OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 09:35:33 AM *
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 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: More Good News: Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue  (Read 12966 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: May 17, 2011, 01:04:42 PM »

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

Full article here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm

We Catholics may be gaining some real ground here. Praise God!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 01:04:59 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2011, 01:15:52 PM »

It remains to be seen whether or not this will be a good thing, either as far as the Latin Church is conserned or as far as the Orthodox are concerned.  But I see no reason why to not be cautiously optimistic at this point.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 01:23:53 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2011, 01:30:03 PM »

Quote
Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration.

I think this is the key point of the article. If Rome is to return to orthodoxy, as Pope Benedict wishes, the Eucharistic celebration must be seen as a Paschal celebration.

In Orthodoxy, we sing the Sunday Paschal Troparia even during Great Lent. This is precisely why the Presanctified Liturgy is used during the weekdays of Lent as the Divine Liturgy would not be appropriate.

Therefore, I think this is a very positive development and I laud Pope Benedict XVI.

Praise the Lord.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,951



« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2011, 02:13:08 PM »

Quote from: Cardinal Koch
In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite

If I understand correctly His Holiness is a lot more fond to Extraordinary form than Ordinary from so I'm guessing Ordinary form will be eventually somewhat "tridentized".

Deo gratias.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 02:13:43 PM by Alpo » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2011, 02:21:08 PM »

Quote from: Cardinal Koch
In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite

If I understand correctly His Holiness is a lot more fond to Extraordinary form than Ordinary from so I'm guessing Ordinary form will be eventually somewhat "tridentized".

Deo gratias.
I am hoping for the same thing.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,089


"My god is greater."


« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2011, 02:26:49 PM »

There are some churches that are just so hideous that, no matter how your shuffle the furniture, the EF would be totally out of place.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2011, 02:39:29 PM »

There are some churches that are just so hideous that, no matter how your shuffle the furniture, the EF would be totally out of place.
Hopefully those churches will be remodeled as time goes on.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2011, 03:37:59 PM »

"...In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."
So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2011, 03:44:26 PM »

"...In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."
So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.

I think the point is that the Council itself was not a rupture but, rather, what certain people did in its wake.  If one reads only the documents produced by Vatican II, it is difficult to see a rupture. 

Keep also, in mind, that the Novus Ordo was not a direct product of the Council.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2011, 03:56:39 PM »


So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.

I think the point is that the Council itself was not a rupture but, rather, what certain people did in its wake.  If one reads only the documents produced by Vatican II, it is difficult to see a rupture. 

Keep also, in mind, that the Novus Ordo was not a direct product of the Council.

I beg to differ.  The documents on the Liturgy permitted all kinds of experimentation.  Example the Constitution on the Liturgy said that the priest MAY face the people.  However, in bureaucratic institutions this means, "yeah, go ahead and do it the higher ups won't stop you."  Now you have whack jobs like the recently retired Cardinal Mahony lamenting the new Novus Ordo.  Well, this wasn't reform that came into the Church.... it  was liturgical destruction.  Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 707


« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2011, 04:12:41 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2011, 04:16:58 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2011, 04:23:01 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:23:34 PM by Irish_Melkite » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2011, 04:24:39 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?
I think that if the Pope leads the movement to reform the liturgy (I doubt he would do it by fiat, because of the pastoral implications), once the liturgy is restored, it won't be altered for a very long time. At that point, people will probably be just sick and tired of alterations to the liturgy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2011, 04:31:19 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2011, 04:34:08 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.

Why not the TLM in the venacular?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2011, 04:39:15 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.

Why not the TLM in the venacular?

The TLM does not allow for communion under both species, but the pre-schism Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory had communion under both species, the Trisagion in Greek and Latin, various processions, and litanies (petitions). It was a longer and more devout Liturgy (probably lasting around 60 to 90 minutes or even longer).

Unfortunately, the reformers around 800 AD wanted to get rid of any Eastern influence including use of leavened bread, Trisagion Hymn, processions, and litanies.

I gave up on the novus ordo and went East (joining the Melkites first) when the Mass in the vernacular was said in 15 to 30 minutes.
I remember the priests telling us that the private Latin Mass (TLM) could be said in 15 to 30 minutes flat with experience, and that the vernacular would prevent that kind of abuse because it could be said with more focus and attention. Nonsense. Both the TLM and the Novus Ordo have been abused time wise.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:47:47 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2011, 05:24:14 PM »



Here is a really interesting two part film that critics the entire RC liturgical movement, even the pore Vatican II one which dated back to, at least the early 19Th century.  Although a lot of people might find this mans arguments to be  a bit reactionary and even somewhat absurd, he makes a good case why the supposed self destruction of the Catholic mass did not just start overnight in the 1960's, but was a long, drawn out process which spanned centuries until it finally bore fruition.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2011, 07:45:08 PM »

...Keep also, in mind, that the Novus Ordo was not a direct product of the Council.
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963
 
1…”The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy. …”
 …“25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world. “
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 07:46:01 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2011, 08:17:39 PM »

And that resulted in Inter Oecumenici, which is most decidedly not Novus Order of Paul VI.  The so-called "interim Mass" of 1965 was the product of V2.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2011, 09:02:48 PM »



Here is a really interesting two part film that critics the entire RC liturgical movement, even the pore Vatican II one which dated back to, at least the early 19Th century.  Although a lot of people might find this mans arguments to be  a bit reactionary and even somewhat absurd, he makes a good case why the supposed self destruction of the Catholic mass did not just start overnight in the 1960's, but was a long, drawn out process which spanned centuries until it finally bore fruition.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related



Interesting video, thanks.

I think this should be a warning to us Orthodox: dangerous creeping movements need to be nipped in the bud before they mount a real threat to the Church. It took 500 years to destroy the Mass, but it happened.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 09:07:06 PM by bogdan » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2011, 09:18:36 PM »

"...In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."
So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2011, 09:52:51 PM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.
So, Father, you would not consider the prayers (in the Tridentine Mass) 'Quam oblationem' and/or 'Supplices te rogamus' to be satisfactory from your point of view?
Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus, benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui Dómini nostri Jesu Christi.

Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot, ex hac altáris participatióne, sacrosánctum Fílii tui, Corpus et Sánguinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cœlésti, et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2011, 10:19:27 PM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.

Whenever a thread like this pops up with people chiming in about just how great the Tridentine mass is, and how wonderful it would be if it could just come back and displace the novus ordo once and for all, I consider it my duty to reply and say something like: Give me a properly celebrated novus ordo mass with good music any day over any Tridentine mass.  I really wonder how many people who sing the praises of the Tridentine mass have ever actually been to one, and if they have, whether they were paying attention (as much as is possible for the laity to do in this mass!) to what was going on.  The entire canon of the mass (ie anaphora)- all of it!- and many other important parts of the liturgy - are recited privately by the priest with a couple of acolytes or an acolyte and a deacon!  Does the novus ordo have problems?  There is no doubt that this is the case.  It is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for pre-Vatican II clericalism, among other problems.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2011, 10:33:07 PM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.
So, Father, you would not consider the prayers (in the Tridentine Mass) 'Quam oblationem' and/or 'Supplices te rogamus' to be satisfactory from your point of view?
Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus, benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui Dómini nostri Jesu Christi.
Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot, ex hac altáris participatióne, sacrosánctum Fílii tui, Corpus et Sánguinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cœlésti, et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Is the Angel the Holy Spirit?  Why not just say Holy Spirit, like we know He was invoked by the early Roman Church, from St. Hippolytus' time?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2011, 10:47:19 PM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.

