OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 03:52:53 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: What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Novus Ordo Mass?  (Read 8589 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TraditionalistThomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 8



« on: June 19, 2012, 06:47:43 AM »

Hello again,

Just another question. How do the Eastern Orthodox regard the Novus Ordo Mass of the Roman Catholic Church? Do they see it as a blatant rupture with tradition? Do they have no problems with it?

Through the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Thomas.
Logged

All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics. - St. Pius V
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,717



« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2012, 06:55:57 AM »

Welcome to the forum. Smiley

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 06:58:22 AM by Alpo » Logged

Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,948



« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2012, 07:21:07 AM »

Just my personal POV:

As it is done in practice  in local RC parishes, it is often disgusting. Probably, it can somehow be done better in theory, but in practice, that doesn't happen often.

The Tridentine Mass feels much holier to me. I never understood why they needed to do this "mess destruction". Couldn't they just celebrate the 1962 mass in the local languages?
Logged
TraditionalistThomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 8



« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2012, 07:25:52 AM »

Just my personal POV:

As it is done in practice  in local RC parishes, it is often disgusting. Probably, it can somehow be done better in theory, but in practice, that doesn't happen often.

The Tridentine Mass feels much holier to me. I never understood why they needed to do this "mess destruction". Couldn't they just celebrate the 1962 mass in the local languages?

I agree wholeheartedly with you! That is what faithful Catholics have been asking for decades. The answer? Modernism, liberalism and freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church. It indeed makes us weep.

God bless.
Logged

All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics. - St. Pius V
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,948



« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2012, 07:42:42 AM »

I agree wholeheartedly with you! That is what faithful Catholics have been asking for decades. The answer? Modernism, liberalism and freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church. It indeed makes us weep.

God bless.

We surely have a lot in common, but we also have certain differences. I mean, how did modernist and liberalist tendencies in Roman Catholicism develop? I think, they are based on rationalist, philosophical thinking. And in that, they have a lot in common with official position of the Roman Catholic Church at their time. For example, the antimodernist oath requires to swear that the existence of God can be proven be philosophical means. And already in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, philosophy is used as a means to obtain knowledge about God.

And here, I disagree. I believe that we cannot know God according to his essence. We can only know him in his energies, through revelation and through mystical experience in our way to theosis. It is important to be aware of the mystical character of our encounter with God, in order to maintain the mystical character of the eucharistical service.

The Roman Catholic "mess destruction" does have a lot to do with rationalism. For example, the Priest was made to face the people, because that would increase their understanding of the procedure, but thereby destroing the mystery of the change from bread and wine to Body and Blood of our Lord.
Logged
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,005


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2012, 08:06:44 AM »

I've attended several times Novus Ordo Mass. Too short, lack of the Holy Spirit, more speeches than prayer. However, if it was celebrated by priest, who carries about tradition, it wasn't so bad. In Novus Ordo much more depends on the priest, so sometimes the new Mass is a disaster and sometimes there are used some elements of other rites e.g. byzantine. Some things, as restoration of the majority of the readings of the Paschal Vigil, are the positive side of the liturgical reform in 60'.

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2012, 08:41:35 AM »

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.

Should have stopped here.

Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin  so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers.

Sounds a bit like a westerner going to an eastern liturgy...

Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

There is a lot wrong here, and it's all rooted in personal preference and upbringing like a Western convert.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,717



« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2012, 09:05:10 AM »

Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin  so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers.

Sounds a bit like a westerner going to an eastern liturgy...

Plus we have walls to separate altar from the laity, many of clergy's prayers are silent and many local churches do not use vernacular.
Logged

TraditionalistThomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 8



« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2012, 10:17:14 AM »

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

Hey, I find this somewhat offensive. I wouldn't call the eastern Divine Liturgies "artificial" and "without depth"!

God bless.
Logged

All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics. - St. Pius V
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2012, 10:17:56 AM »

nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere.

In the Philippines by Metropolitan Paul (the Antiochian one)?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 10:18:09 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
TraditionalistThomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 8



« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2012, 10:20:12 AM »

Welcome to the forum. Smiley

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.



Thanks!

Yes, I found out about this a couple of days back. I was shocked! Up until then I had no idea that some Eastern Orthodox offer a Roman (albeit modified) liturgy!

God bless.
Logged

All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics. - St. Pius V
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,717



« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2012, 10:34:46 AM »

nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere.

In the Philippines by Metropolitan Paul (the Antiochian one)?

