Topic: Yikes! Crazy Comparison Between Latin and Byzantine Catholic Churches

[StGeorge]

I encountered this on a Catholic forum.  

http://www.stmarysbc.com/faith.html

I read over the descriptions and was somewhat shocked at how the Roman or Latin Rite is described.  In some ways so frighteningly accurate, yet so wrong in other ways.  

What do you think?

[wynd]

Seems accurate to me. I don't know if it's totally fair to compare the Roman rite "as practiced" vs. the Byzantine rite "on the books" but other than that it's not bad.

[Alpo]

So basically Byzantine Catholism today is what Latin Catholism used to be before 20th century's havoc.

[WetCatechumen]

I encountered this on a Catholic forum.  

http://www.stmarysbc.com/faith.html

I read over the descriptions and was somewhat shocked at how the Roman or Latin Rite is described.  In some ways so frighteningly accurate, yet so wrong in other ways.  

What do you think?

I know this is like two months late, but I couldn't resist.

This is very accurate as to what our liturgies are generally like.

But it is not accurate to how the more traditional among us like it. And things are getting better. My parish is very good when we go by the books. We only have one a week that does that, though.

[Michał]

So basically Byzantine Catholism today is what Latin Catholism used to be before 20th century's havoc.

Not exactly. It's not only about the Antiquus Ordo vs the Novus Ordo. It's also about the East vs the West.

[Alpo]

So basically Byzantine Catholism today is what Latin Catholism used to be before 20th century's havoc.

Not exactly. It's not only about the Antiquus Ordo vs the Novus Ordo. It's also about the East vs the West.

Of course it is and my message was an intentional exaggeration but I still think that much of that which is said to be characteristics of the East in that presentation used to part of the West too before 20th century. For example even though present Latins "like things which are new and modern, and we use them in worship, too" I think that more traditional Latin approach would be same as in the East: "We like to use things that we have received from our ancestors".

[scamandrius]

I love how at the bottom it says that "we have the same catholic faith but express it in different ways" and that "one is not better than the other. Both are Catholic."  But the Latin Rite has been protestantized and coming to church "as you are" in no way expresses any need for repentance or growing in the virtues.  How is that the same faith?  Answer: it isn't, plain and simple.

[Papist]

I love how at the bottom it says that "we have the same catholic faith but express it in different ways" and that "one is not better than the other. Both are Catholic."  But the Latin Rite has been protestantized and coming to church "as you are" in no way expresses any need for repentance or growing in the virtues.  How is that the same faith?  Answer: it isn't, plain and simple.

You really think that our Churches don't call us to repentance and growth in virtue? You must have a very limited experience.

[scamandrius]

^Not the Latin Rite churches which embrace the post-modern, contemporary approach to Christianity.  That was my point.

If all Latin Rite catholics still used the unadulterated uncorrupted form of the Rite of St. Gregory (minus some of the corruptions of Trent), then I would not make such a statement.  But how many Byzantine catholics have incorporated contemporary worship, the "come as you are" mentality?  None of them.  And both those things stress that you are fine the way you are.  There is no repentance in that mentality, not with the Catholics who use it nor the Lutherans who use it nor the Methodists who use it, etc., etc..

[Papist]

^Not the Latin Rite churches which embrace the post-modern, contemporary approach to Christianity.  That was my point.

If all Latin Rite catholics still used the unadulterated uncorrupted form of the Rite of St. Gregory (minus some of the corruptions of Trent), then I would not make such a statement.  But how many Byzantine catholics have incorporated contemporary worship, the "come as you are" mentality?  None of them.  And both those things stress that you are fine the way you are.  There is no repentance in that mentality, not with the Catholics who use it nor the Lutherans who use it nor the Methodists who use it, etc., etc..

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

[Justin Kissel]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it. 

[Papist]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it. 

So abandoning moral truth is development of doctrine, while explicitely stating what the Fathers already believed about the papacy is not? hmmm. Interesting

[Justin Kissel]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it. 

So abandoning moral truth is development of doctrine, while explicitely stating what the Fathers already believed about the papacy is not? hmmm. Interesting

It's about abandoning a terrible and dangerous idea. Contraception is one of about 1,328 bad ideas that earlier Christians had about sexuality. Thankfully many of those ideas were able to pass away without much fuss over the past couple generations. There's still work to do, however. Regarding papal primacy, I suppose I can understand how you would think there is evidence for it... if you squint really hard, and turn your head just so, you can pretend that this or that passage sort of, kinda, maybe, potentially, could possibly evidence the point you want proven.