Whenever a thread like this pops up with people chiming in about just how great the Tridentine mass is, and how wonderful it would be if it could just come back and displace the novus ordo once and for all, I consider it my duty to reply and say something like: Give me a properly celebrated novus ordo mass with good music any day over any Tridentine mass.  I really wonder how many people who sing the praises of the Tridentine mass have ever actually been to one, and if they have, whether they were paying attention (as much as is possible for the laity to do in this mass!) to what was going on. The entire canon of the mass (ie anaphora)- all of it!- and many other important parts of the liturgy - are recited privately by the priest with a couple of acolytes or an acolyte and a deacon!  Does the novus ordo have problems? There is no doubt that this is the case. IT is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for privatising II clericalism, among other problems.  
I was one of those people who used to cheerlead for the Tridentine Mass every chance I had (Despite never having been to one in my life).  I bought into all the rightist rhetoric about how wonderful the pre Vatican II RCC was and how rotten everything had become since the Council.  When I finally started regularly attending a TLM, I was shocked by how cold and austere it was compared to the modern Roman rite which I had taken such delight in trashing as being unpoetical and bland.  Much to My chagrin, the prayers that I had so long admired in my Latin/English hand Missal were said inaudibly by the priest and the only things that were said aloud were the "Peoples Parts of the Mass" (Kyrie, Gloria, etc...).  Around 80% of the Mass was just inaudible mumbling from the priest.  Not only that, but the vast majority of it was almost impossible to follow even with the sue of hand missal.  No sooner had the choir finished singing the Sanctus, the priest was performing the consecration and no sooner had you realized that the consecration had occurred, the Pater Nostre was already being chanted.  This is because, unlike the Novus Ordo the Tridentine Mass is basically the private prayer of the priest which is being said  out of sync with the "Peoples  Parts", (either deliberately or by accident I'm not sure).  

No wonder why most pre Vatican II RC's used to just recite private prayer and devotions during the Mass.  Keeping up with it is almost impossible for a layman to do.  You either have to make the choice to keep track of what the priest is saying in the Missal or participate in the congregations parts (Which are usually done by the choir).  Not an easy task at all.  At least the revised Roman Rite, by making the priest dialogue with the congregation during the Mass allows for the laity to be able to keep up with him and therefore more fully participate.  I guess having most of the liturgy said inaudibly is just asking for such abuses to occur.

I have since stopped attending a Latin Mass and am far more empathetic to those older priest and laity whom wanted no part in the return to this type of Mass and who  I used to frequently cross swords with because of those opinions.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 10:53:32 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2011, 01:05:16 AM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.
So, Father, you would not consider the prayers (in the Tridentine Mass) 'Quam oblationem' and/or 'Supplices te rogamus' to be satisfactory from your point of view?
Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus, benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui Dómini nostri Jesu Christi.
Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot, ex hac altáris participatióne, sacrosánctum Fílii tui, Corpus et Sánguinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cœlésti, et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Is the Angel the Holy Spirit?  Why not just say Holy Spirit, like we know He was invoked by the early Roman Church, from St. Hippolytus' time?
God is being invoked, and the angel is carrying the gifts to His Altar.
Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus, benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui Dómini nostri Jesu Christi.
Humbly we pray Thee, O God, be pleased to make this same offering wholly blessed , to consecrate  it and approve  it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body  and Blood  of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot, ex hac altáris participatióne, sacrosánctum Fílii tui, Corpus et Sánguinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cœlésti, et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen
Humbly we beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, so that those of us who shall receive the most sacred Body  and Blood  of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this Altar may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2011, 03:00:47 AM »

Well, I can't speak for you guys, but while some things of N.O. are negative, some positive items did come out of it, such as the reinstatement of the epiklesis.

Whenever a thread like this pops up with people chiming in about just how great the Tridentine mass is, and how wonderful it would be if it could just come back and displace the novus ordo once and for all, I consider it my duty to reply and say something like: Give me a properly celebrated novus ordo mass with good music any day over any Tridentine mass.  I really wonder how many people who sing the praises of the Tridentine mass have ever actually been to one, and if they have, whether they were paying attention (as much as is possible for the laity to do in this mass!) to what was going on. The entire canon of the mass (ie anaphora)- all of it!- and many other important parts of the liturgy - are recited privately by the priest with a couple of acolytes or an acolyte and a deacon!  Does the novus ordo have problems? There is no doubt that this is the case. IT is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for privatising II clericalism, among other problems.  
I was one of those people who used to cheerlead for the Tridentine Mass every chance I had (Despite never having been to one in my life).  I bought into all the rightist rhetoric about how wonderful the pre Vatican II RCC was and how rotten everything had become since the Council.  When I finally started regularly attending a TLM, I was shocked by how cold and austere it was compared to the modern Roman rite which I had taken such delight in trashing as being unpoetical and bland.  Much to My chagrin, the prayers that I had so long admired in my Latin/English hand Missal were said inaudibly by the priest and the only things that were said aloud were the "Peoples Parts of the Mass" (Kyrie, Gloria, etc...).  Around 80% of the Mass was just inaudible mumbling from the priest.  Not only that, but the vast majority of it was almost impossible to follow even with the sue of hand missal.  No sooner had the choir finished singing the Sanctus, the priest was performing the consecration and no sooner had you realized that the consecration had occurred, the Pater Nostre was already being chanted.  This is because, unlike the Novus Ordo the Tridentine Mass is basically the private prayer of the priest which is being said  out of sync with the "Peoples  Parts", (either deliberately or by accident I'm not sure).  

No wonder why most pre Vatican II RC's used to just recite private prayer and devotions during the Mass.  Keeping up with it is almost impossible for a layman to do.  You either have to make the choice to keep track of what the priest is saying in the Missal or participate in the congregations parts (Which are usually done by the choir).  Not an easy task at all.  At least the revised Roman Rite, by making the priest dialogue with the congregation during the Mass allows for the laity to be able to keep up with him and therefore more fully participate.  I guess having most of the liturgy said inaudibly is just asking for such abuses to occur.

I have since stopped attending a Latin Mass and am far more empathetic to those older priest and laity whom wanted no part in the return to this type of Mass and who  I used to frequently cross swords with because of those opinions.



My investigation into both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass led me to look into the Eastern Church, and then become an Orthodox Christian. Had Rome allowed the return of the ancient and Orthodox Divine Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory dating back to the 6th century, which would have corrected the abuses in the Tridentine Mass, I might still be a Catholic today. However, Rome has detoured too far from Orthodoxy as seen by manufacturing a new 20th century Biblical translation (using inclusive language) and a new Mass (the novus ordo) with their many errors.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 03:05:58 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2011, 03:09:05 AM »


So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.

I think the point is that the Council itself was not a rupture but, rather, what certain people did in its wake.  If one reads only the documents produced by Vatican II, it is difficult to see a rupture.  

Keep also, in mind, that the Novus Ordo was not a direct product of the Council.

I beg to differ.  The documents on the Liturgy permitted all kinds of experimentation.  Example the Constitution on the Liturgy said that the priest MAY face the people.  

Not true. It didn't even mention it.

http://www.adoremus.org/0405LiturgicalPrayer.html

I find it astonishing that people still put so many words into Sacrosanctum Concilium's mouth, even 50 years later.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 03:09:37 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2011, 03:11:54 AM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Pope Benedict has no intention of accomplishing this "merger" within his lifetime---or perhaps even mine, and I'm only 31. He wants this to happen slowly, incrementally, and as naturally as possible.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2011, 03:15:52 AM »

If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.


On the contrary, that's a pretty horrible idea. Why don't you "find" liturgical books of the Byzantine rite from circa 600 A.D. and just adopt them yourself? We both can play archaeology. Better yet, let's just do the liturgy as described by St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century. Since it's older, it's certainly got to be better than what we had in 600.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2011, 03:20:03 AM »



Here is a really interesting two part film that critics the entire RC liturgical movement, even the pore Vatican II one which dated back to, at least the early 19Th century.  Although a lot of people might find this mans arguments to be  a bit reactionary and even somewhat absurd, he makes a good case why the supposed self destruction of the Catholic mass did not just start overnight in the 1960's, but was a long, drawn out process which spanned centuries until it finally bore fruition.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA&feature=related



Thanks for the link! It looks very interesting.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2011, 03:25:08 AM »

 Keeping up with it is almost impossible for a layman to do.  



I have no problem keeping up with it. In fact, I participate in it more deeply than I can with the Novus Ordo.

No, it's not instantly digestible as the Novus Ordo is, but my initial efforts at imbibing the traditional Mass have brought me great rewards now that I've gotten used to it.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2011, 03:37:20 AM »

I notice how these "good news" threads always seem to devolve into criticism. I'd rather celebrate these very welcome developments in my Church, so I shall take my leave of the thread now.  Kiss
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2011, 05:32:18 AM »

If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.


On the contrary, that's a pretty horrible idea. Why don't you "find" liturgical books of the Byzantine rite from circa 600 A.D. and just adopt them yourself? We both can play archaeology. Better yet, let's just do the liturgy as described by St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century. Since it's older, it's certainly got to be better than what we had in 600.