Is it some kind of interim option or permanent solution?

Anyway, it's just an exception to the rule. Orthodoxy is elsewhere more conservative than that. In fact pope Benedict XVI received a letter from patriarch of Moscow after Summorum Pontificum where patriarch commended pope's attachment to traditional liturgy.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 10:37:51 AM by Alpo » Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2012, 10:59:19 AM »

Is it some kind of interim option or permanent solution?

I was supposed to be a temporary solution but IDK what is the situation now.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,005


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2012, 11:08:41 AM »

There is a lot wrong here, and it's all rooted in personal preference and upbringing like a Western convert.

I know it can sound so offensive, it's just my very personal opinion, but as I've participated in Liturgies in various traditions, I have claim that during ages there were too many changes in Latin rite and that affects on my reception of it.


Plus we have walls to separate altar from the laity, many of clergy's prayers are silent and many local churches do not use vernacular.

I appreciate iconostasis, as it's from the Old testament, the Holiest place. I know that in medieval times also Latin rite a similar thing was existing. For me the position of priest in Eastern Liturgies is quite diffrent from Tridentine one; my Roman Catholic friends always when they come first time for an Orthodox service wonder why our clergy  "is walking and walking". When the priests in some parts of the Liturgy go through the iconostasis or turn to the faithful and give the blessing (more times than in Latin rite), I feel there is a contact between laymen and clergy.
My parish uses mainly Church Slavonic, but for me it's much more understandable than Latin (although I know Spanish). In the lands where is used one of Romance languages, Latin is maybe a perfect solution: traditional and mystical language, but they can understand many parts of the prayers. For English speaking are I don't know what would be the best idea, but e.g. for Slavic lands Church Slavonic is great (again, in my opinion).
I know some Catholics, who are pious and in some way traditional, but don't like Tridentine Mass. E.g this year one of my friends went for the Tridentine Mass on Pentecost and was dissapointed. She had been told that it would be something great, like Heaven in the Earth, but hasn't felt it during the Mass.


But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

Hey, I find this somewhat offensive. I wouldn't call the eastern Divine Liturgies "artificial" and "without depth"!

God bless.

I'm sorry you might had felt resentful. I wrote it only about Tridentine Mass and Novus Ordo. I know that there are other Latin rites, but I've attended only Tridentine, Novus Ordo and Mariavite (a Polish sect from XX century), so I don't want to generalize. For example, I love mozarabic chants and some Latin chants such as Exsultet Wink
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 11:11:52 AM by Dominika » Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,249



« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2012, 11:20:06 AM »

I suppose that my answer falls somewhat similar to what I said in the Assisi thread in that these days I don’t really think about NO much, except when it comes up – well – here.

My basic line of thought is that the Romans may do as the Romans may do (and the same thing for the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, etc.); it is their church, they can practice as they see fit. Inasmuch as I understand the circumstances that birthed it, I think the NO was an unnecessary break from the historic liturgy, but not the worst thing in the world. Celebrated properly the NO is not particularly beautiful, but is a reverent affair and the parishioners can draw what they may from the experience, and — leaving aside the debates about grace in non-Orthodox sacraments — they can still receive the Eucharist.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2012, 12:41:16 PM »

I think it's pretty lame.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 974


« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2012, 03:18:49 PM »

Hello again,

Just another question. How do the Eastern Orthodox regard the Novus Ordo Mass of the Roman Catholic Church? Do they see it as a blatant rupture with tradition? Do they have no problems with it?

Through the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Thomas.
I have to be honest with you the Orthodox I know don't evn know anything about Roman Catholic churches, nevermind the services. 
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2012, 03:30:57 PM »

freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church.
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.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2012, 04:39:41 PM »

I've never been to a prayerful N.O. Mass. They all seemed rather plain and bare-bones. Very Protestant, actually. It felt like being in a stuffy Reformed church (I say this coming from Presbyteriansm), except that there actually was an altar and a priest.

However, I have been to wonderful Latin Masses. I've attended both High and Low Masses, and found them very beautiful. Particularly the High Mass because I had more to focus on. My mind, unfortunately, tended to wander a bit during the Low Mass, with all of the silence. However, I found the silence of the Latin tradition to be very beautiful and sacred. I've never been to a Western Orthodox parish, but I do believe the Latin Mass (I think we sometimes call it the "Mass/Liturgy of St. Gregory") is served in some of them. Though, I understand they insert a Byzantine epiclesis, which really does make me sad. We complain about Latinization of the Eastern Catholics, but we shouldn't Byzantinize Western Orthodoxy. The only change needs to be the filioque, since it is a matter of doctrine.