[Papist]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it.  

So abandoning moral truth is development of doctrine, while explicitely stating what the Fathers already believed about the papacy is not? hmmm. Interesting

It's about abandoning a terrible and dangerous idea. Contraception is one of about 1,328 bad ideas that earlier Christians had about sexuality. Thankfully many of those ideas were able to pass away without much fuss over the past couple generations. There's still work to do, however. Regarding papal primacy, I suppose I can understand how you would think there is evidence for it... if you squint really hard, and turn your head just so, you can pretend that this or that passage sort of, kinda, maybe, potentially, could possibly evidence the point you want proven.

Or if you just read the fathers without the common EO anti-latin lense. But hey, biases are too fun to give up, right?  

[John Larocque]

StuartK's review of Fr. Serge Kelleher's essay "Whatever Happened to the Liturgical Movement (A View From the East)" is a lot of fun. He reprinted it in this thread:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/336684/Fr_Robert_Taft_says_a_history_

I think chunks of this are on the Young Fogey's blog but I don't have that link off hand. Here's some salient bits on the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

But Fr. Serge Kelleher does not look upon the pre-Conciliar Church as a liturgical Eden before the serpent of reform tempted the Church away from the true faith. No, he identifies a number of pre-Conciliar sources for the current crisis. Of these, he covers in detail no fewer than six distinct tendencies:

1. Authoritarian Clericalism. The notion that everything must be done out of obedience of the "because I said so" variety in fact breeds subservience, and not interior religious assent or genuine understanding. He notes that parish priests who heaped abuse on those advocating vernacular liturgy in 1961 could and did use exacting the same language to abuse those advocating the retention of Latin and Gregorian chant in 1968. He notes that the liturgical movement was naive in thinking that this deeply ingrained mindset would be removed by concilliar decree.

2. Idolization of Practicality. Fr. Serge notes that there is a tendancy to measure the success of the Church in concrete terms like numbers of baptisms, marriages, Mass attendance, etc., and less on the spiritual life of the faithful. He quotes a story by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, who whilst travelling with a Roman Catholic priest, happened to bring up Louis Bouyer. The Catholic priest denounced Bouyer, calling the liturgical movement a bunch of romantics with no concern for the "practical" elements of parish life. His supposed clinching argument was to invite Fr. Schmemann to his parish, where he could take a look at the parking lot. Fr. Serge observes that an overly business-like approach to the Holy Mysteries places churches in danger of becoming the sacramental equivalent of gas stations--and he doesn't doubt that Schmemann's parish priest would consider that a compliment.

3. Uneducated and Unconcerned Clergy. Serge Kelleher observes that prior to Vatican II, seminaries and religious orders actively discouraged serious study of the Liturgy. Courses "on" liturgy were actually courses on memorizing the rubrics. Louis Bouyer reports that after joining the Oratory, he was told by his superiors, "You're much too interested in things like Holy Scripture and the liturgy. Real Catholics don't attach suchimportance to those things". Recognize, please, that the Protestant stereotype of Catholic worship did indeed have some basis in truth.

<snip>

5. Overwhelming Preference for the Low Mass. Fr. Serge hurls quite a number of bombshells here. To begin with, he notes that all prostestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the real basis for the Novus Ordo is the Low Mass. He 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.

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.

.

[Papist]

StuartK's review of Fr. Serge Kelleher's essay "Whatever Happened to the Liturgical Movement (A View From the East)" is a lot of fun. He reprinted it in this thread:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/336684/Fr_Robert_Taft_says_a_history_

I think chunks of this are on the Young Fogey's blog but I don't have that link off hand. Here's some salient bits on the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

But Fr. Serge Kelleher does not look upon the pre-Conciliar Church as a liturgical Eden before the serpent of reform tempted the Church away from the true faith. No, he identifies a number of pre-Conciliar sources for the current crisis. Of these, he covers in detail no fewer than six distinct tendencies:

1. Authoritarian Clericalism. The notion that everything must be done out of obedience of the "because I said so" variety in fact breeds subservience, and not interior religious assent or genuine understanding. He notes that parish priests who heaped abuse on those advocating vernacular liturgy in 1961 could and did use exacting the same language to abuse those advocating the retention of Latin and Gregorian chant in 1968. He notes that the liturgical movement was naive in thinking that this deeply ingrained mindset would be removed by concilliar decree.