You are correct in that older is not always better. Nevertheless, St. Gregory was known as a scholar and his awesome Presanctified Liturgy is being used to this day in the Eastern Orthodox Churches during Great Lent. You can be assured that his Divine Liturgy is heavenly.

The Liturgy described by St. Justin Martyr was most likely in Aramaic and/or Greek. That would not work in the Western church at all. However, I would not be surprised if the Maronites had such a liturgy in Aramaic similar to the one described by St. Justin Martyr.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 05:32:56 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2011, 10:55:37 AM »


So the Second Vatican Council was not a rupture with the Church's liturgical tradition? That is difficult to take seriously.

I think the point is that the Council itself was not a rupture but, rather, what certain people did in its wake.  If one reads only the documents produced by Vatican II, it is difficult to see a rupture.  

Keep also, in mind, that the Novus Ordo was not a direct product of the Council.

I beg to differ.  The documents on the Liturgy permitted all kinds of experimentation.  Example the Constitution on the Liturgy said that the priest MAY face the people.  

Not true. It didn't even mention it.

http://www.adoremus.org/0405LiturgicalPrayer.html

I find it astonishing that people still put so many words into Sacrosanctum Concilium's mouth, even 50 years later.

I stand corrected.  However, the results of the travesty called Vatican II are obvious and eivdent.  The priest facing the people has turn the RC Mass (and unfortunately the Maronites have done the same) into a form of entertainment, where the personality of the priest has become paramount.  Mass facing the people has become a grave mistake, and the Church's history, both East and West has been all face towards God in the east. 

I know a number of Orthodox clergy and laity who are very concered that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's push for a pan-Orthodox Council will turn into another "Vatican II," with all kinds of liturgical changes.  I pray that does not happen. 
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2011, 11:28:12 AM »

But as that documentary Robb posted shows, the priests had already begun to face the people decades before Vatican II. Vatican II did not magically change everything; those changes had been happening for 60+ years before the council.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2011, 12:58:59 PM »

But as that documentary Robb posted shows, the priests had already begun to face the people decades before Vatican II. Vatican II did not magically change everything; those changes had been happening for 60+ years before the council.

Well, there were Modernists under the radar who were doing experimentations. They came out of the woodwork at Vatican II and abused the council as justification for their revolution.

Here's an excellent book on the subject of orientation in liturgical prayer, highly recommended by the Pope himself:


« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 12:59:38 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2011, 01:47:51 PM »

But as that documentary Robb posted shows, the priests had already begun to face the people decades before Vatican II. Vatican II did not magically change everything; those changes had been happening for 60+ years before the council.

Well, there were Modernists under the radar who were doing experimentations. They came out of the woodwork at Vatican II and abused the council as justification for their revolution.

Here's an excellent book on the subject of orientation in liturgical prayer, highly recommended by the Pope himself:



Ignatius press pulishes some really fantastic books.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2011, 04:11:02 PM »

But as that documentary Robb posted shows, the priests had already begun to face the people decades before Vatican II. Vatican II did not magically change everything; those changes had been happening for 60+ years before the council.

Well, there were Modernists under the radar who were doing experimentations. They came out of the woodwork at Vatican II and abused the council as justification for their revolution.

Here's an excellent book on the subject of orientation in liturgical prayer, highly recommended by the Pope himself:




Yes, the Jesuits, including Father Teillard de Chardin, were engaged in liturgical experimentation way before Vatican II in their schools and universities. This phenomenon was largely happening in Europe.

I attended several retreats in Los Angeles in the late 1970s where the Franciscans celebrated Mass around four tables formed in a square. They faced the people and used delicious leavened whole wheat bread with honey in it as their communion bread. There were many abuses as the form of the Mass was not followed.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 04:18:21 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2011, 04:24:51 PM »

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs2.shtml

If anyone is interested, the mass of the 3rd edition missal can be seen in .pdf format there (question 4) for catechetical purposes.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2011, 04:28:21 PM »

The thing that is starting to disturb me most about the RCC is how we seem to be going to route the Anglicans took in the 19Th century (With High, Low, and "Broad" church parishes becoming the staple of worship).  The modern divide in the RC liturgical life seems to be betwen those who want a higher "smells and bells" form of worship, including the Pope, those who want a less ritualistic, more evangelistic type of Mass (liberals, charismatics, etc..).  Finally those who want a more "broader" type of worship and liturgy (Which would be about 90% of RC's and the majority of RC parishes that exist).  These churches will frequently strive for compromise between the ideals of the High and Low liturgical parties.

In the old days of course there was non of this division in Catholicism (Mainly because there wasn't as much emphasis on things like liturgy as a form of "community expression" as there is today).  The real irony about this is that the conservative/traditionalist RC's who are seeking to develop a more ritualistic form of Mass are really just subscribing to the principles of "communal liturgy" which the liberals were the ones to originally espouse.  So we all become liberals and "modernist" in a sense.  That's the modern world for you!

The lines drawn are, like the Anglicans based on theological persuasion and politics which often spill over into the realm of liturgy.  The RCC seems to be as divided as ever. Its only the Pope who keeps us all glued together, for now!
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2011, 04:35:29 PM »

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs2.shtml

If anyone is interested, the mass of the 3rd edition missal can be seen in .pdf format there (question 4) for catechetical purposes.

Sadly, inclusive language is still being used by the ICEL:

Quote
Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.

If they are so afraid to use MEN,
"and on earth peace to those of good will" would be so much better.

Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?

« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 04:36:37 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2011, 04:45:37 PM »


Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?



I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2011, 04:51:18 PM »


Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?



I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs a few more good men.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #45 on: May 19, 2011, 02:37:18 AM »

The thing that is starting to disturb me most about the RCC is how we seem to be going to route the Anglicans took in the 19Th century (With High, Low, and "Broad" church parishes becoming the staple of worship).  The modern divide in the RC liturgical life seems to be betwen those who want a higher "smells and bells" form of worship, including the Pope, those who want a less ritualistic, more evangelistic type of Mass (liberals, charismatics, etc..).  Finally those who want a more "broader" type of worship and liturgy (Which would be about 90% of RC's and the majority of RC parishes that exist).  These churches will frequently strive for compromise between the ideals of the High and Low liturgical parties.

In the old days of course there was non of this division in Catholicism (Mainly because there wasn't as much emphasis on things like liturgy as a form of "community expression" as there is today).  The real irony about this is that the conservative/traditionalist RC's who are seeking to develop a more ritualistic form of Mass are really just subscribing to the principles of "communal liturgy" which the liberals were the ones to originally espouse.  So we all become liberals and "modernist" in a sense.  That's the modern world for you!

The lines drawn are, like the Anglicans based on theological persuasion and politics which often spill over into the realm of liturgy.  The RCC seems to be as divided as ever. Its only the Pope who keeps us all glued together, for now!

We are living in a crisis of civilization, and the winds that are blowing  have certainly buffeted the Catholic Church. All we can do is stick it out and do what we can to help: by becoming saints.
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #46 on: May 19, 2011, 05:23:51 PM »


Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?



I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.

Yes, the Catholic Church needs a few more good men.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy.
Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #47 on: May 19, 2011, 07:28:59 PM »


Will the new "reform of the reform" continue to use the blasted ICEL and their phobia against men and preference for inclusive language?



I'm afraid that will continue until a certain number of bishops "grow a pair" and tell the ICEL to get lost.   Either that, or Rome is going to have to obliterate the ICEL and replace it with some good men.


Yes, the Catholic Church needs a few more good men.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy.
Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska.  


Is Archbishop Chaput also among the few good men?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 07:29:27 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #48 on: May 19, 2011, 07:29:19 PM »

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 
I don’t think so.
Here is a statement of Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicating everyone in his diocese who belongs to the SSPX:
“All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)

Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop."
This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln.
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor March 19, 1996 “
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2863
________________________________________
So according to this bishop, membership in the SSPX is perilous to the Catholic faith. If this were so, which it is not, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #49 on: May 19, 2011, 10:31:13 PM »

Right now the ONLY American Catholic bishop that TOTALLY stands for the Catholic Faith, started his own seminary, AND excommunicated all Catholic pro-abortion leaders is Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 
I don’t think so.
Here is a statement of Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicating everyone in his diocese who belongs to the SSPX:
“All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)

Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop."
This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln.
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor March 19, 1996 “
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2863
________________________________________
So according to this bishop, membership in the SSPX is perilous to the Catholic faith. If this were so, which it is not, then why did Pope Benedict lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX?


