What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Novus Ordo Mass?

[TraditionalistThomas]

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.

[Alpo]

Welcome to the forum.

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.

[Gorazd]

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?

[TraditionalistThomas]

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.

[Gorazd]

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.

[Dominika]

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.

[Aindriú]

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.

[Alpo]

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.

[TraditionalistThomas]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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)?

[TraditionalistThomas]

Welcome to the forum.

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.

[Alpo]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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.

[Dominika]

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

[Agabus]

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.

[William]

I think it's pretty lame.

[Orest]

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. 

[NicholasMyra]

freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church.

[Benjamin the Red]

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.

[neon_knights]

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.

[Gorazd]

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.

[Benjamin the Red]

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.

[William]

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.

[ialmisry]

Welcome to the forum.

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.

[Deacon Lance]

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.

[Gorazd]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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?

[ialmisry]

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).

[NicholasMyra]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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.

[akimori makoto]

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?

[Joseph Hazen]

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.

[Big Chris]

"extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

Really?  What about St. Tarcisius?

[Maria]

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."

[Joseph Hazen]

"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.

[Big Chris]

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.

[Asteriktos]

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.

[Joseph Hazen]

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.

[Big Chris]

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?

[Asteriktos]

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.

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.

[Joseph Hazen]

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.

[Big Chris]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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.

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.

[Big Chris]

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.

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)

[Joseph Hazen]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Novus Ordo Mass?