2. Idolization of Practicality. Fr. Serge notes that there is a tendancy to measure the success of the Church in concrete terms like numbers of baptisms, marriages, Mass attendance, etc., and less on the spiritual life of the faithful. He quotes a story by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, who whilst travelling with a Roman Catholic priest, happened to bring up Louis Bouyer. The Catholic priest denounced Bouyer, calling the liturgical movement a bunch of romantics with no concern for the "practical" elements of parish life. His supposed clinching argument was to invite Fr. Schmemann to his parish, where he could take a look at the parking lot. Fr. Serge observes that an overly business-like approach to the Holy Mysteries places churches in danger of becoming the sacramental equivalent of gas stations--and he doesn't doubt that Schmemann's parish priest would consider that a compliment.

3. Uneducated and Unconcerned Clergy. Serge Kelleher observes that prior to Vatican II, seminaries and religious orders actively discouraged serious study of the Liturgy. Courses "on" liturgy were actually courses on memorizing the rubrics. Louis Bouyer reports that after joining the Oratory, he was told by his superiors, "You're much too interested in things like Holy Scripture and the liturgy. Real Catholics don't attach suchimportance to those things". Recognize, please, that the Protestant stereotype of Catholic worship did indeed have some basis in truth.

<snip>

5. Overwhelming Preference for the Low Mass. Fr. Serge hurls quite a number of bombshells here. To begin with, he notes that all prostestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the real basis for the Novus Ordo is the Low Mass. He 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.

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.

.

Very interesting. This certainly adds some persepctive to the debate.

[John Larocque]

If all Latin Rite catholics still used the unadulterated uncorrupted form of the Rite of St. Gregory (minus some of the corruptions of Trent), then I would not make such a statement.  But how many Byzantine catholics have incorporated contemporary worship, the "come as you are" mentality?  None of them.  And both those things stress that you are fine the way you are.  There is no repentance in that mentality, not with the Catholics who use it nor the Lutherans who use it nor the Methodists who use it, etc., etc..

Trent codified things, they didn't introduce new things. The version that the Antiochians use, for example, has only been lightly altered, and an essay on their website heavily relies upon Fr. Fortescue for a history of the Mass. Most of the corruptions or changes occurred long before Trent - the abandonment of sung masses in favor of the Low Mass, communion under one species etc... As it is, the text of the actual rite, minus some interpolations brought over from the Gallican, adheres closely to the pre-Gallican liturgy celebrated in the City of Rome, including the Eucharistic canon, which seems to have been fixed as far back as the time of St. Gregory the Great.

[Justin Kissel]

Or if you just read the fathers without the common EO anti-latin lense. But hey, biases are too fun to give up, right?  

I'm pretty sure I didn't have an anti-latin lense before I was Orthodox. In fact, I had a difficult time when trying to figure out which Church was who they claimed to be (e.g. whether papal supremacy was what the early Church taught). I came fairly close to choosing Catholicism. Also, every day it looks more likely that I'll be attending the local Catholic College here... I seriously doubt that if I had "the common EO anti-latin" bias I'd put my education in the hands of people who are so proud of being Catholic that they put "we're benedictine!" and "we're attached to a monastery with 150 monks!" and "1/6th of our teachers are monks!" and so forth on every other page of their college catalogue. Not exactly the environment that a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic would choose...

[Iconodule]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it. 

So abandoning moral truth is development of doctrine, while explicitely stating what the Fathers already believed about the papacy is not? hmmm. Interesting

It's about abandoning a terrible and dangerous idea. Contraception is one of about 1,328 bad ideas that earlier Christians had about sexuality. Thankfully many of those ideas were able to pass away without much fuss over the past couple generations.

Yes, thankfully the degenerate spirit of modern secularism and apathy has overwhelmed traditional Christian morals... 

[scamandrius]

^Not the Latin Rite churches which embrace the post-modern, contemporary approach to Christianity.  That was my point.

If all Latin Rite catholics still used the unadulterated uncorrupted form of the Rite of St. Gregory (minus some of the corruptions of Trent), then I would not make such a statement.  But how many Byzantine catholics have incorporated contemporary worship, the "come as you are" mentality?  None of them.  And both those things stress that you are fine the way you are.  There is no repentance in that mentality, not with the Catholics who use it nor the Lutherans who use it nor the Methodists who use it, etc., etc..