They are a schismatic group who believes that the Pope is a "semi heretic" and that the entire post Vatican II RCC can't be trusted.  Even if they don't come out and say so officially, they act as if they are the last, faithful remnant of Catholics left in the world.  They also take very purticannical/Jansenist view of morality which can lead to overscrupulousness and depression.  Bishop Bruskewitz did the right and Catholic thing by excommunicating them.  Would that all the worlds RC bishops, including the Pope do the same!  The Pope lifted these excommunications in order to facilitate a reunion between the Vatican and the SSPX (Which seems to have failed miserably as the SSPX still denounces the Pope and his decisions often).
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,089


"My god is greater."


« Reply #50 on: May 20, 2011, 07:51:25 AM »

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #51 on: May 20, 2011, 08:18:58 AM »

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be  eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #52 on: May 20, 2011, 04:24:13 PM »

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.

Surprisingly I've heard just the opposite, that the schism of the SSPX and their intrusions towards the Vatican lead to a mutual atmosphere of fear and suspicion which delayed the various "liberation's" of the Tridentine Mass much later then they would have been done.  I've even heard that Cardinal Ratizinger was considering some form of "universal indult" as early as 1982, but this was stopped because of the continued disobedience of the SSPX to Rome.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #53 on: May 20, 2011, 04:31:51 PM »

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be  eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.

I don't find it suprising at all that many RC bishops and clergy find more solidarity with our separated Orthodox and Protestant brethren they with the schismatic SSPX.  After all, at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.  The SSPX on the other hand is die hard against them and, if they had there way the Church would be infiltrated with their likes and they would attempt to do away with Vatican II.  There are those in and out of Rome who don't want that to happen anytime soon.  
As the late archbishop Lefebvre once mused about the Vatican , "Liberty for everyone except the enemies of liberty." Yet you cannot give liberty to the enemies of liberty because those enemies would destroy liberty if they could.  Unless the SSPX accepts all of Vatican II and its reforms, there will be no reconciliation between them and the Vatican anytime soon.  This seems to be the mutual conscensus of both sides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_between_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X_and_the_Holy_See

« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 04:32:27 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,228


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #54 on: May 20, 2011, 04:33:06 PM »

at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

 Huh
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #55 on: May 20, 2011, 05:12:16 PM »

at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

 Huh

Well, maybe not in the same way or for the same reasons as the Rc traditionalist would be.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #56 on: May 25, 2011, 12:15:25 AM »

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #57 on: May 25, 2011, 12:17:35 AM »

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?

Does the St. Benedict Center follow the teachings of Father Feeney? And wasn't Father Feeney excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #58 on: May 25, 2011, 12:26:34 AM »

I'm sure that these groups must have to affirm some type of acceptance of Vatican Council II in order to be legitimately recognized as Catholic religious orders by the Vatican.  It would set an extremely bad precedent if the hierarchy were to, on the one hand attack the cafeteria Catholicism of the left while turning a blind eye to the same actions on the right.  After all if extreme groups like the St Benedict Center can openly declare that all non Catholics will be damned to Hell, then why can't a more progressive order like the Jesuits preach universal salvation?

If there going to let one side get away with their own set of  antics, then they must let the other get away with theirs too.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2011, 10:04:05 AM »

Whenever a thread like this pops up with people chiming in about just how great the Tridentine mass is, and how wonderful it would be if it could just come back and displace the novus ordo once and for all, I consider it my duty to reply and say something like: Give me a properly celebrated novus ordo mass with good music any day over any Tridentine mass.  I really wonder how many people who sing the praises of the Tridentine mass have ever actually been to one, and if they have, whether they were paying attention (as much as is possible for the laity to do in this mass!) to what was going on.  The entire canon of the mass (ie anaphora)- all of it!- and many other important parts of the liturgy - are recited privately by the priest with a couple of acolytes or an acolyte and a deacon!  Does the novus ordo have problems?  There is no doubt that this is the case.  It is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for pre-Vatican II clericalism, among other problems.  

I agree with this 100%.  Sacrosanctum Concilium called for significant alterations to the TLM, and the vote of the world's bishops to approve the changes was 2,147 to 4. So 99.8% of the bishops, all of whom, of course (except maybe some Eastern bishops) had grown up, been ordained, and been consecrated in the TLM, believed that change was needed.  Bottom line, the Mass that is performed today is significantly closer to the manner in which Mass was done by Christians shortly following the time of Christ and I hope we never get away from it.  As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us? 

I admit wholeheartedly that there are far too many liturgical abuses out there.  However, that can easily be fixed without altering the nature of the Mass.  All the Holy See has to do is to tighten up the instructions for Mass to allow less wiggle room in terms of music, etc. and that will eliminate the vast majority of the problems.  We have a tendency in the Western world to throw the baby out with the bath water rather than to make small adjustments to get things on track.  I am hopeful that the implementation of the new Roman Missal coming this advent will help to facilitate this process.  Our Diocese is mandating standardized music for the first year following its implementation which I think is a good idea. 
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2011, 11:22:11 AM »

Catholics are quite free to disagree with Vatican II's vague language on ecumenism and religious liberty. Groups like the St. Benedict Center, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney were never required to affirm Vatican II's characterization of these things when they were regularized by or established with the approval of Rome.

How can they, when the murky language begs for clarification?

Does the St. Benedict Center follow the teachings of Father Feeney? And wasn't Father Feeney excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church?


Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church:  "In 1974 Fr. Leonard Feeney SJ was reconciled and absolved from the excommunication by Pope Paul VI and special Vatican delegates. Many of his followers were subsequently reconciled to the local diocese. They could retain their strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic Dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, as diversity in the evaluation of the practical implications of EENS, according to diocesan officials, had to be tolerated. Most his followers adhere to the Tridentine Mass under the 1988 Ecclesia Dei Indult."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/l/le/leonard_feeney.htm
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2011, 11:58:58 AM »

.  It is in need of reform in so many ways, and yet it is clear in my mind that it is far superior the older mass, which is a showpiece for pre-Vatican II clericalism, among other problems.  

The other thing I would add is that many of those who clamor for the TLM may not understand just how Biblical the Ordinary form of the Mass is.  I could be wrong and I don't want to accuse anyone of ignorance without cause, but I would encourage Catholics in the Latin Rite to read Scott Hahn's - The Lamb's Supper which does a fantastic job of showing how the Mass relates to the book of Revelation in a number of different ways.  After reading multiple defenses of both the TLM and the OF I am completely convinced that the OF is much more Biblical and much closer to how the Liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians.  
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 12:02:53 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #62 on: May 25, 2011, 05:12:17 PM »

Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church:...
Here is a link to an article arguing the following:
"Can a Feeneyite be a Catholic in good standing with the Church? The Holy Office assured us that such is not possible. Was the "reconciliation" of Fr. Feeney and his "spiritual descendants" licit? Not under Canon Law."
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-father-feeney-and-his-followers.html
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2011, 05:39:46 PM »


(snipped)

Bottom line, the Mass that is performed today is significantly closer to the manner in which Mass was done by Christians shortly following the time of Christ and I hope we never get away from it.  As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.

(More snipped)


I find myself compelled to answer this and it is a struggle to answer in a polite fashion.  In the Tridentine Mass and the myriad of Divine Liturgies that the Orthodox (Byzantine and non-Byzantine) use, the priest DOES TURN HIS BACK ON THE PEOPLE.  All face towards GOD.  In the early Church and even up to the Middle Ages, Churches, Catholic and Orthodox faced the East, because the Garden of Eden was in the East, and Christ will come again from the East.  If you say the priest is turning his back on the people in the Tridentine Mass, older Catholic Masses and the Orthodox Divine Liturgies, your understanding of worship is flawed.  Tell me, why is it, with exception of the Novus Ordo, and the Maronite Liturgy, all other ancient Churches face the EAST?Huh 

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #64 on: May 25, 2011, 07:05:08 PM »

^ Very well stated.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 25, 2011, 07:12:34 PM »

When I was in the RCC, I had hoped that someone would simply take the old Latin Mass and, er, let people us a local-language translation of it. Just read what was on the 'other side of the page' in the old books!  Wink I did read a draft copy of the forthcoming liturgical manual, and it sounds like in some ways, that's almost what they've done. I wish them well.  Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2011, 07:15:20 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 07:15:48 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #67 on: May 25, 2011, 08:15:39 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information.  However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.  

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth.  Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there.  And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God.  God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively.  I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine.  However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.  

