www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Perspective...

Dear Inawe,

First of all I must tell you that I am of those who are not against II Vatican Council "liturgical reform" or Pope John VI's New Missal but rather against post-Vatican "liturgical revolution" or what we could call post-Vatican Latin “liturgical mess”. Three of your five questions have to do with the “protestantization” of the Roman liturgy. I think that it is not fair to blame our Protestants brothers for what I called post-Vatican Latin “liturgical mess”. I am pretty sure that the offices at some Lutheran (specially in Scandinavian countries) and Anglican (High Church, Anglo-Catholics) parishes are much more “traditional” (I am talking now about “tradition” in liturgy and not about “Holy Tradition”) than most of our Catholic Masses but nobody can deny the “protestant” influence in the II Vatican Council liturgical reform. If you have a look at the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church or the Liturgy of the Lutheran Church you will find a lot of similarities with Pope John VI's New Missal. One of these similarities between the Novus Ordo, as some of you use to say, and the Book of Common Prayer are the use of several “Eucharistic Prayers”, the Old Testament reading, and the division of the lectionary into three cycles or liturgical years (A,B,C). Is the use of readings of the Old Testament contrary to the theology or the liturgical tradition of the Western (and Eastern) Church? Certainly not. The Greek “Anaphora of Saint Hypolitos of Rome” (Eucharistic Prayer III) tell us that more than one “anaphora” were used in the Church of Rome. There is nothing wrong in the use of the “Anaphora of Saint Hypolitos of Rome”. Another interesting element of the Book of Common Prayer that should be taken into account in the Western Catholic Church is the celebration (not only private reading) of Vespers and Matins. That is something that the Eastern and the Protestant tradition have in common. The communion under both sacramental species is something that the Eastern and the Protestant Churches have also in common (those “enthusiastic” of the Tridentine Mass should take into account that in the Traditional Tridentine Mass communion under both sacramental species is forbidden). I am not Anglican nor I do belong to the Anglican liturgical tradition but I suppose that the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican was not so bad from an Orthodox perspective when patriach Tychon approved a revised version of the BCP to be used by “Western Orthodox” in America. I definitely support that it is in her own tradition (not in the Protestant not in the Eastern one), in the liturgical tradition of the Church of Rome and other Western Churches, that the Western Church should find the sources for a real liturgical reform but I also consider that our Anglican and Lutheran (I am talking those “traditional elements” that have been preserved in the Protestant tradition and not for example of the Calvinist concept of Eucharist patent specially in the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer) and Eastern brothers can help us very much to find our own way. By the way, when are we removing the “filoque” from the Symbol of Faith of the Roman Mass introduced in 1014?

I have to say that I have seen a Methodist Church service that comes on TV, I can SWEAR it so identical to the Roman Catholic Church! I was shocked to see all of these similarities!

Also, I had a best friend who was a convert, and when the changes were made (Liturgy), he said it was so similar to the Protestants that he knew many of his other friends who were converts went back to their Protestant Churches (to be with their families once again) as they saw how similar it was and that they thought "why bother covert to Catholicism when it's the same as Protestant?"

He also said that he recognized TONS of Protestant songs and hymns in the Catholic missal books that is being used for songs during Masses. He couldn't believe it! He said he thought the true Catholic songs is better and have higher quality than Protestants, he just couldn't understand why the Roman Catholic Church would reduce herself to the level of Protestantism!!!

I want to add that I have been in an Epicipilian Church before, and I have to say it's so similar to the Catholic Church that I swear I thought I was IN the Catholic Church!! They have statues of Catholic saints everywhere, even POPES, stained glass windows of Catholic saints (including the Eastern saints!), they have high altar, side altars, etc. I could swear I thought I was in the RCC!!! But it wasn't RCC, it was a Protestant.

So, my point is, I DISAGREE with one of the posters here that doubts the "Protestantizing" of Mass of Paul VI. Do you need PROOF? Where have you been?? Hello? Then look around in the RCC and go over to Protestant Church and compare, you're in for a shock.

