www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Females at Altar

Robert,


You state:
"Although the Western Rite Orthodox use the book of common prayer/Novus Ordo with doctrinal corrections and insertions of an explicit epiclesis these still are not authentic Western Orthodox Liturgies."

Reply: the Western Rite Orthodox use the Liturgy of St. Gregory (Tridentine) and the Liturgy of St. Tikhon (Corrected Anglican). Ther Missal of St Andrew does not contain the Pauline Liturgy.


You also state:
"Even Pope Paul VI himself declared that his Mass was patterned after the liturgy of Calvin. And it does not take a greenhorn in liturgical scholarship to see the similarities between Protestant Liturgical forms and the New Revised Roman Sacramentary."

Reply:
I see this stated a lot and it seems to me those saying it have never been to a Protestant liturgy. First, of course there are similarities because even though they changed some parts and deleted others the base of mainline Protestant liturgy is the Roman Liturgy. But as far as Presbyterian liturgy goes, and I have been to several, there is but a slight similarity. The Presbyterians are far to conservative to allow some of the nonsense that goes on in some Latin parishes. Second, High Church Lutheran and Anglican services closely resemble the dignity of the Tridentine Mass, more so than some Novus Order Masses I have seen. Third, if one compares the Missal of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI side by side in the original Latin one can see very little has changed. Gone are the prayers at the foot of the altar but these were originally the private prayers of the priest as was the Last Gospel, so I would concur it is correct to take them from the public part of the Liturgy. The offertory prayers are the most changed part and I don't care for the new ones. The Confiteor, the Kyrie, the Gloria, Psalm, Epistle, Alleluia, Gospel, Nicene Creed, Preface, Sanctus, Canon, Our Father, Agnus Dei, are all there. Added, were the Old Testament reading, Prayers of the Faithful, several Prefaces and 10 more Canons. Looks preety much the same to me. Of cource many ICEL translations are crappy and abuses occur but that is not the Missal of Paul VI's fault.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

The reason could be this:

Boys who serve as Altar Boys represent in a tender way, a future symbolic vocation to priesthood, so, the presence of the Altar girls in the Western Church leads them to a false situation.

According to some books written by Portuguese missionaries, the Ethiopian Church used to ordain little boys as deacons, monks and even priests, and some girls also served during the liturgy as cantors, and they refer to them as deaconesses.

As you've said, many of these reforms in the Western Church (intentionally or not) are preparing the field for the installation of married priesthood, and then female priesthood, in the Latin Rite.
In fact, many female Eucharistic ministers and lay "pastoral" administrators of priestless parishes now do most of what a priest does (wearing liturgical vestments, carrying the sacred vessels, etc).

Robert,

We all have our opinions, many of them strong, and many of them well-developed as to what we think of liturgy. But I think seeting aside our own judgement for a minute, we must ask the question, "what does the (Orthodox) Church say about the Roman Liturgy?".

Now, I am fairly familiar with all of the modern Orthodox-Roman Catholic official dialogue and ecumencial initiatives. Maybe it is my poor scholarship, but I cannot find the Orthodox Church ever raising the Roman Catholic liturgical renewal (or female altar servers, to be more specific) as a proble, for us Orthodox.

I hope we are all aware that the dialogue, most of which has been since the Catholic Vatican Council, has been wide ranging and broad. I simply cannot find such a document from canoncial Orthodoxy. It has not been limited to core dogmatic differences but has touched topics which even we have little difference in order to develop practical experience in working together (for example, Biblical scholarship).

As an ecumenist, I find it difficult to suggest a difficulty or cause of division exists that our own Orthodox bishops don't have.

Again, I respect everyone's opinions as to liturgy, but let us not project our opinions on to the Orthodox Church's dialogue with Catholicism.

Axios

Good points Axios, as usual...

The Orthodox have never even discussed the new Liturgy (35 years later, is it still "new")? at any official theological dialogue. That argument is basicaly bunk. Sure, there are individual Orthodox theologians who have criticism of the new Roman Rite. But there are also Orthodox theologians who criticize the Western Rite in Orthodoxy as well. I have heard as many criticisms from my Orthodox bretheren about the old "private masses" as I have about the newer liturgy.

The more participational nature of the liturgy now and liturgy in the vernacular are much more resonant with Eastern Christian liturgy than the old "private masses" or "low masses" so common in the pre-Vatican II days. Liturgically this type of minimalist approach would create more problems now (I believe) in the ecumenical dialogue.

Liturgical abuses and norms do exist in the Latin liturgy but must be addressed by the Latins through their own hierarchy. Armchair quarterbacking here won't help that out. We need to take care of the order of our own house.