All that, said, however...western liturgy is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there myself. I feel at home in the Byzantine liturgy moreso than any other liturgical tradition, but I certainly have a lot of respect for others, including the west. Smiley
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2012, 04:42:53 PM »

The Novus Ordo Mass can be a beautiful rite, if properly practiced.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnTMh9-CpI&feature=player_embedded

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO, the fault lies in how its practiced.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,948



« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2012, 04:57:38 PM »

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2012, 05:00:51 PM »

The Novus Ordo Mass can be a beautiful rite, if properly practiced.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnTMh9-CpI&feature=player_embedded

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO, the fault lies in how its practiced.

Beautiful! That's actually the best NO Mass I've ever seen celebrated.

Except, they REALLY do need to flip the altar back around...

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

I would also have to agree with this, though. The Creed CANNOT be replaced, and "extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2012, 05:06:09 PM »

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

Then there's the very idea behind the NOM that Eucharistic prayers should be written by a committee rather than received from the saints of old.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2012, 05:54:10 PM »

Welcome to the forum. Smiley

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.


Somewhere here IIRC there is some debate about WRO Novus Ordo going on in the Phillipines.  I don't recall if we ever got to the bottom of the Truth of the matter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2012, 06:23:17 PM »

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,948



« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2012, 06:41:32 PM »

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?

And I assure you that I saw the creed replaced by a song on Sundays and Feastdays. That was the case, for example, last Coprus Christi, when I watched the local mass and procession. Also, the priest said "for all" instead of "for many". But what disturbed me most were some strange self-written prayers.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,118


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2012, 06:58:48 PM »

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?


How did one receive Christ before the Creed was written?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2012, 07:07:33 PM »

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?
If you mean by the Creed, the same way they did centuries before and after Nicea I (recitation of the Creed was introduced into the DL in the fifth or sixth century in the East and latter in the West (one of the reasons the filioque did not come to a head earlier).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2012, 07:27:01 PM »


The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
I've been to Catholic churches with no creed on sunday.
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.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,118


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2012, 07:48:44 PM »


The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.
I've been to Catholic churches with no creed on sunday.

It may be liturgical abuse.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2012, 07:50:04 PM »

Though, I understand they insert a Byzantine epiclesis, which really does make me sad. We complain about Latinization of the Eastern Catholics, but we shouldn't Byzantinize Western Orthodoxy. The only change needs to be the filioque, since it is a matter of doctrine.

I'm surprised by this thought of yours, Ben.

I understand your point of view, but don't you think perhaps the presence or absence of the epiklesis shines a light on many other things?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2012, 07:52:52 PM »

Ultimately the Novus Ordo is probably what got me looking into Orthodoxy. At first I figured I just didn't care for the contemporary, hippy music and lack of reverence, I just personally preferred the Latin Mass (which I attended when I could). Then I moved closer to the Latin Mass and got to attend it every week. I began to truly see the shocking irreverence in the Novus Ordo, and saw that it wasn't so much the style in which it was presented but irreverence inherent in the way the Mass was laid out. I didn't understand why the priest was facing the wrong way in the Novus Ordo, I didn't understand who thought they had the right to change all these things.

Then, because of something else, an Orthodox friend told me "find papal infallibility in the Early Church Fathers." I looked and couldn't find it. I realized that the Novus Ordo was a result of the scholasticism so foundational in Western Christianity. When one has determined that this is the exact moment of consecration, well, everything else is up for grabs. It can be changed around. When one has a logical answer for everything, when mystery is more suspect than central and tradition really is "just the way we used to do it" and not a core aspect of who and what you are, you're ultimately going to end up with something like the Novus Ordo, given enough time. That wasn't a proper Christian attitude. That whole paradigm was contrary to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church. Christianity is not ours to make do with what we like, it's supposed to have its way and we conform to it. The Liturgy does not belong to us, we do not have the right to concoct from whole cloth a new one. Tradition is not a toy.

The realization that things were not going to get better in Roman Catholicism, because the people in general didn't have a perspective that allowed them to see what was truly wrong with their church, coupled with reading the Early Church Fathers in context and explanation of how and why Orthodoxy is different from Roman Catholicism led to my being Chrismated just over a year ago.
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2012, 08:11:21 PM »

"extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

Really?  What about St. Tarcisius?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,382


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2012, 08:20:58 PM »

The novus ordo is a protestantized liturgy.