I really think it's so sickening to see "liberal" priests, nuns, lay people or whoever, have seriously, blasphemily, herectically abused the Liturgy to a point where it's just "junk" Liturgy (weird Protestant like Liturgy, new agey, clown masses, etc.). It's totally shameful! They should be excommunicated for doing such things! That is just blantly heresy and they committed serious apostasy.

I want to include the very fact that many of my Orthodox friends are very offended by the changes of the RCC liturgy!!! I would think it would make more gaps (more divisive) the Church between East and West.

Even the Western Orthodox don't do these stupid things that RCC do, they use the Mass of St. Gregory the Great, which I admire them doing! They might even end up saving the Western Church!!!

We have to look into the history of the Roman Catholic Church, I come with conclusion that she is extremly STUPID! If you look at the Filoque clause, it caused division in the Church. Look at Protestant reformation era, it's a fruit of RCC errors! Look at the denial of Christ's presence throughout the ages, to a point where I think the Church abuses the Eucharist by overtasking its devotions to it (what I mean by is having 40 hour devotion, who would with great faith in Eucharist over do the devotion of it as if one doesn't believe in it? Why stare at Him when Eucharist is INTENDED for us to consume? Why store Him in the tabernacle and leave Him there all alone in the dark, locked up church, etc.? People become overly scuruplous over it).
Now look at V II, which VII per se is great, but not the innovation of the Liturgy which is greatly abused, which is as low as RCC can go!

It's time for RCC to really get a grip of herself and truly follow the true VII intention and ways. Listen to Fr. Fesio, who is well known RCC priest who examined the true intention of VII (he spent years studying it). He said that there was NO intention of throwing Tridentine Mass out of it, but rather add on some changes to manifest the Tridentine Mass---to make it even more glorious. But instead what happened was this, we have clown masses! Goodness gracious.

When are the RCC priests and bishops GOING TO WAKE UP AND LEARN the value of integrity of Mass, the holiness of Liturgy? The holiness of the Temple? Do you guys remember the other post about the Antimension being put up for auction on e-bay? I truly think it's a result of RCC priests or bishops finding these things and just "throw" them away. Look at them throwing the Altar stones away, throwing away vestments which the nuns may have spend hundreds of hours on making it, not using gold chalices (some do get rid of them!!!) and use glass chalice or crappy clay chalices. Oh give me a break!

I truly must say that there are a lot of times I am extremely EMBARRASSED to be in communion with RCC! It's quite embarrassing to see the other Churches doing a better job than RCC, especially Western Orthodox Church and other high Churches.

But thankfully, I am NOT a Roman Catholic and I don't have to deal with it at all. So...Maybe the VII mass have some Eastern influences (very few..such has making it venacular, priest co-celebrating, etc.) but I conclude that the RCC have much more Protestant influence.

So much for my 2 cents!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory to Him Forever!

The Anglican/Episcopal church is more liturgically correct than most Roman parishes. Most Roman parishes don't have high or side altars. Sad. I think we should be ecumenical, but we shouldn't become like those we are trying to befriend! Oh well, I'm Roman Catholic and when I get a chance I'll be attending an Eastern Catholic temple. (Sort of hard right now since KY does not have any Eastern Catholic churches.)

Adam

SP,

Not everyone in the Roman Church attends Novus Ordo Masses. There's Anglican Usage, Tridentine Masses, Mozarabic and Ambrosian (yes they're small but that's not my point).

Believe me, no one is more disgusted with the liturgical abuses in the Western Church than I am, but it's simply not fair and not accurate to label an entire Church, an organization claiming 1 out of every 6 people on earth as a member, as "STUPID."

Yes, I agree that liturgical abusers who willingly destroy the liturgy and other devotions should be excommunicated; I couldn't dislike the motives of the people any more, even if I tried. But to label the entire Western Church throughout history as extremely stupid is, well, extremely stupid.

I also don't think it's fair to attack Western devotions that have been in practice for hundreds of years. I, for one, would gladly be one of the first in line to give devotion to the Blessed Sacrament whether someone else thinks it should only be consumed. It's spiritually beneficial for many faithful Catholics, and if someone doesn't want to go to a 40 hour devotion, no one's forcin' them.

