www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Rite or Wrong?

Dear Brendan,

It is excellent to hear that you probably gained more good humour having become Orthodox!!

A friend of mine, a convert to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism, used to Cross himself at the drop of a hat.

He made his CO's somewhat uncomfortable.

He invited me to speak at his Orthodox students' club and I travelled to his home city with him.

Along the way, I made the Sign of the Cross whenever he did, passing Churches, cemeteries etc. as I would have anyway.

But he did seem to Cross himself very frequently. At one point, I had to look around to see why he did so and I was at a loss to explain it.

He then turned to me and said, "You see that hill over there? There's a cemetery directly behind it, you can't see it from here."

Apparently not . . .

And don't be so humble, Brendan. I know you were a Melkite, but you were a "Melkite's Melkite."

And you aren't exactly what I would call a standard OCA-er either.

(Good for you - may we all follow your lead, er, as much as possible . . .).

Christ is being Baptized! In the Jordan!

Alex

This is a reply to Memo:

First, I am genuinely dissatisfied with the Novus Ordo, not just my local parish. Upon discovering the beauty, awe, reverence and glory of the Byzantines, I saw what worship truly means. Plus, the fact that the Litury of Chrysostom is over 1600 years old is very attractive to me. The closer I can get to the apostles, the better! The Novus Ordo of today seems to be centered around the individual. It's all about me, me, me. In the Diving Liturgy, it's all about God.

Second, yes I am aware that Pius X is outside the Church. I was just posing these questions so I would know how to answer her. Since she will not listen to anything after Vatican II, I would like to be armed with more ancient references that she would likely accept.

Third, I am not inquiring about changing my Rite. I simply wish to perpetually attend the Divine Liturgy. By the way, even though I am Latin Rite, may I register and belong to a Byzantine parish?

Thanks, everyone, for your input. I am just trying to persuade my sister-in-law that I am not in error in attending the Diving Liturgy. She claims that because the Latin Rite is my heritage and culture, and NOT any Eastern Rite, I must remain. Listen, I couldn't care less about worldly culture. I am a child of God, and as such, I belong to the culture of the one, true God.

Dear Friend,

Further to your sister-in-law's point, even though she isn't here (that's never stopped us before, however).

If she doesn't like the Novus Ordo, then if one is born into that, then must one adhere to it at all costs?

Then what becomes of the Society of St Pius X? Is there message limited only to those Catholics who grew up as Tridentine Riters?

Perhaps St Vladimir did wrong to go against the religion of his ancestors and receive Christianity?

I don't understand.

You better get over to the Byzantine Rite, if you know what's good for you.

Apparently you do!

Alex

Huto,

Two things. First, be careful of what you mean 'closer to the Apostle.' The Byzantine liturgy was known in its day as the most innovative liturgy. Most of the NO changes are actually based on traditions going back further than the 4th C. liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, not including the abuses of those using the NO.

Second, don't let your siste-in-law define the terms of the argument. She is, technically, outside looking in. I believe the current Pope even issued a statement excommunicating everyone associated with this group. The Code of Canons from 1983 is the current rule in the Latin Church. The Church is a living community. Why does your sister-in-law think a liturgy with a chant (Gregorian) is so old? Gregorian chant as we know it is fairly new (180 years - revived as a 'new ordo' of chant-style by the Benedictines in France).

Huto,

The Novus Ordo of today seems to be centered around the individual.

Reminds me of that stupid attempt at Army recruiting a year or so ago, "An Army of One' — so totally what an army is NOT! ( "Get back in line, soldier!' ) Protestantism is a sort of Church of One, a magisterium of one, which is why there are hundreds of denominations — all those little magisteria butting heads!

Apologists for the Novus Ordo often say how much more community-oriented it is but it is a fake community feeling — Thomas Day in his books (read them!) does an excellent job of showing how traditional rites DO reflect and promote real community, even at their alleged worst when people don't sing along, or say their private prayers, etc. The dance, the web, of ritual is an intricate thing — far more subtle than some church worker bellowing a mediocre hymn into a microphone while the congregation understandably doesn't sing along. (What? Ordinary working folk don't LIKE bad ripoffs of Peter, Paul and Mary shouted at them? Zounds!)

