previous post, please disregard that. I didn't have enough time to edit my comment. Lectoring is definately fine for lay people. But everything else can lead to many abuses in the Roman Rite, from what I have observed.

What does 'participation internally ' and 'praying the mass mean'? Is it really participating as an integral part and member of the eucharistic celebration, or offering a lot of private prayers and devotions as the mass unfolds infront of you, Tridentine style? I dont mean this to sound snooty. I honestly don't get the gist. confused

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,707
You are absolutely correct, StuartK. Most Tridentine Mass fans have no idea of the hack job Trent did on the Roman Liturgy. The changes were much more extreme than the Vatican II changes in the 1960s.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
And I highly doubt they would resemble what they came up with after 1970. Or what one would see at the LA Liturgical Congress, with Liturgical Dancers, incense bowls, dancing deacons and every other innovation.

None of which are part of the Novus Ordo. Abusus non tollit usus. If you were to go to parishes where the missal is properly implemented, whether in English or in Latin, you would find none of that. And, to add a degree of balance, there were abuses a-plenty in the preconciliar era, and just as much irreverence , as Father Serge Kelleher observed:

Quote
Many "traditionalist" Catholics have dim or hazy memories of the pre-Conciliar Church, and seem to think that there was a much greater degree of reverence for the Mass then, than there is now. That may be the case, but Fr. Serge demonstrates that the degree of reverence then still left much to be desired. Specifically, he points to the Holy Table of the Altar. Under the pre-Vatican II rubrics, there were precise instructions for the materials, care, and positioning of the altar, but in point of fact, seldom were these implemented. Supposedly made of stone, most altars were in fact hollow wooden boxes (frequently marblized) and were, contrary to all prohibitions, often used for storage purposes.

He also points to the abuse of simultaneous services, recounting how he once visited a parish in which a Mass was in progress at the main altar, a second priest was addressing the congregation from the pulpit throughout the Mass, a third priest was distributing Holy Communion continuously at the altar rail, a marriage was taking place in one side chapel, and devotions were being held audibly in another side chapel, whilst in the midst of all this "pious chaos" several other priests attempted to hear confessions. He also notes that the Blessed Sacrament was enthroned in a monstrance on the main altar, even though the rubrics disapproved of the celebration of Mass in the presence of the enthroned Blessed Sacrament. Fr. Serge wryly observes that had anyone tried to point this out the parish priest, he would have been told to go elsewhere; he notes that the faithful who have attempted to point out abuses in the Novus Ordo have been similarly dismissed.

Furthermore, he noted that in the preconciliar period, the Low Mass was overwhelmingly preferred by both clergy and laity, with profound effects on both the liturgical consciousness and piety of the Western Church:

Quote
[A]ll prostestations to the contrary notwithstanding the real basis for the Novus Ordo is the Low Mass. He {Kelleher] follows this with a brief synopsis on the development of the low Mass; i.e., how it began as an abbreviated form of the Solemn Mass to be used when priests celebrated without the presence of a congregation, how it eventually became a public Mass, with the congregation worshipping however they pleased while the priest also prayed silently, and how music unrelated to the liturgical action was gradually inserted into the Low Mass. He observes that the Solemn (High) Mass came to be regarded as suitable only for the most important holy days, and generally a burden to be avoided. While every scholar knew that the Pontifical High Mass was the normative form of the Roman Liturgy, everyone's practical experience was the opposite: the Low Mass was normal, and the High Mass a rare aberration, which ordinary Catholics avoided at all costs.

He notes that in this century, attempts at reforming the Low Mass led to a variety of other abuses, starting with the so-called "Dialogue Mass" that originated in Germany in the 1920s, and which reached the US in the 1950s. The Dialogue Mass was a low Mass in which the entire congregation recited the responses once said silently by the acolytes. The existence of this hybrid made celebration of the High Mass even more rare, but worse, it encouraged misunderstanding of the congregational role in the Mass. For instance, the priest continued to read silently the Propers, which should have been sung by the congregation; the people did not recite the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, or Agnus Dei--all of which were still recited silently by the priest. At the same time, the people did recite the Suscipiat response to the Orate, Fratres--which rightfully are a dialogue between the celebrant and concelebrating presbyters.

Fr. Serge quotes Cardinal Heenan in a 1967 interview, in which Heenan said.

Quote
I cannot think that anyone with pastoral experience would have regarded the sung Mass as being of first importance. Our people love the Mass, but it is the Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments, to which they are chiefly attached.

In other words, Low Mass is what matters, Music is a "trivial embellishment" that would drive people from the Church.

It was precisely this sort of abuse that Sacrosanctum concilium was meant to rectify, and, for all its defects, the Novus Ordo accomplishes much in that direction. A faithful, accurate and aesthetically pleasing translation of the Latin text into English, proper observance of the rubrics, suppression of innovations not in the rubrics (e.g., celebration versus populum), a return to the use of liturgical chant and the ending of banal hymnography inserted into the Mass as "trivial embellishment" would go a long way towards bringing the Novus Ordo even closer to its objective of restoring the liturgical tradition of the West. There are only a few fundamental changes to the structure that must needs be done, of which suppression of the various new Eucharistic Prayers and restoration of the Roman Canon with its variable prefaces would be the most important. I admit not being a fan of the new lectionary, which I believe to be excessively didactic and disconnected from the liturgical year, but before addressing that, I would actually prefer to see the Liturgy of the Hours restored in the West as a true liturgical service and not merely as a private devotion for clergy, religious and particularly pious laymen. Restoring the fullness of the Western liturgical tradition is just as important as reforming the Mass as the centerpiece of that Tradition.

Last edited by StuartK; 07/30/12 11:53 AM.
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5