Cleaning out the liturgy and the people who abuse it is not, was never, and will never be an easy task for the Church, but I believe that she is trying her best to purify herself. Antagonism won't help, only thorough PRAYING and ACTION.

ChristTeen287

Dear Francisco,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my posting. I hesitate to reply since this is not really the topic of the thread.

I agree that Protestants are not responsible for our Liturgy. Neither are the Orthodox. It is our Liturgy. Is it perfect? NO! Is it flawed beyond repair? NO! Is it the working Liturgical expression of the Faith of the Latin Church. YES. The renewal continues.

Thank you also for sharing that you are not one of those who are against Vatican II and the renewal process that the Council initiated. Like you, I am not against the liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI as it is properly implemented.

I'm not sure what a post Vatican II liturgical revolution is. It could cover a lot of ground. The name can be used as a cover term for actual abuses that happen in the celebration of the liturgy. If that is what you mean, such abuses should not happen and should be dealt with and eradicated, in my opinion.

It seems to me, though, that the term can mean any liturgical practice approved by proper authority. Some individuals or groups may dislike a certain practice, like Eucharistic Ministers, and consider their use part of a revolution. I think that to call things like this part of a revolution is a misuse of the term.

I am sorry that you perceive there to be a post Vatican II Liturgical Mess. The change process has been messy and uncomfortable, if that is what you mean. I don't find our Liturgical practices to be a mess, however.

I would like to suggest that since a major focus of the renewal was inculturation into a culture, the Liturgy will reflect elements of the culture. There are many protestant churches which are part of our common cultural patrimony in the West. I'm sure that silimarities between their services and ours exist. After all, these are non apostolic churches which took their practices from those of the Roman church from which they came.

It is one thing to note similarities exist between some Protestant services. The Book of Common Prayer was instituted to guide the practice of worship in the Anglican Communion. The traditional Anglican/Episcopalian ceremonies and the language used there is quite beautiful.

I think though that it is fair to note that the Anglican Communion arose from within the Roman Church and not vice versa. It is not unexpected that common liturgical practices like the Prayer of the Hours elements is to be found within both communions. I agree that the celebration of vespers and matins would be a wonderful addition to the weekly liturgical practices of our parishes.

It is quite another to say that the intent of the Council Fathers who began the renewal and those who guided its implmentation was to protestantize Catholic Liturgical culture. The task was inculturation.

I think that your last question is misdirected. It is Rome that must speak about removing the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed.

I seem to remember that the Holy Father has agreed that the Creed in Greek without the Filioque is normative for the Roman Communion. When and if we Westerners will stop using it is in other hands.

Again thanks for responding and for hearing me out.

Steve

Coming from an Anglican background I have to say that the BCP (new order of Holy Communion used in Canada) is very close to the RC Mass.

Dear SPDundas,

Thank you for your 2 cents!

I read your comments about the Roman Liturgy.

We agree on somethings, I think, but disagree on others. Let me explain what I mean.

I agree that there are similarities between the Methodist service and the Roman Liturgy. The service is in English. There is a greeting. The Gospel is preached and explained. There is a service of the Lord's supper which has some similarity to the Eucharistic Celebration. There is a blessing over the congregation. There is music, some songs which are shared in common.

Those elements were the same before the Council when the Tridentine Liturgy was celebrated in Latin. I hesitate to point this out, but those same elements are present in the Divine Liturgy celebrated by the Eastern Churches. if I understand correctly.

About the notion that the worship service is identical to the Latin Liturgy, I respectfully disagree. At least that has not been my experience of Methodist worship services and the worship services of other Protestant communities at which I've been present. I have attended a number since my uncle was a Methodist minister.

I am sorry to hear that some of your friend's friends were not better catechised upon conversion. Their loss is sad to hear. Personally, I have yet to hear a committed Protestant say that the worship service used in his or her group is the same as the Roman Mass. That truly surprises me.

Your experience in Episcopalian Churches mirrors that of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini. It is reported that she once went into an Anglican Church knelt and prayed. The priest came in and began to say Mass. She realized that she was not in a Catholic Church when he spoke in English. This was decades before the renewals of Vatican II. So there are similarities.