Regarding the old (rotten) chestnut that the NO is really purer and more traditional than our artsy-fartsy medieval rites, not only did the Protestants make a very similar mistake, but in 1947, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII addressed this accusation coming from some corners of the otherwise orthodox Roman Catholic liturgical movement. Taking fourth-century practices out of context is not sentire cum Ecclesia — "feeling with the Church' for lack of a better translation. The early Church had simpler rites but also had disciplines that make present-day Orthodox converts look like pikers — ten years' excommunication for masturbating! Liturgies can and do evolve and change but organically at a grassroots level and at a glacial pace. Church authority traditionally respected this and cautiously edited the books from time to time, and even then there were bad reactions from the people (the "People of God' the liberal church-worker types pretend to love so much but really have contempt for — liberals are the biggest clericalists who ever lived) — witness the Old Believer schism from Russian Orthodoxy in the 1600s. The creators of the NO went completely against this natural traditional approach and invented a new ordo of Mass, etc. out of whole cloth, taking modernity as its starting point and model, then backtracking with a false appeal to antiquity like the Protestants.

In every detail of practice, no, the Tridentine Roman and the Byzantine Rites aren't nearly the same as fourth-century liturgics. (However, even liturgists not friendly to traditionalism admit that much of the text of the Roman Mass as early as, oh, 500, would be recognizable to someone who knows "pre-Vatican II'.) But in spirit, with equivalent reverent practices, etc.? Ja, you betcha.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

My friend Edwin, who I do not always agree with, is right on the money here.

First on Gregorian Chant. This was revived by the monk of the Abbey of Solemes in France. I say revived and he says invented because they tried to re-create chant from the Middle Ages, but because it had totally died out, no one knows for sure if it is the same. (not many CD recordings from the 14th c., you know).

Second on patrimony. "I don't like the NO so I am leaving the Latin Church". This reduces patrimony to liturgical rites. Is this statement diferrent from saying I don't like my spouse's fashion sense so I am leaving her?

K.

This may be a simplistic thought, but I wonder how others think about this: I think that it is much easier to be distracted from communal worship at the Western Mass (old or new) than at the Liturgy of St. John. The pace and movements of the Divine Liturgy keep me focused. Any responses? Vito

Wow! A different perception of Western Liturgy and it communitarian focus.

That's an interesting twist. Usually the emphasis on the gathering of the Body of Christ to worship in community in the Western liturgy is considered a fault by some posting on the forum.

Personally, having worshipped in all three rites, all three have emphasized community, though in different ways and to different degrees.

I guess it's a matter of what or who is doing the
distracting.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Dear Steve, Perhaps this is just my personal weakness, but during quiet times at Mass I have a difficult time. I prefer to be alone for personal prayer and meditation. I guess what I am saying is that the Divine Liturgy draws me outside of my self. Does this make any sense? Vito

Steve,

Very good point. The critics of the NO seem to offer objections that conflict with each other. Clearly, various thoughts can be raised as to the virtues of the former Latin liturgy (now never experienced by most Roman Catholics) but wholesale return seems a dead and unpopular cause.

K.

Hi Huto:


May I suggest that it is possible that you are dissatisfied with YOUR PERCEPTION of the Novus Ordo and not really with the Novus Ordo itself?

Let me start by dropping the term "Novus Ordo" altogether. A more proper name is the Roman Missal. The official Rite for the Eucharist of the Latin Church.

The Tridentine Rite is still valid and lawful through a pastoral provision, as long as the Pope and the Local Bishop authorizes it, and one of the conditions is that the groups that ask for Tridentine Masses, must explicitly acknoledge the official Rite as valid, lawful and, well, official.

I do agree with our Hierarchs that the desire to express the faith using the Tridentine Rite is legitimate.

I would even agree that the liturgical reformers of 30 years ago, perhaps overdid it a little bit. But if their authority was legitimate, then the outcome of the reform is valid until the legitimate authority says otherwise.

Last, but not least. Have you experienced the current Latin Mass outside the United States? The US is the only country that still uses the first revision of the Roman Missal. Everybody else is using the second revision.

The English translation of the first revision, the one used here in the US is REALLY awful. This isn't so elsewhere.

The third revision is just around the corner. I hope the English translations are more faithful this time.


