OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:56:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why the RCC isn't Orthodox  (Read 10492 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #90 on: November 08, 2003, 05:33:48 AM »

Sam

[The Tridentine Mass and undoubtedly all other liturgies in general]

Which other liturgies?  There are many other rites within the RCC.

I am saying the N.O. does not measure up to any liturgy in Christendom, whether Western or Eastern.

Quote
The Melkite patriarch commenting on the Roman liturgy?!

This has nothing to do with the Roman liturgy.  This has to do with liturgy, period, which is not a plaything or toy for committees or, yes, even the Pope, to fiddle with, and which demands the scrupulous care and protection it requires as a product of centuries that has accumulated the wisdom and careful additions of generations past.

As for the Patriarch, he had much to say to the West, including on the encouragement of the vernacular.

Quote
A new mass wasn't really drawn up it was just get rid of the accretions that had crept in over the years and restoring the Roman rite in its simplicity.
 

That's the claim, but is not the truth.  The Roman Rite of today is essentially a new one despite the basic similiarities in structure with the old.  The old one has undergone an extensive overhaul and any credible person can attest to the N.O.'s significant departure from the old Rite as to qualify as something new altogether.  As for restoring something to its past simplicity (usually imagined), this is but an overused marketing slogan of reforming revolutionaries, which translates to measures as jettisonning the Offertory and inserting optional Canons.

Quote
The other thing is that even if one of the council fathers had made his will known in matters liturgical it was just one opinion the council father who was the pope exercised the final say.

Neither the Pope nor the Council prompted the Roman Church to carry out this liturgical project.  And as for Pope Paul later directing this fiasco--dare I say it?--the Pope was dead wrong, as Popes can very well be.

Quote
Could you cite some of the breached norms?

The case is merely one of recognising the elephant in the sitting room.  What the committee in charge of the new Missal put into effect was anything but organic change or growth; it was a dictat imposed from above that foisted a ready-made product of drastic change on the faithful that was the fruit of a five-year composition.

To an Eastern Christian, this is very apparent.  Imagining a similiar sequence of events taking place in our Churches is a disturbing thought experiment that approaches the surreal when we imagine some people failing to recognise on sight the unorthodox nature of such an enterprise as the one Western liturgists engaged in, should it make its way to our side of the fence.  

As for me personally, to acknowledge the introduction of the N.O. in your Church as something proper is to do likewise in the case of my own Church, something I would not dare be caught dead desiring for my own.

Quote
There's areligious implosion in the Western Church?  So how come there are more RCs (and the numbers are growing) than EOs.  If there was an implosion certainly the numbers should be dropping off.  And what is a "religious implosion"?

There is a catastrophe of faith in the Western Church.  Come to "Catholic" Quebec, where the number of Catholics there should satisfy you, but where less than 5% go to Mass, and goodness knows how many less hold fully orthodox beliefs.

In closing, this thread should not be dragged via a tangent into an argumentative discussion concerning the N.O. and T.L.M. as this is not the purpose of said thread in the first place.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: November 08, 2003, 05:36:05 AM by SamB » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #91 on: November 08, 2003, 08:36:58 AM »

Sam

I agree the thread seems to have gone off on a tangent on liturgy.

[This has nothing to do with the Roman liturgy.  This has to do with liturgy, period, which is not a plaything or toy for committees or, yes, even the Pope, to fiddle with, and which demands the scrupulous care and protection it requires as a product of centuries that has accumulated the wisdom and careful additions of generations past.]

Sam the liturgy is a product of the Church it was not handed down from on high.  If you are right in this then the Council of Trent shouldn't have monkeyed with the Roman rite in the 16th century.  The TLM is only 400 yrs old.

[As for the Patriarch, he had much to say to the West, including on the encouragement of the vernacular.]

Vernacular was already in use prior to V2.

[The old one has undergone an extensive overhaul and any credible person can attest to the N.O.'s significant departure from the old Rite as to qualify as something new altogether.]

I'm still waiting for a credible person to point out to me the departure from the old rite.

[Neither the Pope nor the Council prompted the Roman Church to carry out this liturgical project.]

Then who did?  I've read accounts of the council proceedings.  I don't remember anyone else in the basilica.

I just find it odd that so many people who are not even RC can go on at such length about the horrible NO.  It's a bit like going in to someone else's house and telling them you don't like their table settings.  I really love the liturgy of the EO (James', Basil's, or John's) and the liturgy of the RC not because of the vestments or incense but because of the Reality they represent, the Mystical Supper, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, the Representation of Calvary.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,431



« Reply #92 on: November 08, 2003, 09:25:51 AM »

I agree with your point on aesthetics.  But you know the mass has been offered on the hoods of jeeps or in the trenches in wartime.  The mass has been offered in squalid prison cells with no vestments with the bread and wine in the palm of the priest's hand.  Shouldn't we look beyond the externals to the greater reality that is present.

Plenty of Episcopal Eucharists have been offered under the same circumstances, and in a sense the differences or similarities between the rites hardly matter at all in the cases you've cited. Those are cases where "validity" takes over in the extreme, because the important thing is that the eucharist is offered at all.

But men in battle who come to the eucharist are men who are desperate for the comforts of religion, and they do not come to it every Sunday, but rather whenever they can, which often is rarely. Other than keeping the rite from being laughable in war, the form of the rite is largely irrelevant to that circumstance.

But it's not irrelevant in the parish. Here one has control of the surroundings, and the place is specially designed for worship, and thus the aesthetic matters a great deal. At this point the emphasis on validity betrays, because it authorizes one to cater to every goofy experiment that comes along; or conversely, it leads one to never reflect that what one has "always" done has been done very badly.

Conversely, what I've seen in over twenty years of watching the "rites" issue is that a lot of the complaining about "validity" is simply aesthetic considerations being raised beyond their natural importance. Obviously a rite that "encourages" people to do things badly (or makes it very difficult to do them well) is is a rite that needs revision. But these aren't questions of validity. One can denounce N-O as a bad rite without questioning its validity.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #93 on: November 08, 2003, 10:58:18 AM »

Keble

I suppose you have a point that you can acknowledge the validity of the NO while critizing how it is celebrated.  Some RC parishes do the NO quite well just I've been to some ECUSA parishes that do agood job with the BCP Rite 2.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 31 queries.