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time.  He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.  

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above. 




« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 08:18:24 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 25, 2011, 08:41:20 PM »

And yet, without the SSPX, the old Tridentine mass would be dead.

Surprisingly I've heard just the opposite, that the schism of the SSPX and their intrusions towards the Vatican lead to a mutual atmosphere of fear and suspicion which delayed the various "liberation's" of the Tridentine Mass much later then they would have been done.  I've even heard that Cardinal Ratizinger was considering some form of "universal indult" as early as 1982, but this was stopped because of the continued disobedience of the SSPX to Rome.



That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 08:43:49 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2011, 09:19:31 PM »

That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.

Keep in mind that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was formed from the SSPX in 1988 in the wake of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrations of the four bishops. Also keep in mind that Ecclesia Dei, which encouraged bishops to give permission for the traditional Mass in 1988, was itself a response to those illicit consecrations.

In the early 1980s John Paul II formed a committee to examine whether the traditional Mass had been abrogated, and the committee (of which Cardinal Ratzinger was a member) determined that it had not. But John Paul did not "liberate" (if that's that's the right word for encouraging, not requiring, bishops to give permission for something that didn't even need permission) the traditional Mass until Lefebvre took the nuclear option (the bishop consecrations) in 1988.

So, yes, the SSPX was critical in the process of liberating the traditional Mass. Want more evidence? Summorum Pontificum was a response to an explicit request by the SSPX; such a liberation was one of the requisites before dialogue could begin again (the lifting of the excommunications was another).

You want another sign? 1962 is an arbitrary date at which to set the currently approved traditional Mass. The traditional Mass underwent reforms in 1964, 1965 and 1967. But the Holy See went back to 1962. Why? Because the SSPX was exclusively using the 1962 Missal in the 1980s when loosening the restrictions was first considered on a major basis.

I am not going to carry the SSPX's water, and I am not a supporter. But honesty demands the admission that they were pretty much the only major force in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s which refused to accept the unjust and illegal suppression of the traditional Roman rite.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: May 25, 2011, 09:26:23 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information.  However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.  

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth.  Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there.  And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God.  God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively.  I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine.  However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.  

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time.  He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.  

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above. 

First of all, that English translation of the Latin GIRM is misleading. Check this article out for details. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3963
The gist of it is that the "which is desirable whenever possible" in context is referring to the placement of the altar, not to the orientation of the celebrant.

You are right that celebrants are not forbidden to celebrate Mass facing the people. But the weight of tradition, as well as sound liturgical, psychological and sociological principles, favors facing East. And, sadly, many bishops effectively forbid priests from celebrating in the traditional direction. It is this intolerance of tradition that is most unjust.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #71 on: May 25, 2011, 09:27:17 PM »

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #72 on: May 25, 2011, 09:30:14 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.



But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #73 on: May 25, 2011, 09:36:45 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.



But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 25, 2011, 09:39:02 PM »

That has been my understanding as well, Robb.  The presence of the SSPX were not at all helpful.  It seems to me that the ordinary lay man and woman and the activities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter did far more to move the reform of the reform along.

Keep in mind that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was formed from the SSPX in 1988 in the wake of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrations of the four bishops. Also keep in mind that Ecclesia Dei, which encouraged bishops to give permission for the traditional Mass in 1988, was itself a response to those illicit consecrations.

In the early 1980s John Paul II formed a committee to examine whether the traditional Mass had been abrogated, and the committee (of which Cardinal Ratzinger was a member) determined that it had not. But John Paul did not "liberate" (if that's that's the right word for encouraging, not requiring, bishops to give permission for something that didn't even need permission) the traditional Mass until Lefebvre took the nuclear option (the bishop consecrations) in 1988.

So, yes, the SSPX was critical in the process of liberating the traditional Mass. Want more evidence? Summorum Pontificum was a response to an explicit request by the SSPX; such a liberation was one of the requisites before dialogue could begin again (the lifting of the excommunications was another).

You want another sign? 1962 is an arbitrary date at which to set the currently approved traditional Mass. The traditional Mass underwent reforms in 1964, 1965 and 1967. But the Holy See went back to 1962. Why? Because the SSPX was exclusively using the 1962 Missal in the 1980s when loosening the restrictions was first considered on a major basis.

I am not going to carry the SSPX's water, and I am not a supporter. But honesty demands the admission that they were pretty much the only major force in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s which refused to accept the unjust and illegal suppression of the traditional Roman rite.


That does not rule out the idea that their disobedience slowed the process.  The very fact that the Priestly Fraternity had to break away to get and keep the "ear" of the Vatican is case in point.  I am very close to old members of the Fraternity and they have worked ceaselessly over the years proving that a return to the original forms would not perpetuate further rupture and disobedience.

So I understand what you are saying but I do not believe that disobedience furthers much of anything in the Church.  
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #75 on: May 25, 2011, 09:41:04 PM »

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 25, 2011, 09:41:48 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.



But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

You were very clear in your original note...FWIW from me.
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #77 on: May 25, 2011, 09:42:37 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.



But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

And is his presence in the congregation similar to this Eucharistic presence?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 25, 2011, 09:43:07 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

LOL. You remind me of one of the local EO priests explaining the Eucharist. Though not as dramatic and funnier.

That is, is God present before prayer? What about when we invite Him to our worship (Great Entrance)? what about after the consecration? Wasn't He here the whole time? Well, of course! But we believe that it is somehow in a stronger way by and for the worshipping faithful.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #79 on: May 25, 2011, 09:48:33 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.



But he also appears to be saying that the real, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is equal/the same to the spiritual presence of Christ in the congregation. That is a VERY PROBLEMATIC statement for a Catholic to make, and I hope he clarifies it.

That is not what I was saying at all.  I was merely making the point that God is present in the Mass in multiple and real ways and that I don't believe we need to go looking to find him as he is already there.  I don't know how I can make it much clearer than I have that I FULLY and COMPLETELY believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

And is his presence in the congregation similar to this Eucharistic presence?
No.  You're fishing for something that isn't there and its about time you move on.  His presence in the congregation is through the gift of the Holy Spirit present in all baptized and confirmed faithful.  His presence in the Eucharist is in the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.  
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 09:51:52 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #80 on: May 25, 2011, 10:12:23 PM »

After reading multiple defenses of both the TLM and the OF I am completely convinced that the OF is much more Biblical and much closer to how the Liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians.  

First, please explain why you think the new Mass is "much more Biblical" than the traditional Mass. Exactly what does this mean?

Second, "how the liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians", in other words, liturgical archaeologism, is not what we are aiming at---not to mention it being impossible to accomplish because so much of it is speculation for lack of surviving evidence.

Here is Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.

Venerable Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.


(the last sentence of this encyclical is also translated in English thus: It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father).
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #81 on: May 25, 2011, 10:21:58 PM »

As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us?  

Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?

-

« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 10:28:53 PM by lubeltri » Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 146


« Reply #82 on: May 25, 2011, 10:24:43 PM »

As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us? 

Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?

Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no. 
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #83 on: May 25, 2011, 10:29:08 PM »

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #84 on: May 25, 2011, 10:36:07 PM »

Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no.  

Well, since you admit that Christ's Eucharistic Presence is something altogether different from the other presences, do you agree that it might be good to give particular emphasis to this during the Mass, which is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary to the almighty Father?

It is an offering, an oblation, not to ourselves, but to the Father. We unite our hearts with the priest in presenting this offering.

Where should the emphasis of the Mass be, on the congregational meal or the offering of the supreme Sacrifice? That is the question of the liturgy today.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 10:36:25 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #85 on: May 25, 2011, 10:58:14 PM »

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.







Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2011, 11:38:17 PM »

As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2011, 11:40:32 PM »

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.

Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2011, 11:52:52 PM »

As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?

The examples pictured are some more extreme examples, but I'm afraid they still occur under diocesan auspices. And less extreme examples, which no less obscure the liturgy's sense of sacrifice, are quite common.

I have to deal with them all the time, unlike you who go Orthodox.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #89 on: May 26, 2011, 12:13:26 AM »

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.



In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:14:35 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #90 on: May 26, 2011, 12:20:35 AM »

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.



In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.

Indeed, "clown Masses" are not common, but the banal "community meal" Mass is all over the place.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 26, 2011, 05:38:46 AM »

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east.  This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in  a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass.  That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.