It seems to me that those similarities are to be expected since these Churches arose from the Roman Church.

You ask if I need proof? Proof of what? That there are similarities? NO!

Proof that the Fathers of the Council had the intent of Protestantizing Catholic Liturgical Culture? Yes!

I am truly sorry that you see massive abuses in our Liturgy. I have not. When and if I see things which appear to be abuses, I talk to those to whom it is appropriate to speak about such matters. Certainly I have never seen any Divine Liturgy in the Latin Church which qualifies as junk liturgy.

When I look around, I see my brothers and sisters in Faith who worship using the renewed Liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI. I hope and pray that as we move deeper into ecumenical talks fewer and fewer of your Orthodox friends will feel as you say that they do. I hope that you will come to know us better, too.

We are in communion. It is sad that you are embarassed by that fact, but it is a fact. We are Western Christians in the Catholic Communion; you are Eastern Christians in the Catholic Communion. We are not the same. As you note, our practices are not yours; nor yours ours. Yet, they are practices of God's Churches.

On that level alone, are they not worthy of respect?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

The following link seems to catalog all the abuses in the Roman Church. Note the last entry on the new Archbishop of Milwaukee wearing a "cheesehead" mitre. Maybe time for revisionist thinking on Weakland.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm

The term stupid may be a poor choice of words. I merely meant stupid as being "foolish" not as being "dumb."

I do respect the Latin Catholics, but where are their respect for us? I have been constantly attacked by Roman Catholics simply because I'm different, that our way of belief is different than theirs. (i.e. Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, confession, matrimony, etc.) Of course we all do believe the same thing, just a different expression of it or perspective, but they (RC) don't accept that. They seem to say that if we don't accept their "views" or "understandings" then we aren't Catholics at all.

Some people (RC) who ask me what religion I am, I'd say I'm Byzantine Catholic. They look at me funny like I'm a new breed of Catholic or something. I'd explain to them that we are like Orthodox in communion with Rome, then some say that it would mean that our belief would be herectical or schismatic.

So, if you folks ever see some of my posts or answers on the posts that appear negative or just "rough" on the issues of Roman Catholicism, that's only because I feel defensive, wanting to preserve our heritage, our culture, our Byzantine faith, etc. I hope no one takes it too personally at anywhere and anytime I make these kind of posts. I try very hard to be very nice and careful to what I say. Sometimes I regret some things I say as it usually gets interpreted the wrong way. I also try to be charitable, but sometimes it's hard when I got a mix of Eastern German-Polish-Ukrainian in me...with a dash or two of Irish/Scottish...so it's not a good mix when I get upset or disappointed! Heh.

Not to mention me being Deaf...whereas...in the Deaf Culture, there is a strong tendency of the Deaf people to be very BLUNT (brutally honest) about what they think and feel. Ahhh! Heh.

Sometimes I get upset when I see some RC come to my church...and "adore" the Icons on the Iconostasis..commenting "what a nice piece of art...blah blah blah." I'm thinking "it's not 'art' to us...it's part of our Liturgical worship...they are windows to Heaven...that these person shown on the Icons are actually with us in spirit..." and to even reduce it as "art" kinda makes my stomach churn. So I don't say anything to them (I just bite my tongue until it becomes all purple)...bravo! That's gotta be hard for someone like me not to say anything. But thankfully my priest would scold them, so it all turns out fine. heh. That's just one example of who I am...when I become defensive or feeling protective of the Byzantine traditions and faith.

Anyway, forgive me, once again. God bless.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Hence your problem.

Polite and decent people don't ask what religion another person is. Your problem is not with Roman Catholics but you are meeting rude people. I would suggest walking away rather than answering their questions. If you do chose to respond, you should not be suprised at additional rudeness.

For most of us, our mother taught us better.

Axios

Dear SP,
A suggestion: why don't you enlighten those who are 'only admiring' icons and not understanding what they really mean? Instead of wasting your energy hating these people, you could provide a valuable service and educate them, either by approaching them after Liturgy or perhaps writing an article on the subject for your diocesan paper ... something.