Interesting. You say that the current Roman Missal seems to be centered around the individual and you say so as a complain. And yet, for a liturgy to satisfy YOU, it has to appeal to YOUR sense of beauty, awe, reverence and glory; it has to fulfill YOUR understanding of what worship really means; and it has to comply to YOUR feelings of being close to the apostles.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't there too much of YOU in your complain againts the Roman Missal's individualism?


In the Roman Mass it is also all about God, really.

If I am allowed to be blunt and a little simplistic, I'd take just a single thing that the Byzantine and Tridentine Rites have in common, that they do not share with the usual practice of the Novus Ordo and that is a favorite topic in this God-centered vs. human-centered liturgical debete.

This thig is, of course, the posture of the celebrant.

When both the Tridentine Rite was developed, both Latins and Byzantines had the celebrants facing the altar in the same way the rest of the asembly did. A key issue here is that both the celebrant and the assembly were supposed to understand the same liturgical language and therefore, the priest was perceived as facing the sanctuary, LEADING and PRESIDING the people's prayer, praying together in the Holy Synaxis.

Later, when Latin died as the vernacular, this perception slowly drifted away, until the general perception was that the celebrant was no longer leader and presider, but actually the guy running the show, a show we do not understand and do not feel part of and on top of that, he is giving his back to us.

This is important, because in the Byzantine Churches the celebrant is still a kind of ambassador from the assembly to the Sanctuary of God and therefore his posture is very appropriate.

And then came the Latin liturgical reforms, and the priest now faces the people from the opposite side of the altar. Traditionalists would insist that this is utterly wrong because we is now giving his back to God and offering the Holy Sacrifice to the people and not to God.

This is plain wrong. If the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice to God, and to make that explicit he faces the Icon of Christ or the Crucifix in the sanctuary, that's fine. But if he turns around, he will get something far better than Icons and Crucifixes. There, there where the Christian assembly is, there is God.

Am I making my point? I agree that the Latin Church, after Vatican II is placing the emphasis in the Christian Community, but not because of the Christian Community would somehow be replacing God as some believe (or claim to believe), on the contrary, this emphasis is because we remembered where God really is, where Love is true, and Christian Love can only be true in the context of a Community, a Community that includes God.


Don't loose your time in endless debates with her. She has Moses and the Prophets, if she doesn't believe them, she won't believe even if a dead rose up again.


You may do that, yes. But please be aware that being a Christian is not reduced to attending the celebration of the Eucharist every Sunday.

Decide which parish is the one where you fit in and make that your spiritual home. Be a parishoner and live the Catholic Faith to its fullness in the context of your parish community.


I'm not positive, but why not? Registering yourself as a parishoner has no canonical implications that I know of, so there shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried?

Shalom,
Memo.

Glad to hear a newer, better version of the current Roman Mass exists in most of the world. Hope the US follows suit soon.

But if their authority was legitimate, then the outcome of the reform is valid until the legitimate authority says otherwise.

Not the reforms themselves but the "outcome' must be accepted as "valid'? I refuse to call black objects white, even if hierarchs ask for that.

Interesting. You say that the current Roman Missal seems to be centered around the individual and you say so as a complain. And yet, for a liturgy to satisfy YOU, it has to appeal to YOUR sense of beauty, awe, reverence and glory; it has to fulfill YOUR understanding of what worship really means; and it has to comply to YOUR feelings of being close to the apostles.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't there too much of YOU in your complain againts the Roman Missal's individualism?

Nice try. But the standard isn't Huto's or Serge's Taste Test ( "I like Gothic, and you like rococo... ' ). It's the common objective character and equivalent reverent practices of ALL the traditional rites. An objective standard, too.

Regarding the position of the priest celebrant, Thomas Day has some excellent things to say about that, particularly the "Star Wars throne room' look of too many American NO sanctuaries. "Puffff... hissss... bring Luke Skywalker to me! Now let's join hands and sing “Isn't God a Nice Guy!” Have a nice day.' Seriously, distorting the altar like that changes the service from Godward common prayer into "the Father Bob Show'. His face is in the spotlight, sometimes literally, and perhaps enjoying the ego boost he feels compelled to perform and ad-lib (to show just what a charming guy he is), as in "Good evening, ladies and germs'. Ugh.