Look at the Orthodox liturgy and you will see the right amount of facing the people - when blessing them , when proclaiming the Gospel, when giving a homily, when censing them or the church.  Apart from that everyone faces together to the east. 
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 26, 2011, 09:38:52 AM »

As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?


I am exceptionally serious.  One of the closest priests and parishes to me is, for lack of a better word, a Novus Ordo parish where the pastor made it his life's work to give to his people a liturgy that is reverent, Scriptural, and reflective of the realities of the Second Vatican Council.  It is a powerfully cohesive and faithful community that he has built upon the Novus Ordo liturgy and those principles.  This is the parish and priest who brought me back into the Church.  His funeral is today....BTW.

You presume that I do what I do because I have rejected the ordinary liturgy of the Roman rite.  You presume far too much that is not real.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 26, 2011, 10:11:19 AM »

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east.  This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in  a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass.  That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.

This is myth and I am not even sure that it is a pious myth.  Yes, indeed.  It can be taken this way but it is not the intent at all and need not and ought not be experienced this way in a reverent Novus Ordo.

M.
Logged

jamesdm49
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Posts: 35


« Reply #94 on: May 28, 2011, 01:30:30 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.


All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 28, 2011, 01:41:31 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.


All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James

Actually by your own criteria the Novus Ordo is beautiful liturgy.
Logged

jamesdm49
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Posts: 35


« Reply #96 on: May 28, 2011, 02:21:06 PM »

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.


All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James

Actually by your own criteria the Novus Ordo is beautiful liturgy.

Do you mean to imply that, since Catholics are obliged to accept the Novus Ordo as licit liturgy, then, according to Keats' logic, it is beautiful? But that would be Orwellian, sir!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 02:23:58 PM by jamesdm49 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 28, 2011, 02:23:37 PM »


Do you mean that, since Catholics are obliged to accept the Novus Ordo as licit liturgy, then, according to Keats' logic, it is beautiful? But that would be Orwellian, sir!

I mean the Novus Ordo liturgy is true.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 02:24:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #98 on: May 28, 2011, 10:05:31 PM »

In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music.

Well you're a downer!

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #99 on: May 28, 2011, 10:24:53 PM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #100 on: May 28, 2011, 11:30:11 PM »

In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music.
A whole lot of Catholics like modern music and dance forms. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASYa-Wkroc
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 11:30:38 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #101 on: May 31, 2011, 07:42:57 AM »

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be  eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.

I don't find it suprising at all that many RC bishops and clergy find more solidarity with our separated Orthodox and Protestant brethren they with the schismatic SSPX.  After all, at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

That's a very odd thing to say.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #102 on: May 31, 2011, 09:05:26 AM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jamesdm49
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Posts: 35


« Reply #103 on: May 31, 2011, 09:37:41 AM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy Wink, but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books
2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion
3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite
4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass
5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that  these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, but, IMO, the two Churches are more estranged in ethos, than they are by formal teaching. I don't know that any of these actions, even No. 3, would be particularly controversial with most Roman Catholics, or even noticed in some cases, but they certainly would go a long way to improve the attitudes of rank-and-file Orthodox Christians towards Rome.

David James
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #104 on: May 31, 2011, 11:13:14 AM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy Wink, but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books
2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion
3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite
4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass
5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that  these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #105 on: May 31, 2011, 11:27:02 AM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy Wink, but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books
2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion
3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite
4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass
5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that  these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.

No. 1 is not disciplinary.

No. 3 has been ruled out for the long term, primarily because of the long standing tradition in the west.

Again if we are to argue for the traditions of the east, then we must allow the traditions of the west to bind as well.

No. 2 is something that Pope Benedict has already whispered and with which I agree totally!!  My fellow Catholics rise up in righteous wroth...but who cares  Cheesy about that!!

No. 4 is not going to change readily in the Roman ordinary but there will be a tendency toward accommodating both till one either fades or becomes part of tradition.

In the case of No. 4 I think it would be very useful to suggest that seminary training be unwaveringly clear that the orientation of the priest toward the people is still an act directed toward God and custody of the eyes and attention are necessary at all time.   Trust me when I say that the people can tell the difference in focus!!

No. 5 is essential!!
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 11:30:52 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #106 on: May 31, 2011, 01:45:47 PM »


Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle.  This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note.  I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there.  He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information.  However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.  

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth.  Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there.  And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God.  God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively.  I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine.  However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.  

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time.  He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.  

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above. 






Christ is Risen!

I have to disagree with what you're saying Christ is Present in the Altar for the Altar symbolizes the Cross, the Tomb and the Throne of Christ on high, the Altar is a symbol of Christ Himself  hence why one bows to the Altar when passing in front of it. What you say about God being present in man as a temple of the Holy Spirit is certainly true. but if our liturgy is the act of worship of the church in which we God's pilgrim people here on earth journey towards the heavenly Jerusalem with the priest as our guide then a common orientation is certainly helpful and I would argue mandatory.   

Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #107 on: June 01, 2011, 05:19:17 PM »

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

Full article here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm

We Catholics may be gaining some real ground here. Praise God!



I will be happy if I weren't sure that it will cause another schismatic group defending Vatican II mass .







Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2011, 05:48:59 PM »

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

Full article here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm

We Catholics may be gaining some real ground here. Praise God!


I will be happy if I weren't sure that it will cause another schismatic group defending Vatican II mass .









Vatican II and everything it did, said, or taught was a wonderful blessing for the RCC and the whole universal Christian and human society.  I'm tired of hearing people bash it constantly as being "defective" or "heretical". 
 We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #109 on: June 02, 2011, 10:17:23 AM »

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

Full article here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm

We Catholics may be gaining some real ground here. Praise God!


I will be happy if I weren't sure that it will cause another schismatic group defending Vatican II mass .


Vatican II and everything it did, said, or taught was a wonderful blessing for the RCC and the whole universal Christian and human society.  I'm tired of hearing people bash it constantly as being "defective" or "heretical". 
 We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.


I am catholic, as catholic I obey the Church and I keep communion with Rome, and it includes Vatican II teachings,  I love the Ordinary rite of the mass in which I grew, I also love the Extraordinary rite of the mass in which I have never participated in live, but that I have watched through tv, but you know, If pope Benedict reforms the Ordinary rite of the Mass given by Vatican II council, then We will see many who will not accept the reform  and will create a separated group of Vatican II council fanatics.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 10:21:25 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #110 on: June 02, 2011, 10:27:21 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #111 on: June 02, 2011, 10:36:05 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.
Logged
David Garner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 02, 2011, 10:51:27 AM »

We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.

Without weighing in on whether my comment on the above describes the Roman Catholic Church after the Vatican II reforms, I have to note that anyone who realized they were on the wrong road and DIDN'T head back is either suicidal or a fool.

Which is to say, the fact one has crossed a great distance is no basis for refusing to turn back if one is going the wrong way.
Logged

Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #113 on: June 02, 2011, 10:52:39 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

I'm one of those Eastern Christians who left the Latin Church and went to the Melkites.  I could not stand the guitar Masses, stripped Churches, effeminate priests, screaming insane nuns and bishops with almost no cojones.  I grew up Roman Catholic, and the Mass was degraded when I was 9 or 10 years old, after that, it was expermentation time amongst the Latins.  When I went to Greece in 1982 and saw a Divine Liturgy for the first time.....  WHOA!!!!  I found it!!!!  That's REAL worship!!!!!
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #114 on: June 02, 2011, 11:16:17 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

I'm one of those Eastern Christians who left the Latin Church and went to the Melkites.  I could not stand the guitar Masses, stripped Churches, effeminate priests, screaming insane nuns and bishops with almost no cojones.  I grew up Roman Catholic, and the Mass was degraded when I was 9 or 10 years old, after that, it was expermentation time amongst the Latins.  When I went to Greece in 1982 and saw a Divine Liturgy for the first time.....  WHOA!!!!  I found it!!!!  That's REAL worship!!!!!

Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 11:17:36 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #115 on: June 02, 2011, 11:27:45 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.
So, in other words, not much if anything to do with the purpose of this sub-forum.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #116 on: June 02, 2011, 11:28:35 AM »

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

What about Western Christians?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 02, 2011, 11:33:36 AM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see.  Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article.  The mandate of this sub-forum reads:
Quote
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church.  Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters.  If anything, more threads should be like this one.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #118 on: June 02, 2011, 11:54:15 AM »

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

What about Western Christians?