And, if I might also point out, there are ways you could have said, in your earlier post, that the Eastern emphasis on the Eucharist is not like the Western, without sounding quite so disrespectful and contemptuous about "Western" Eucharistic devotion. What you ridicule has been extremely meaningful, for countless souls through the years (including saints). I have friends who're Eastern Orthodox who have pointed out these differences to me without being contemptuous. It can easily be done, believe me!

Dear CoS,

Your suggestion is good, I've done a lot of that before. Sometimes with time contstraints, it's not always possible and sometimes it's hard to catch them after Liturgy. Besides that, I don't want to approach them and tell them that their "admiring" of Icons is somewhat a little disrespectful, isn't that a bit awkward?

I could use more of your suggestions of how to approach them. But usually I let my priest handle it in the chapel (and I handle it outside where so many people come to me for questions, which is nice and I explain a lot of things of course very charitably and nicely).

Just to let you know, I'm always very charitable to others when I approach them or when they approach me. I'm nothing like what I appear to be on this Forum.

Now, about the Eucharist issue you mentioned, I wasn't criticizing the RCC devotion per se, I was merely commenting that it was because of the lack of faith in the RCC's part in the Real Presence which caused the Church to over-emphasizing the devotion of Eucharist and on top of that, Protestantism (product of RCC errors) was on the rampage during that time, so it gave RCC another reason for it. I just wanted to say that there are some balances that need to be restored.

I was in no way disrespectful, I was only pointing out the historical reason for why RCC over-emphasizing the devotion.

I was constantly criticized for not having Eucharistic "devotion" in the Byzantine Church (we don't have 40 hours benedictions, we do not genuflect, we don't always keep the Body & Blood in the tabernacle as all of Him is consumed, etc.). The RCC say that since we don't do all of these things, then we aren't "Catholic" or just a bad breed of Catholics.

They ask me why we don't do these things, they get upset when I would say "Because we don't need to. Because we've never lost faith in His Real Presence." Well, the answer may sound insulting, it's not, it's just a matter of FACT.

In fact, we take His Presence so seriously that we consume Him all and not leave Him all alone in the empty and cold Church all locked up. Also, when a priest is ordained, one of his major function as a priest is to guard the Eucharist (the Bishop gives a piece of Him and asks him as it is his priestly duty to guard and protect on the Sacred Species).

During the Pre-Sanctified Liturgies, the Altar servers are absolutely FORBIDDEN to walk around facing away from our Lord, which means we have to walk everywhere BACKWARDS...always facing Our Lord on the Altar. During the Great Entrance in the Presanctified, we all walk backwards with candles, cross, ripids, incense, etc. The people are not allowed to even let the crumbs of the Blessed Bread (not consecrated) to fall all over the place!!! I can go on and on and on about our respect for Our Lord.

So you ask me where is my respect for RCC? I have full respect for them. But I have to ask them where is THEIR respect???

In many ways, it's a blessing for BCC to be in communion with Rome, so that way we can explain many things to RCC in ways that the Orthodox wouldn't do (because of their hatred or anger or bitterment). (BTW, We have to put ourselves in the Orthodox's shoes and go where they have been, so I totally understand their feelings and position)

All in all, churches EVERYWHERE (including the Orthodox) are getting just a tad bit too casual or laxed about the Eucharist (taking it for granted). SO it is a nice reminder of RCC to have good devotion. But ALL IN HEALTHY BALANCE. In my humble opinion (based on cultural POV and Eastern "mind-set"), over-emphasizing it isn't healthy, it just appears to be a result of lack of faith. We must constantly teach ourselves and others about it, so we will not take Him for granted.

But I am thankful for your suggestions and I'm happy to hear more of it from you. Thank you.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

SP,

I understand your frustration with Catholics who know nothing about Eastern Catholicism or who outright deny that Byzantine Catholics are truly Catholic.

However, the only way that Roman Catholics are ever going to learn anything about Byzantine Catholicism is if it's introduced to them by an adherent of Byzantine Catholicism. If a Roman Catholic views an icon as a "piece of art" they should neither be scoulded nor ignored; I'd encourage the more enlightened party to charitably explain to them what an icon actually is, and why it's not a "piece of art." Jumping on someone for something they had no way of knowing about isn't going to do anything but perpetuate the mistrust and frustration on both sides.