The rubricism of the old rites ensures the common-prayer aspect and gets rid of such shameful exhibitions.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Hi:


Yes, only that the hierarchs don't have authority to change the names of the colors.

They do have authority over the Liturgy. So, when the hierarchs ask you to call something a "Mass" you should call it a "Mass".


Which was never questioned by my post and has never been questioned by the Roman Missal.

Mainstream Latins are not complaining about the Tridentine Rite. We all agree it is a valid Rite for the celebration of the Eucharist and still lawful wherever the Local Ordinary considers it prudent.

Moderate Traditional Latins have the right to request the Tridentine Rite to be preserved and used. We all agree with that.

What is against Catholic discipline is to reject the current Roman Missal as invalid or unlawful. You may not like it, it's your priviledge to have taste (good or bad), but it is not within your realm of authority to reject liturgical reforms.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hokay, here we go.

"Later, when Latin died as the vernacular, this perception slowly drifted away, until the general perception was that the celebrant was no longer leader and presider, but actually the guy running the show"

I think, Memo, that this is still the case in the minds of many Latin Catholics, regardless of the change in language and posture. The Latin priest is still very much the guy running the show. I actually don't think this results from the liturgical reform, but from a latent clericalism that is still present in the Latin Church, in spite of all of the lay ministers that have been introduced. In my opinion, the present posture of the priest in most parishes somewhat aggravates this, because he is very much the center of attention, even more than he was when he was facing "liturgical east".

"Traditionalists would insist that this is utterly wrong because we is now giving his back to God and offering the Holy Sacrifice to the people and not to God."

I think that some would say that it is not appropriate because it is not in accordance with the common liturgical tradition of all of the other apostolic churches. There is (or at least, there was) a common understanding of liturgical posture in all the churches that bore witness to the underlying one-ness of all of the apostolic churches, despite our present divisions. Sadly, this was partially lost with some of the reforms taken, including this one.

"This is plain wrong. If the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice to God, and to make that explicit he faces the Icon of Christ or the Crucifix in the sanctuary, that's fine. But if he turns around, he will get something far better than Icons and Crucifixes. There, there where the Christian assembly is, there is God."

Hmm. I see a Trinitarian issue here. I would have thought that where the Christian assembly is gathered, there is *Christ* in their midst (ie the "Body of Christ"). The eucharistic sacrifice is the self-offering of Christ to the *Father* - in all rites, Latin, Byzantine and Oriental. It's not the offering of Christ to Himself, at least not per the words of the liturgies. Therefore, yet again, the posture of the priest facing the assembly, the Body of Christ, does not seem to support the (self) offering of Christ to the Father, or at the very least is rather confusing in that regard.

"Am I making my point? I agree that the Latin Church, after Vatican II is placing the emphasis in the Christian Community, but not because of the Christian Community would somehow be replacing God as some believe (or claim to believe), on the contrary, this emphasis is because we remembered where God really is, where Love is true, and Christian Love can only be true in the context of a Community, a Community that includes God."

I honestly believe that traditional rites are more communitarian, in a deeper sense, than the present Latin rite. In my many years of the Latin rite (all of them the post-Vatican-II rite), I have never felt the one-ness, the solidarity with fellow worshippers, that I feel in a well-served Byzantine liturgy (we have our poorly served liturgies as well, of course... :-)).

I don't mean this as a knock, but simply as my own opinion. In my opinion, the present Latin liturgy resembles, in many ways, a theatrical performance, with the altar as the "stage" and the congregation as the "audience". It doesn't *feel* very communitarian to me. It's possible that some of this is a hangover from the Tridentine time, I don't know ... but it seems to me, at least, that the posture of the priest has an impact on this.

I'm not a big backer of the Tridentine rite. I support the vernacular and recognize that there was a need for liturgical renewal. I *do* have opinions about the renewal that came, however, and I do think, contrary to what Steve has written elsewhere, that Orthodox (particularly former Catholics who are now Orthodox) have a responsibility to offer constructive critiques in a fraternal, charitable spirit -- with the goal of helping restore a more broad commonality of the Latin liturgy with the rites of other apostolic churches.

Brendan

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]