I think they will also go back if the Mass is their problem, but to me the problem with most catholics is that they have been adoctrinated by the seccular world agains a dogmatic teaching of the proper way to live. In other words, many catholics have gone away because they don't believe in dogma.

Of course Dogma is not a matter to be convinced, rather is a teaching to be accepted as it is.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 11:55:54 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #119 on: June 02, 2011, 12:24:18 PM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see.  Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article.  The mandate of this sub-forum reads:
Quote
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church.  Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters.  If anything, more threads should be like this one.

(Chuckle) OK, Schultz, I'll play along. Just remember I worship in a formerly Eastern Catholic ACROD parish where the several former Latin Catholic families who departed Rome over Vatican II bypassed the local EC parish totally and converted directly to Orthodoxy. It colors my perspective of "unity".
I don't see any changes in the RC liturgy as basic to unity, personally. But again, that is my opinion as to relevance of this topic to the Orthodox Catholics.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #120 on: June 02, 2011, 12:31:48 PM »


Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".

Hmmm.  I see your point.  However, the truth is the Latin side of the Catholic Church, especially the American and European dioceses, threw the baby out with the bath water and created a stale, "let's entertain people" form of pseudo-worship.  I don't know how old you are, but the stuff in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was horridly dead. 
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 02, 2011, 01:00:15 PM »

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see.  Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article.  The mandate of this sub-forum reads:
Quote
Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church.  Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters.  If anything, more threads should be like this one.

(Chuckle) OK, Schultz, I'll play along. Just remember I worship in a formerly Eastern Catholic ACROD parish where the several former Latin Catholic families who departed Rome over Vatican II bypassed the local EC parish totally and converted directly to Orthodoxy. It colors my perspective of "unity".
I don't see any changes in the RC liturgy as basic to unity, personally. But again, that is my opinion as to relevance of this topic to the Orthodox Catholics.

I'm not saying I agree with what I wrote.  I'm merely pointing out the fact that this thread is precisely where it should be. Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
jamesdm49
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Posts: 35


« Reply #122 on: June 02, 2011, 01:39:38 PM »

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy Wink, but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books
2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion
3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite
4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass
5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that  these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.

No. 1 is not disciplinary.

No. 3 has been ruled out for the long term, primarily because of the long standing tradition in the west.

Again if we are to argue for the traditions of the east, then we must allow the traditions of the west to bind as well.

No. 2 is something that Pope Benedict has already whispered and with which I agree totally!!  My fellow Catholics rise up in righteous wroth...but who cares  Cheesy about that!!

No. 4 is not going to change readily in the Roman ordinary but there will be a tendency toward accommodating both till one either fades or becomes part of tradition.

In the case of No. 4 I think it would be very useful to suggest that seminary training be unwaveringly clear that the orientation of the priest toward the people is still an act directed toward God and custody of the eyes and attention are necessary at all time.   Trust me when I say that the people can tell the difference in focus!!

No. 5 is essential!!

As I said in my earlier post, I am not holding my breath that Pope Benedict will do any of these things - it is just a list of five actions he could take (they are all within his power to do unilaterally, if I am not mistaken) that, if he did them all, really might convince many Orthodox that there is hope for reunion, after all. Not doing any one of them reduces that longed-for effect correspondingly. To address ElijahMaria's comments specifically:

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

As for no. 2, how can the Churches reunite and not celebrate Easter on the same date, but not to use the Orthodox paschalion would certainly create a huge new schism in Orthodoxy, so what good is that?

Regarding issue No. 3, I realize that Roman Catholic apologists for this discipline peculiar the Roman patriarchate (now abolished, for reasons which are not obvious to me, especially in the context we are now discussing) trot out a long history [ignoring Cardinal Wolsey and the Borgias] and consider it taboo. We see what that has come to in recent years. So, I think St. Paphnutius of Thebes was right to dissuade the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council from making clerical celibacy a requirement for ordination:

    "While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, quoted from Wikipedia]."

Today, many Roman Catholic clergy are ashamed even to wear their clericals in public, and the shortage of priests is dire. The restoration of a married clergy would go a long way to repair the damage done by the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals, and open up the priesthood to many qualified married candidates. The celibate priesthood would continue of course, but those priests would not live alone, but only in monasteries or (as in the Middle Ages) as secular canons in communities in the larger parishes and cathedrals, where there is someone in authority over them who knows what they are doing and whether they come home at night. I think it is now unquestionably clear that St. Paphnutius' common-sense advice is the wiser path.

I don't have much patience for 'facing the people' apologetics, either. Facing east to pray is a practice that goes back at least to the Old Testament, which is why church buildings themselves have historically been 'oriented' and people are buried (or used to be until recently) with their feet to the east. The Vatican change, which has spread like kudzu among Anglicans and others, amounts to liturgical wrecking at its most fundamental, because it is a blatant disruption of the age-old Judeo-Christian prayer tradition.

Well, all this is hypothetical. To return to the topic, "Reform of the Reform" - traditional-minded Catholics long for the old piety, and watch hopefully for any crumb that may come their way. God bless them, and I don't see why the Pope couldn't take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and either make the old rite equal with the new (as in the Old Rite-New Rite in the Russian Orthodox Church) or, perhaps, take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and order use of the Tridentine on certain days (as with the Liturgy of St. Basil), such as the feasts of some of the more ultramontane saints, or feastdays like the Sacred Heart or the Immaculate Conception, that are especially associated with the post-Tridentine period. That is, no doubt, as wishful as any of the other points discussed in this note, but a genuine effort to restore the 'old piety' on both sides (understood as the authentic tradition of the Church) is the best hope for Orthodox-Catholic reunion.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:51:21 PM by jamesdm49 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #123 on: June 02, 2011, 02:07:50 PM »



As I said in my earlier post, I am not holding my breath that Pope Benedict will do any of these things - it is just a list of five actions he could take (they are all within his power to do unilaterally, if I am not mistaken) that, if he did them all, really might convince many Orthodox that there is hope for reunion, after all. Not doing any one of them reduces that longed-for effect correspondingly. To address ElijahMaria's comments specifically:

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

As for no. 2, how can the Churches reunite and not celebrate Easter on the same date, but not to use the Orthodox paschalion would certainly create a huge new schism in Orthodoxy, so what good is that?

Regarding issue No. 3, I realize that Roman Catholic apologists for this discipline peculiar the Roman patriarchate (now abolished, for reasons which are not obvious to me, especially in the context we are now discussing) trot out a long history [ignoring Cardinal Wolsey and the Borgias] and consider it taboo. We see what that has come to in recent years. So, I think St. Paphnutius of Thebes was right to dissuade the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council from making clerical celibacy a requirement for ordination:

    "While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, quoted from Wikipedia]."

Today, many Roman Catholic clergy are ashamed even to wear their clericals in public, and the shortage of priests is dire. The restoration of a married clergy would go a long way to repair the damage done by the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals, and open up the priesthood to many qualified married candidates. The celibate priesthood would continue of course, but those priests would not live alone, but only in monasteries or (as in the Middle Ages) as secular canons in communities in the larger parishes and cathedrals, where there is someone in authority over them who knows what they are doing and whether they come home at night. I think it is now unquestionably clear that St. Paphnutius' common-sense advice is the wiser path.

I don't have much patience for 'facing the people' apologetics, either. Facing east to pray is a practice that goes back at least to the Old Testament, which is why church buildings themselves have historically been 'oriented' and people are buried (or used to be until recently) with their feet to the east. The Vatican change, which has spread like kudzu among Anglicans and others, amounts to liturgical wrecking at its most fundamental, because it is a blatant disruption of the age-old Judeo-Christian prayer tradition.

Well, all this is hypothetical. To return to the topic, "Reform of the Reform" - traditional-minded Catholics long for the old piety, and watch hopefully for any crumb that may come their way. God bless them, and I don't see why the Pope couldn't take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and either make the old rite equal with the new (as in the Old Rite-New Rite in the Russian Orthodox Church) or, perhaps, take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and order use of the Tridentine on certain days (as with the Liturgy of St. Basil), such as the feasts of some of the more ultramontane saints, or feastdays like the Sacred Heart or the Immaculate Conception, that are especially associated with the post-Tridentine period. That is, no doubt, as wishful as any of the other points discussed in this note, but a genuine effort to restore the 'old piety' on both sides (understood as the authentic tradition of the Church) is the best hope for Orthodox-Catholic reunion.

Grace and Peace,

I think a lot of these suggestions are very good ideas... although our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is a fairly measured man, I would welcome these changes as an act of love and unity with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters. I mean, if Pope Paul VI can do such an act toward Protestants as wreck our Tridentine Rite, Pope Benedict XVI could do that same towards the Eastern...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 02, 2011, 02:14:35 PM »

I think it is possible that all five changes may come to be. It will, however, take more time for some than for others. The current RCC Pope is considered (by those in his church) to be more disposed toward a 'conservative' line on doctrine, practice etc., as far as I'm aware. He may then be open to adapting to at least some of these principles. (He's written a bunch of books and papers, and I've read some of them.)
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #125 on: June 02, 2011, 06:19:10 PM »

Hi James. I've been thinking about your post, especially

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

I haven't yet thought of much of a response, except to say that I think most Catholics wouldn't object to switching to the Apostles' Creed -- which of course doesn't mention the Holy Spirit's procession. But I can't imagine most Catholics being OK with " ... who proceeds from the Father".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #126 on: June 02, 2011, 06:21:11 PM »

I mean, if Pope Paul VI can do such an act toward Protestants as wreck our Tridentine Rite, Pope Benedict XVI could do that same towards the Eastern...

Well ... see http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36733.0.html
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #127 on: June 02, 2011, 06:24:01 PM »

Hi James. I've been thinking about your post, especially

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

I haven't yet thought of much of a response, except to say that I think most Catholics wouldn't object to switching to the Apostles' Creed -- which of course doesn't mention the Holy Spirit's procession. But I can't imagine most Catholics being OK with " ... who proceeds from the Father".

My parish already uses the Apostles Creed as a substitute for the Nicene. The priest asks "Do you believe" and then reads a few lines from it and we congregants respond by saying "I believe", and so on. At least it's better then the "We believe" version that most RC's use (And will be done away with next November).
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 06:25:54 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,401


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #128 on: June 04, 2011, 02:04:29 AM »


Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".

Hmmm.  I see your point.  However, the truth is the Latin side of the Catholic Church, especially the American and European dioceses, threw the baby out with the bath water and created a stale, "let's entertain people" form of pseudo-worship.  I don't know how old you are, but the stuff in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was horridly dead. 

I agree. I fell in love with the Divine Liturgy the first time I attended.

For me, it was no turning back..
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #129 on: June 06, 2011, 05:34:07 PM »

A few comments have been mulling over in my mind about this topic:

1) The liturgical forms of the Mass are only one part of the Catholic faith. It's impossible to say, "the Novus Ordo changed XYZ from the Latin mass, and therefore the whole of Catholicism is invalid." First, even the pre-schism Church produced three different liturgies within the first 400 years of Christian History. If we're going by "the earlier, the better," then both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have it wrong, and we should chuck the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom out with the Novus Ordo because they're both changes to earlier liturgies. Second, it's not the wording of the Liturgy that is so essential as the reverence to God given by it. There are some absolutely beautiful words in the Divine Liturgy, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo. And then there are some that no longer mean anything, such as "The Doors, The Doors" in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy - since unbaptized, non-Orthodox, and even non-Christians are now (and have been for a long time) permitted to stay inside the Church for the remainder of the service.

2) Going off of point 1, there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith. Perhaps this was a part of Vatican 2, but I see no reason to pin-point the change in Churches to this council - AFAIK, they made no directive about the setup of altars, positioning of Churches, etc.


Just my $.02
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #130 on: June 06, 2011, 07:08:38 PM »

... there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith.
This is the confusing point to many people, especially non-Catholics, who don't see the RCC as the one, true, Church.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #131 on: June 06, 2011, 07:14:31 PM »

A few comments have been mulling over in my mind about this topic:

1) The liturgical forms of the Mass are only one part of the Catholic faith. It's impossible to say, "the Novus Ordo changed XYZ from the Latin mass, and therefore the whole of Catholicism is invalid." First, even the pre-schism Church produced three different liturgies within the first 400 years of Christian History. If we're going by "the earlier, the better," then both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have it wrong, and we should chuck the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom out with the Novus Ordo because they're both changes to earlier liturgies. Second, it's not the wording of the Liturgy that is so essential as the reverence to God given by it. There are some absolutely beautiful words in the Divine Liturgy, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo. And then there are some that no longer mean anything, such as "The Doors, The Doors" in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy - since unbaptized, non-Orthodox, and even non-Christians are now (and have been for a long time) permitted to stay inside the Church for the remainder of the service.

2) Going off of point 1, there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith. Perhaps this was a part of Vatican 2, but I see no reason to pin-point the change in Churches to this council - AFAIK, they made no directive about the setup of altars, positioning of Churches, etc.


Just my $.02
I appreciate your input. Smiley If I may, though, many of us Orthodox (especially those who came from the RCC) see the problems of Vatican 2 that arose as symptomatic of deeper issues. Sad I don't think it's helpful for any of us Orthodox to gloat about them, however.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #132 on: June 07, 2011, 11:57:26 AM »

I think one of the things that is not good about the Orthodox fast is the legalistic and inordinate attention paid by so many to ALL those lovely tasty and expensive substitutes one can use to hold to the letter of the law but not its spirit.
I think this is true with the meat abstinence in our Church too. I think it is kind of strange that I could technically go to Red Lobster and have lobster tail, scallops, shrimp scampi, etc. and not be breaking my meat abstinence on a Friday during Lent.
The rules give you a minimum obligation. No one prevents you from doing more than the minimum.  
Right, I know, and I'm not saying I have ever actually went to Red Lobster during Lent because I actually haven't. I'm just saying that I think it is weird that there is such a huge loophole that someone could actually pig out at Red Lobster and still not have broken the Friday abstinence.

Once a Greek Orthodox Priest was eating out with his family at Red Lobster. They chose something a little less expensive that day as it was a Friday and they wanted to keep the fast, but a parishioner saw the Priest and came over to his table.

The man asked, "Father, since we are ordering lobster, would it be okay to have butter with it? Lobster does not taste good without the butter sauce."

Father responded, "Since you have just purchased lobster, which is a very expensive meal, sure go ahead and enjoy the butter too, but that is not really the spirit of Lent."

Great story.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #133 on: June 07, 2011, 12:53:33 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 12:53:54 PM by bogdan » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #134 on: June 07, 2011, 01:06:55 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)
Don't be obtuse. Surely you have been to red lobster and seen the price of lobster tail. In this day and age it would make more sense to require the abstinence to be expensive food/delicacies instead of no meat. No meat was originally established because meat was more expensive than fish/seafood. That is no longer the case.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 07, 2011, 01:28:44 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)
Don't be obtuse. Surely you have been to red lobster and seen the price of lobster tail. In this day and age it would make more sense to require the abstinence to be expensive food/delicacies instead of no meat. No meat was originally established because meat was more expensive than fish/seafood. That is no longer the case.

Are you sure about that?

I've read the avoidance of meat, as well as other animal products (dairy and eggs), is to remove and remind us of the animal nature of our fallen conditions. We abstain from animals in order to focus on our spirit. Also, abstaining from wine*, a luxury/pleasure to the mind, and oil (fried or craftily prepared food) help remind us that God, not earthly pleasures, is our goal and purpose.

Better than some marketing conspiracy, anyways.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #136 on: June 07, 2011, 02:44:17 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food?

Perhaps it was, at root, a matter of changing supply. Many early Christians lived in geographical areas where fish and seafood would be more abundant than meat. Today the situation is much different.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,067


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #137 on: June 07, 2011, 02:58:58 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)
Don't be obtuse. Surely you have been to red lobster and seen the price of lobster tail. In this day and age it would make more sense to require the abstinence to be expensive food/delicacies instead of no meat. No meat was originally established because meat was more expensive than fish/seafood. That is no longer the case.
Yeah, try ordering a vegetable pizza. It's usually at least 30% more expensive than a meat pizza nowadays.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #138 on: June 07, 2011, 11:10:27 PM »

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)
Don't be obtuse. Surely you have been to red lobster and seen the price of lobster tail. In this day and age it would make more sense to require the abstinence to be expensive food/delicacies instead of no meat. No meat was originally established because meat was more expensive than fish/seafood. That is no longer the case.

Right. I agree, shellfish in modern times defeats the purpose of fasting, and personally I don't eat it on fasting days even though it's technically allowed, unless it's served to me.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 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 0.49 seconds with 166 queries.