If you can find a 1904 Lutheran Hymnal, please do so. The only copy I found and studied back in 1995 was tossed into the fireplace by my then Catholic priest-confessor who also stated that he would never celebrate the Novus Ordo again. 

The recent modifications in the Novus Ordo which were sanctioned by Pope Benedict are only superficial corrections as serious errors persist throughout this heretical Lutheran Liturgy. It is sad that Catholics have been brainwashed into accepting this Protestantized liturgy. Well do I remember attending parish education courses which painted anyone who refused to accept this novel liturgy as a "reactionary" who was "holier than the Pope."

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2012, 08:21:13 PM »

"extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

Really?  What about St. Tarcisius?

It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.

It's also pointless, IMO, to bring up how people received Communion before the Creed was put into the Liturgy, since we're not living in a time without the Creed and it is in the Liturgy now.
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2012, 08:28:02 PM »


It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.
.

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2012, 08:33:55 PM »

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2012, 08:43:05 PM »


It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.
.

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

...and is not a layperson either. At any rate I agree with Asteriktos. We're not in the same situation as the Early Church anymore, not facing the persecutions they were or the other difficulties, and we don't really have proof that this was widespread.
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2012, 08:43:37 PM »

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.
As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2012, 08:48:15 PM »

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

Quote
As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2012, 08:49:43 PM »

Ok, ignoring that he was probably clergy, the other point still stands - we don't mimic every practice of the Early Church. We don't confess to the entire congregation, we don't have a bishop presiding at every Liturgy, we don't expel the catechumens at "The Doors!" and we don't let lay-people touch Holy Communion.

Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2012, 08:57:49 PM »

Ok, ignoring that he was probably clergy, the other point still stands - we don't mimic every practice of the Early Church. We don't confess to the entire congregation, we don't have a bishop presiding at every Liturgy, we don't expel the catechumens at "The Doors!" and we don't let lay-people touch Holy Communion.

So, wait.  Now you're contradicting yourself.  Only a few posts ago you waxed poetic about how the Novus Ordo was contrary to "the whole paradigm" "to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church."  But now you admit that even Orthodox Christians don't mimic every practice of the early Church.  I smell a hypocrite.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,118


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2012, 09:02:29 PM »

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

Quote
As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

Well, as I understand it, it was the norm in the Church for the first few hundred years for the Eucharist to be taken home and a piece of it consumed every day during the week.  I am under the impression that this changed as the Church grew, because some people were not treating it respectfully.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2012, 09:03:10 PM »

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

Quote
As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

Seriously??

Tertullian, then:

"Are we not priests as well as laypersons?  It is written: 'He made us a kingdom of priests for God and his Father.'  The Church has by its authority established the distinction between hierarchy and people, and the hierarchy in turn divides into hierarchic degrees those who are consecrated to God.  Where there is no hierarchically organized assembly, you may baptize and preside at the eucharistic celebration and be your own priest; and in fact, whereever there are three, even if they be laypersons, there is the Church."  (De Exhortatione Castitatus)
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2012, 09:14:12 PM »

So, wait.  Now you're contradicting yourself.  Only a few posts ago you waxed poetic about how the Novus Ordo was contrary to "the whole paradigm" "to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church."  But now you admit that even Orthodox Christians don't mimic every practice of the early Church.  I smell a hypocrite.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my other post. I do not demand that everything be done as it was in the Early Church. I believe that what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church; the entire thing must be one great continually connected experience. The Novus Ordo broke with what had come before it far too much to be a continual part of Tradition, it was something new. If they had just changed a prayer here or there, or had just translated it into the vernacular, it wouldn't have been a break with previous Liturgies. Furthermore the idea of being able to change everything up, to alter whatever one saw fit, is what was contrary to the paradigm of the Early Church. The Church is conservative, preserving more than what it alters. Of course practices change, and we need to respect that. To think we can turn back the clock and do things exactly as they were centuries ago is ridiculous, because it ignores what has happened in between and how The Church has answered it. I took issue with the Roman idea that one can do so, or can play chop shop with tradition, and still maintain the same faith.

But "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" is a uniquely Roman problem, and one I'm happy to not have to deal with. Let the Romans have them if they want, that's not my problem.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 09:16:58 PM by Joseph Hazen » 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 0.151 seconds with 71 queries.