Remie, your statement on the Portuguese missionaries shows how little they understand Eastern practice, calling cantors "deaconesses"...sheesh

Those texts are quite interesting, in spite of their ignorance about the Eastern Rite, I admire the braveness of these missionaries and the goodness of their hearts.
Their mission was to bring the Ethiopian Church into Communion with Rome. One of the Ethiopian Kings did convert and the whole Church accepted the union, but when the Portuguese brought their armies and their violence, people disagreed and the portuguese were expelled. Many portuguese missionaries also suffered persecution by their own people because they tried to defend the Ethiopians.

About the new western liturgy. No Orthodox Patriarch has issued any statement about it, and there's not a clear theological document with a complete analysis, but many bishops and modern authors have been very critical about it (there are many jokes about this mass)and openly reject this new protestantized liturgy.

Paul de Ballester, Greek Orthodox Bishop of Mexico until 1985, a former Spanish Franciscan, then Greek Orthodox monk, was a suporter of the true ecumenism and hardly believed that the union East-West was possible. He had great hopes after the lifting of the anathemas and the beggining of Vatican II, but the final results of the Council were very shocking to him, and he got very dissapointed.

He thought that the new obstacles of this new liturgy that represented a rupture with the Christian Tradition, would be more difficult to overcome than those that previously existed. He also predicted an enormous crisis of faith in the Western Church and the modern world as a result of this mass.
"The Orthodox Church cannot be silent about this radical departure, the destruction of the latin tradition (a tradition he loved so much!), the extinction of every orthodox thing that existed in the latin liturgy..."

[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

Just a little addendum to Stuart's comprehensive presentation of the female Diaconate.

- Women deacons did have some liturgical role. E.g. during a Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, they were to bring the Holy Mysteries from the Bishop [or Holy Table] back to the Proskomydinyk.

- They are referred to in the Greek as Women Deacons [the form of the word is "diakonos"]. That is so in the Bible at least, e.g. in reference to St. Phoebe. I presume that this form was used to refer to the other women deacons there after, e.g. Saints Macrina, Nonna, Melania [as in the New Years party], etc.

cix

herb.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:
[QB]
>>>Those texts are quite interesting, in spite of their ignorance about the Eastern Rite, I admire the braveness of these missionaries and the goodness of their hearts.
Their mission was to bring the Ethiopian Church into Communion with Rome. One of the Ethiopian Kings did convert and the whole Church accepted the union, but when the Portuguese brought their armies and their violence, people disagreed and the portuguese were expelled. Many portuguese missionaries also suffered persecution by their own people because they tried to defend the Ethiopians.<<<

Well, let me say that a true fan of uniatism is hard to find, but there you are. As for the Portuguese and their missionaries, please allow me to say that I have absolutely no sympathy for them, and had the Ethiopians not ejected them, the result would have been the same as in India, where the Portuguese encountered the Mar Thoma Christians and attempted blatant ecclesiacide (Look up the "Synod of Diamper" if you are interested; I'm sure some of Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East bretheren would be most enlightening).

Fan of uniatism?

No, just an ecumenical thinking I supose.
Actually, Portuguese Catholicism, and Spanish Catholicism are the worst examples of christian charity and the worst examples of Catholicism.

As for the Portuguese and their missionaries, please allow me to say that I have absolutely no sympathy for them, and had the Ethiopians not ejected them, the result would have been the same as in India, where the Portuguese encountered the Mar Thoma Christians and attempted blatant ecclesiacide (Look up the "Synod of Diamper" if you are interested; I'm sure some of Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East bretheren would be most enlightening).

Portuguese = BAD BAD BAD

Nonetheless, the missionaries were there to bring the Ethiopians into communion with Rome. With all that implied at that time and in that place. There was nothing admirable about it at all. It was a blatant attempt by members of one Church to impose their Tradition upon another--or, to be more precise, to abolish one Church and set up another.

Herbigny, excellent point. It cannot be said categorically that the deaconesses did not have a liturgical role.

Robert (Horvath) I noticed on the first page of this thread you stated that we "can't have married priests like our Orthodox brethren." I don't know what you are referring to. In the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Chicago we probably have 40-50% married priests now. In the Eparchies of Stamford (Conn.) it is probably about the same and their bishop has publically ordained married men in the last two years.

That is a bit low. Make your arguments intellectually but don't stoop to ad hominem

Slava Isusu Christu!

My thing was if Axios supports a so-called Orthodox/Eastern Rite gay and lesbian group that encourages a non-Orthodox view of the human person (supporting homosexual practice) just how credible is his Voice for Orthodoxy? Just a question? In the Apostolic view of the person we are not to associate ourselves with our sins, but to manfully fight them and to not give up the 'good fight'. I visited the www.axios.net [axios.net] site could not believe that such a thing existed! I knew the Latins and the Prots had things like this but not us! God have mercy on them and lead them to Repentance.

To deal with the issue of the modern Roman Rite: Remie's quote of His Grace Paul is also telling. Again, it will be an issue in porgressive dialogue with the Orthodox in the future.

We are still talking about the filioque and papal authority with them - liturgy will come later I suppose.

Anyway got to go work; God bless.

In the Theotokos:


Robert