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

No what's silly is your refusal to answer the challenge and change the subject.  Arguing with you once again has proven to be a waste of my valuable time.  Please cut me a check for $3.50.  Thank you. 

[Papist]

^Not the Latin Rite churches which embrace the post-modern, contemporary approach to Christianity.  That was my point.

If all Latin Rite catholics still used the unadulterated uncorrupted form of the Rite of St. Gregory (minus some of the corruptions of Trent), then I would not make such a statement.  But how many Byzantine catholics have incorporated contemporary worship, the "come as you are" mentality?  None of them.  And both those things stress that you are fine the way you are.  There is no repentance in that mentality, not with the Catholics who use it nor the Lutherans who use it nor the Methodists who use it, etc., etc..

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

No what's silly is your refusal to answer the challenge and change the subject.  Arguing with you once again has proven to be a waste of my valuable time.  Please cut me a check for $3.50.  Thank you. 

What challenge? The one where you make things up? As always, you have wasted my time. Since I am an educated professional I am going to require more than $3.50.

[Papist]

Or if you just read the fathers without the common EO anti-latin lense. But hey, biases are too fun to give up, right?  

I'm pretty sure I didn't have an anti-latin lense before I was Orthodox. In fact, I had a difficult time when trying to figure out which Church was who they claimed to be (e.g. whether papal supremacy was what the early Church taught). I came fairly close to choosing Catholicism. Also, every day it looks more likely that I'll be attending the local Catholic College here... I seriously doubt that if I had "the common EO anti-latin" bias I'd put my education in the hands of people who are so proud of being Catholic that they put "we're benedictine!" and "we're attached to a monastery with 150 monks!" and "1/6th of our teachers are monks!" and so forth on every other page of their college catalogue. Not exactly the environment that a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic would choose...

No you probably not anti-latin. However, now that you are Eastern Orthodox, anti-Latinism is almost a given. I mean the EO Church is pretty much defined in how it is not Catholic.

[Justin Kissel]

Yes, thankfully the degenerate spirit of modern secularism and apathy has overwhelmed traditional Christian morals... 

I bet if I took ten things that were considered immoral and worthy of penance/excommunication in 15th century Russia, and polled some traditionally-minded Orthodox Christians today about whether these things were immoral, the great majority of the ten that I chose would be considered perfectly fine (within the context of a heterosexual marriage, anyway).

[username!]

I don't quite understand these types of websites.  Catholics urging other Catholics to join their parish of a different rite.  Call home the Greek Catholics who left back to Roman Catholicism but don't poach off the Roman Catholics.  The Greek Catholics use a different liturgy but they are all one church with the Latins... hence, you can't say or shouldn't say as a Greek Catholic "We're all one but your liturgy isn't as good as ours so come over here."  It's putting down yourself, cutting off the nose to spite the face.  
I was just having this conversation yesterday...
While the Orthodox in the USA are getting more members through non-Orthodox converts where are the Greek Catholics getting new members?  
Traditionally both Greek Catholics and Orthodox get new members through marriage and immigration.  The influx of immigrants into both the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox happens but at a trickle compared to earlier immigration influxes.  
The Greek Catholics have a harder sell if you will to the Protestant converts.  Greek Catholicism and Orthodoxy are of course very close to one another.  Most people before the internet who didn't grow up in Pennsylvania have no clue what Greek Catholics are.  
I am not putting Greek Catholics down but sometimes they seem, as in this link, to want to get their new members from the Roman Catholic pool.  I don't think it is the best practice but who am I to judge.  The first conversion we should all strive for is those who left the church for some reaso, then others, and so forth.  Putting down Roman Catholicism by Greek Catholicism to boost membership isn't tasteful, they are after all, members of the same church of Rome.  

[Hermogenes]

Silly post. The parish I attened is not post-modern like those EO Churches that accept contraception.

Development of doctrine, bro. You should try it. 

So abandoning moral truth is development of doctrine, while explicitely stating what the Fathers already believed about the papacy is not? hmmm. Interesting

It's about abandoning a terrible and dangerous idea. Contraception is one of about 1,328 bad ideas that earlier Christians had about sexuality. Thankfully many of those ideas were able to pass away without much fuss over the past couple generations. There's still work to do, however. Regarding papal primacy, I suppose I can understand how you would think there is evidence for it... if you squint really hard, and turn your head just so, you can pretend that this or that passage sort of, kinda, maybe, potentially, could possibly evidence the point you want proven.

Wow! Where can I get the whole list?