I am an absolute supporter of Eastern and Byzantine Catholicism, and I believe too many Roman Catholics know very little or nothing about it. But, frankly, those in the know (i.e. Eastern Catholics themselves) must take the initiative to inform their Western brethren. If discovering the golden light of Eastern Catholicism were left up to the RC's to find by themselves, VERY few would ever learn anything.

ChristTeen287

Dear SP,
Thank you for your gracious letter. I agree with ChristTeen when he says that you appear to be seeing people who are showing their ignorance of Eastern life in the Church rather than people who're intending disrespect.

The best suggestion I would have for you (and thank you for asking) is that when speaking with someone to educate them about your traditions and meaningful ways of worship, emphasize the richness and positive aspects and leave out the emphasis on the contrasting practice. For example, DO say what you said about reverence for the Lord in the Eucharist -- all those things - but NOT the part about "WE don't leave Him alone and locked up in a cold dark place ..." That isn't helpful, nor is harping on "WE never lost the faith in the Real Presence" -- it is not conducive to a receptive, positive attitude, you see. Have them concentrate on all the 'neat stuff' you can tell them to open up the world of Eastern ways for them. It is like bopping them on the head if you punctuate things with the negative stuff - even if it is as you say a fact of history, to bring it up is 'slamming the door in the face' of the other person even if that isn't at all how you mean it or what you mean to do - you just want to show them how wonderful it is, don't you? That does come through in your words to us here.

So -- my other sugggestion is that you can also be low-key and conversational with people re: the icons, say - you can just be talking with them "a la casual "after Divine Liturgy if possible, or before, if you see them and you can say, "Yes, they're beautiful, aren't they?" and then you can say, "You know, there's really so much more to this than you might imagine" and tell them where they can find information - booklets, books, and so on, about icons. So, the conversational approach, and you can suggest they ask the pastor questions too, since as you say he might end up having a chat with them anyway?

I am sorry to hear that you encounter people who're so critical of 'why don't you do this and that' - I personally wonder why people would want to spend lots of energy doing that sort of thing.

Again, thank you for your very kind letter and you really explained a bit more so that I could see what you were saying. I hope I have been able to point out ways in which you can communicate which will foster openness and receptivity rather than the opposite. You know, I am not saying you cannot discuss what you know is historical fact - but simply that there's a time and place for mentioning it, and ways in which one can say things which can make them sound either neutral as if you're giving a history lesson, or, a 'we' against 'them' lesson.

I feel awfully wordy ...

Yours in the Communion of Saints...

Thank you CoS for your words of encouragement and advice. I appreciate that. I will take that into consideration.

When I go to the Orthodox Church, sometimes my friend would greet the newcomers (Protestant or RC), and would sit next to him/her to help that person with what's going on in the Divine Liturgy. Help that person with the Divine Liturgy book, songs, etc. And explain to the person everything that is happening...like why is the priest incensing, having Little Entrance, Great Entrance, you know..the rituals the priest is doing. Ya know? So I would LOVE to do that, of course whispering. But I serve my priest everytime. But it would be wonderful if Diak would come down more often and display his good example of Byzantine way. RIGHT DIAK???

Sometimes I had to internally laugh (not making fun or mock RC at all!)..when they would stick their hand out in Holy Communion...I'm thinking "Oh we don't do that..we stick the spoon to the mouth!" Hehe...so to look at their faces when the priest does that (put spoon in the mouth)...gives them like "disgusting look" on their faces. It's kind of funny in a good way.

I always tend to thank them for coming..and for them to come back again (most of them they don't come back..and don't always seem friendly afterwards even if I was friendly...I guess they weren't impressed with the Byzantine Liturgy...it's too different for them...that's okay. But they could at least be polite and be friendly back...ya know? Anyway, I said it was okay for it to be different for them...that's why I believe that God created "rites" of Churches...for all types of people...who would go to certain rites as a tool to help them become better Christians. Like...Byzantine works for me...and Roman works for them...ya know?).

But, then again, thank you for your imput. You have a pleasant Sunday!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine