Author Topic: Is the Roman Catholic church ever going to turn its altar tables back around?  (Read 38918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
I have recently become more and more interested in the small percentage of people in Roman Catholicism who cling to the Latin Mass particularly because my older sister is one of them and is in SSPX. http://www.unavoce.org/ Una Voce seems to believe that there will be some grand re-discovery of the Latin Mass in the future and that someday things will be back to normal. While I know this happened to my older sister, who grew up with the Novus Ordo, I have a hard time believing this will happen with many RCs. http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ These people are very dedicated and have a lot of beautiful pictures of various Latin Masses though I was shocked by this picture http://www.latin-mass-society.org/images/oxford/oxfordcc27.jpeg Who would of thought Latin Mass on a basketball court? But seriously I do commend these people for holding on to Tradition.

What I am curious about is why the majority of Roman Catholics have blinded themselves to what happened at Vatican II and why do they often ridicule the few people who cling to the Latin mass?

A few weeks ago I got into a big discussion at college with a professor in the theology department about why I felt that Vatican II was a liturgical disaster. Her first rebuttal was that people, such as my father, who had a falling out experience after Vatican II because of the Novus Ordo mass, are just clinging to things that made them feel comfortable but that the celebration of the Eucharist has been celebrated in many ways throughout history. My response was that while there has been organic development there has never been sweeping changes that alter and even remove the very basis of Liturgical Theology and went on to explain that the Altar table being turned around was the most blasphemous offense of all next to having women hand out communion. Of course this really urked her as she is Catholic, devoted to reform, and an Ecumenist. She rebutted that the turning of the altar table does take away the old meaning or beliefs that were implicit and even explicit in the symbolism of the Tridentine Mass. Then the conversation took a down turn with her unwilling to admit that the turning around of the altar might have been wrong or that the Novus Ordo mass weakens and deters piety rather than strengthening it.

Another question I have for RCs is why do you sit back when you know that the altar table has NEVER in the history of the Church been turned to face the congregation? Why do you sit back while young women are 'eucharistic ministers.' This endlessly bothered my father because when he first come back home from serving in Vietnam and attended church right after the Novus Ordo hit and his aunt was one of the women handing out communion. He told me he leaned over to his dad and said, "I am not going to take communion from Ruth (his aunt's name.)" Was he wrong for being bothered by this?

Also have any of you considered that what happened at Vatican II has been the biggest hindrance to Roman Catholic and Orthodox dialogue?
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Nacho

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,482
  • The face of Corporate America
I feel ya man. The Novus Ordo has to be the most uninspiring thing I have ever seen in the whole world. For awhile I really considered converting to Catholicism but whenever I got excited and had goosebumps about how great the RC was I always had that little voice in my head telling me to head to a local parish to see the reality of what I was contemplating joining and that would usually do the trick. I was also really disgusted by the very unchristian people that I would see at mass throwing dollar bills in the tithing basket which is an utter insult to God (I live by more wealthy parishes) and leisurely going about their Sunday morning as if they were about to watch a movie or something. That most of all along with the terrible Liturgy was enough for me to say I want nothing to do with the RC.     
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
You see it is that type of experience that makes me wonder why some conservative RCs adamantly believe Vatican II was a good thing. They will say that it was about liturgical renewal and a call to holiness. Well if that is indeed the case why are more and more people leaving the mainstream Roman church than ever before?

What was the justification for turning the altar table around? When I was a kid my dad still went to mass now and then trying to restore his faith in the Roman church. My mother is a nominal Methodist so I was never forced to go to mass with my dad but for a long time I was genuinely interested in becoming Roman Catholic particularly because so many of my close relatives are so I would go. Well I could never get over the feeling that the priest facing the congregation not only was not drawing the people in but rather cutting the people off and turning church into a show. It was like everyone was coming to watch the priest perform a show for them.

What bugs me most is that Roman Catholics will occasionally say that turning the altar table around was revolutionary! How? It was capitulation to Protestant liturgical ideas. What was the first thing the Protestants did? Turn the altar table around or remove it completely. What did the Polish National Catholic church do in 1931? turn the altar table around.

But you know what amazes me? The Anglican Use Liturgy http://www.cin.org/anguse.html that allows former Anglicans coming into the Roman Catholic church to use the traditional Anglican Mass with the priest facing the altar. So former Anglicans get to be traditional but not mainstream Catholics? This just amazes me!
« Last Edit: May 12, 2005, 10:47:50 PM by Sabbas »
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,908
[Tan]Another general Catholic bitching:  Can someone please tell me what I never see ANY RC clergy with facial hair (and I mean a beard not just some Disney-ish moustache)?  I realize the laxness on following the canons for facial hair was probably around the same time as the celibate priests decree (1100ish?), but it seems as if it is flat out forbidden!  What gives?!?[/Tan]

Offline TomS

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,186
  • "Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono
"What goes around, comes around"

Offline catholickid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Totus Tuus Maria
I am a Roman Rite Catholic and an altar boy who has been fortunate enough to grow up in a parish where the Novus Ordo Mass has not been abused. We still use Latin in every mass (Vatican II did not do away with it), the patent is still used (as John PaulII demanded we do), and the mass is beautiful! I have seen tears in the priests eyes at consecration! I have seen people at communion who were radiating holiness. When I visit a parish that doesen't, I cringe. It just reminds me to Love Him all the more, and to make reperation for the sins of my fellow Catholics. O sublime humilty of God in the Eucharist! How some abuse Him! GOD have mercy.

Though Catholics that clinging to Tradition & Magesterium are very few in number, the gates of Hell HAVE NOT prevailed.

Praised be Jesus Christ!
« Last Edit: May 13, 2005, 09:36:09 AM by catholickid »

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
[Tan]Another general Catholic bitching: Can someone please tell me what I never see ANY RC clergy with facial hair (and I mean a beard not just some Disney-ish moustache)? I realize the laxness on following the canons for facial hair was probably around the same time as the celibate priests decree (1100ish?), but it seems as if it is flat out forbidden! What gives?!?[/Tan]
Up until Vatican II there were canons in the Roman church that forbade clerics from having facial hair with special exceptions having been made for various monastic orders such as the Capuchins who require their monks to have beards. For this reason many RC clerics consider it traditional to not have facial hair or just do not want to have facial hair anyway.
"What goes around, comes around"
What? Are you saying that eventually the Orthodox should turn their altar tables around and remove the iconostasis?
I am a Roman Rite Catholic and an altar boy who has been fortunate enough to grow up in a parish where the Novus Ordo Mass has not been abused. We still use Latin in every mass (Vatican II did not do away with it), the patent is still used (as John PaulII demanded we do), and the mass is beautiful! I have seen tears in the priests eyes at consecration! I have seen people at communion who were radiating holiness.  When I visit a parish that doesen't, I cringe. It just reminds me to Love Him all the more, and to make reperation for the sins of my fellow Catholics. O sublime humilty of God in the Eucharist! How some abuse Him! GOD have mercy.

Though Catholics that clinging to Tradition & Magesterium are very few in number, the gates of Hell HAVE NOT prevailed.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Which way does the altar face? I am glad that you go to a more traditional church and I did too, St.Mary's, a huge gothic church in Iowa City with a very ornate altar, plaster saint statues, traditional stations of the Cross, etc., but I still could not get over the altar table being turned the wrong way. Perhaps I am wrong but somehow this just looks better
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,908

Up until Vatican II there were canons in the Roman church that forbade clerics from having facial hair with special exceptions having been made for various monastic orders such as the Capuchins who require their monks to have beards. For this reason many RC clerics consider it traditional to not have facial hair or just do not want to have facial hair anyway.

Interesting....I never knew.  That just sounds soooo weird...considering how we have canons opposite this.  It's almost as if they created an Anti-Constantinople canon 1000 years ago just to spite them. 

Offline Rilian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • OC.net
Another question I have for RCs is why do you sit back when you know that the altar table has NEVER in the history of the Church been turned to face the congregation? Why do you sit back while young women are 'eucharistic ministers.'

Sabbas, it's because that's what the vast majority of them want.  That is why it is truly scary, it is not something being foisted on them.

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
That is a beautiful pic, but the newer churches resemble a auditorium and the N.O. is a mirror of a Luthern service.

My 1954 Roman Missal has pictures of a bearded priest celebrating.

james
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline lpap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • I stopped participating in this forum.
    • Here you can find why I withdraw from this forum.
[Tan]Another general Catholic bitching: Can someone please tell me what I never see ANY RC clergy with facial hair (and I mean a beard not just some Disney-ish moustache)? I realize the laxness on following the canons for facial hair was probably around the same time as the celibate priests decree (1100ish?), but it seems as if it is flat out forbidden! What gives?!?[/Tan]

There is an old Greek proverb that says: "beard hairs are not sufficient for a true priest".
« Last Edit: May 13, 2005, 07:12:16 PM by lpap »
Life is to live the life of others.

Offline coptic orthodox boy

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 567
IC XC NIKA
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't there a time when the Russian Orthodox Church made all their monks shave their beards?  I remember reading something close to this somewhere, and I can remember seeing beardless schema-monks (wearing the Russian style of the schema) on www.orthodoxphotos.com.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
copticorthodoxboy

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
IC XC NIKA
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't there a time when the Russian Orthodox Church made all their monks shave their beards? I remember reading something close to this somewhere, and I can remember seeing beardless schema-monks (wearing the Russian style of the schema) on www.orthodoxphotos.com. Please correct me if I am wrong.
copticorthodoxboy

I do believe that it was the tsar, and not the Church, who had all Russians shave their facial hair.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline coptic orthodox boy

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 567
IC XC NIKA
Thanks for the correction.  Yes, I recall it was the czar now.
copticorthodoxboy

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
The new Pope Benedict may issue instructions that Roman Catholic altars face the East again.

See chapter three of his "Spirit of the Liturgy.

"THE ALTAR AND THE DIRECTION OF LITURGICAL PRAYER"
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-10/article.html


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


I do believe that it was the tsar, and not the Church, who had all Russians shave their facial hair.

Clergy were exempt from the Tsar's ruling against facial hair.

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229


A few weeks ago I got into a big discussion at college with a professor in the theology department about why I felt that Vatican II was a liturgical disaster. Her first rebuttal was that people, such as my father, who had a falling out experience after Vatican II because of the Novus Ordo mass, are just clinging to things that made them feel comfortable but that the celebration of the Eucharist has been celebrated in many ways throughout history. My response was that while there has been organic development there has never been sweeping changes that alter and even remove the very basis of Liturgical Theology and went on to explain that the Altar table being turned around was the most blasphemous offense of all next to having women hand out communion. 

Sabbas, Your professor was right on some things....  for most of the beginning of Christianity- the first several centuries, the liturgy was celebrated secretly  in the home at the dinner table, where women officiated the liturgy.  Women were priests, as discovery of inscribed tombstones indicate.  Women were able to move more easily/inconspicuously  through society- since they were 'invisible'..considered 'of no importance'  and therefore were  more able to hold worship services than men, without getting 'caught' by Roman guards.   An issue was that  those who wished to be celibate were seen as rebellious youth... because women were supposed to marry according to the wishes of their parents. And female slaves were required to be mistresses to their masters.   Thecla's story is just one example. Thecla was a disciple of St. Paul who refused her 'betrothed' to preach the Gospel.  She became persona non grata because she refused to marry according to her parents wishes... which was a BIG Deal...  however, she was a disciple and instrumental in the early church, for which she was martyred.   

In Catholicism there were two moves that worked against the image of women as being able to participate in clergy: the Immaculate Concepcion, which basically made The Theotokos beyond a human female and therefore non-aspirational, and St. Mary Magdalene, who for a long time was portrayed as a prostitute (later rescinded). 

To me, it is not the concept of women handing out communion that is an issue, but the concept of 'anyone'- male or female-  handing out communion that is an issue.... A woman who has devoted her life to Christ is very different from anyone on the block... and that is what at least Vat. II appears to have done.... maybe not as intended, but it looks like that's how it turned out... out of necessity, with limited priests and huge congregations... and in RC nearly all  receive HC ( not like in the EO, where only a group usually receive). 
I remember reading in the paper about a year or 2 ago that the RC church was instructing  people to reinstitute some of the older traditions such as limiting lay servers and also specifying  genuflection  in prep for receiving Holy Communion.  So clearly they recognized something was 'amiss'... but they need to do more.. and I really think Pope B. will at least try...

In XC, Kizzy


In XC, Kizzy

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
for most of the beginning of Christianity- the first several centuries, the liturgy was celebrated secretly in the home at the dinner table, where women officiated the liturgy. Women were priests, as discovery of inscribed tombstones indicate.

 :bs: Do you have a reputable, peer-reviewed, published cite for this claim?

Regarding the orientation of the altar, it should be noted that priests are still allowed to say the mass ad orientem, if they so choose, and that the altar table of St. Peter's basilica has always faced the people.

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
 [and in RC nearly all  receive HC ( not like in the EO, where only a group usually receive).]

Kizzy:

This may be true within the Greek Orthodox Church.  But it certainly is not true within most parishes within the OCA, Antiochian, Carpatho Russian parishes I have attended.  On any given Sunday in my parish which usually has an average of 160+ attendees at least 75% of the congregation receives Communion.  About 95% or more of these receive on a regular basis.  And receive Confession and Absolution prior to receiving.  Communion usually takes from 10 to 15 minutes.

Orthodoc 
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Our Carpatho-Russian parish has about 80% weekly communing. Our Greek parish...the same.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
In our Russian parish we can look at the weekly figures for communicants in two ways...

1. 33% of our active membership

2. Less than 2% of our total membership.

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
Communion from anyone other than a priest or deacon is a hot topic on most RC forums, just speaking for myself it is only received from a priest or deacon.

It truly amazes me the # recieveing never matches the # seen at confession, there must be a lot of righteous people out there today.

james
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
for most of the beginning of Christianity- the first several centuries, the liturgy was celebrated secretly in the home at the dinner table, where women officiated the liturgy. Women were priests, as discovery of inscribed tombstones indicate.

You're referring to the term "presbytera" on those gravestones.  That has never meant, nor does it now mean, "female priest."  It's the term for "priest's wife," as I'm sure you know, being Greek Orthodox...
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Quote
It truly amazes me the # recieveing never matches the # seen at confession, there must be a lot of righteous people out there today.

I have noticed that as well. Amazing, isn't it?  :scratch: :dunno:
« Last Edit: May 16, 2005, 05:06:51 PM by Arystarcus »

Offline Carpatho-Rusyn

  • Just Orthodox
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • Visit me at MySpace
The new Pope Benedict may issue instructions that Roman Catholic altars face the East again.

See chapter three of his "Spirit of the Liturgy.

"THE ALTAR AND THE DIRECTION OF LITURGICAL PRAYER"
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-10/article.html



Well he certainly has a grasp of the issue. It will be interesting to see if he does anything about it and how the bishops, the American ones in particular, will comply.
Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229


You're referring to the term "presbytera" on those gravestones. That has never meant, nor does it now mean, "female priest." It's the term for "priest's wife," as I'm sure you know, being Greek Orthodox...

That is how we use it today, not what it meant almost 2000 years ago. Presbytera was the female form of presbyter which was:
1. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
2.the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229


 :bs: Do you have a reputable, peer-reviewed, published cite for this claim?

quote]

The information is from interviews with current leaading Biblical sholars including Eliz. Clark, Elaine Pagels, and Karen King.  - you can access the interviews at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html  The interviews reference work they have published on in their research on the very beginnings of the church, pre- Constantine I  Eliz. Clark is the editor of one of the peer-reviewed journal of Early Christian Studies. 

Elizabeth Clark:An authority in the fields of women in the early church, Professor Clark is the author of numerous articles and eleven books, including Women in the Early Church, ...She is the past president of the North American Patristic Society, the past president of the American Academy of Religion and the American Society of Church History, the senior editor of Church History, and the co-editor of the Journal of Early Christian Studies.

Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton.

In XC, Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
1. The linked interview is not peer-reviewed, nor do the interviewees provide any citations for their assertions.

2. The linked interview says nothing about women holding the priesthood; rather, it says they were influential leaders in the early church and served as deacons, neither of which is disputed. That does not mean they were priestesses.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2005, 06:56:41 PM by Beayf »

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
That is how we use it today, not what it meant almost 2000 years ago.

Once again, cite?

Quote
Presbytera was the female form of presbyter which was:
1. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
2.the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Presbytera can also mean, simply, eldress; it is no indication that the woman in question held the sacramental priesthood.

Offline Carpatho-Rusyn

  • Just Orthodox
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • Visit me at MySpace
MY APOLOGIES. THIS WAS POSTED ON ANOTHER THREAD.

Sadly the RCC is dealing with this type of abuse. It is both liturgical and architectural.
You need Quicktime to see this:

http://www.churchbuilding.com/interactive/swf/html/sn_procession.html

« Last Edit: May 16, 2005, 07:30:59 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn »
Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Interestingly, that video of the dancing priest didn't faze me as much as it seems to have some of y'all. While the architecture was hideous, the music is poo, and the dancing and applause are both totally inappropriate in the Roman liturgy, the actual procession reminded me somewhat of the dancing with the Torah that Jews do at Simchat Torah -- liturgical dance is not totally unknown in our history, though of course never in the Graeco-Roman rites.

Offline coptic orthodox boy

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 567
IC XC NIKA
I believe there are still religious dances in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.  I saw something on the tele a few days ago, and they were really getting into it (not like pentacostals, however).
copticorthodoxboy

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
1. The linked interview is not peer-reviewed, nor do the interviewees provide any citations for their assertions.

2. The linked interview says nothing about women holding the priesthood; rather, it says they were influential leaders in the early church and served as deacons, neither of which is disputed. That does not mean they were priestesses.

Beayf:
The reason these Professors hold the title of scholars on this subject is because they have extensively published in peer reviewed journals on the topic of the early church and are pioneers in research in the area, including the role of women, for which it says they officiated the Eucharist at services in the home before the days when they could worship in public.   

Here is one of the  references: 

Elizabeth A. Clark, "Holy Women, Holy Words: Early Christian Women, Social History, and the ‘Linguistic Turn,’" Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998) 413-430.

Another reference:
2. "a tombstone from late fifth-century southern Italy: 'Leta, the priest (presbytera), lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days. Her husband set this up for her'.   Or a Latin inscription from Salona in Dalmatia, dated earlier in the same century: 'I Theodosius purchased this grave plot from the holy priest (presbytera sancta) Flavia Vitalia for three gold pieces'";Women and the Early Church
Magazine article by Brent Shaw; History Today, Vol. 44, February 1994  This has been referenced in numerous articles of study, i only note one.   Note that Leta's husband did not refer to himself as clergy. 

The point is, the church dogma was written by the 'victors' and left out what they did not want.  So the Orthodox church decided not to accept women into the clergy... However in the very early church...when it was 'in infancy' bubbling along in the villages and homes, women were  leaders.  They stood by Christ when his disciples left him, and were the first to proclaim the resurrection  and told  the 'men' what to do... the Pascha stichera and katavasie, although chanted by men these days, were  1st the proclamations of women. I think we can accept the Orthodox current tradition of all male clergy, however, we must recognize the early history that went on before the councils decided what it wanted and didn't in it's hierarchy.   

In XC, Kizzy


In XC, Kizzy

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
The reason these Professors hold the title of scholars on this subject is because they have extensively published in peer reviewed journals on the topic of the early church and are pioneers in research in the area, including the role of women, for which it says they officiated the Eucharist at services in the home before the days when they could worship in public.

I don't doubt that they are very well-regarded in their field; that does change the point that, until cites are produced, their assertions are just that: assertions.

Quote
Elizabeth A. Clark, "Holy Women, Holy Words: Early Christian Women, Social History, and the ‘Linguistic Turn,’" Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998) 413-430.

I thank you for providing a citation. Unfortunately, I have just called it up and read it (ah, the magic of the internet!), and it does not make the claim that women held the sacramental priesthood.

Quote
Another reference:
2. "a tombstone from late fifth-century southern Italy: 'Leta, the priest (presbytera), lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days. Her husband set this up for her'. Or a Latin inscription from Salona in Dalmatia, dated earlier in the same century: 'I Theodosius purchased this grave plot from the holy priest (presbytera sancta) Flavia Vitalia for three gold pieces'";Women and the Early Church
Magazine article by Brent Shaw; History Today, Vol. 44, February 1994 This has been referenced in numerous articles of study, i only note one. Note that Leta's husband did not refer to himself as clergy.

Of course, neither of these inscriptions prove, or (considering the time period and the weight of Church tradition) even suggest that women ever held the sacramental priesthood.

Quote
So the Orthodox church decided not to accept women into the clergy... However in the very early church...when it was 'in infancy' bubbling along in the villages and homes, women were leaders. They stood by Christ when his disciples left him, and were the first to proclaim the resurrection and told the 'men' what to do... the Pascha stichera and katavasie, although chanted by men these days, were 1st the proclamations of women.

Indeed, women were important and strong leaders in the early Church. They were not, however, priests.

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia

I think we can accept the Orthodox current tradition of all male clergy, however, we must recognize the early history that went on before the councils decided what it wanted and didn't in it's hierarchy.


Kizzy, the councils did not decide what the church did and didn't want in its hierarchy, they defended that which had been handed down to them from the Apostles against that which had not.

In Greek culture, the wife of a professional received honor for her husband's position, so a teacher's wife was addressed as Mrs Teacher, a doctor's wife was addressed as Mrs Doctor and a priest's wife was addressed as Mrs Priest. I will admit that there were female priests, however they were in sects that had broken off from the Church or were pagan. There have never been female priests in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who ordained women to the priesthood seperated both themselves and those they ordained from the Body of Christ.

John
« Last Edit: May 17, 2005, 03:19:49 AM by prodromos »

Offline catholickid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Totus Tuus Maria
Question? Did Jesus say the first mass facing the people or away from them?
Both ways are beautiful if done properly.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
Question? Did Jesus say the first mass facing the people or away from them?

Very likely Jesus was facing the same direction as His apostles. It was the custom at the time for everybody to recline on the same side of the table.

Offline Carpatho-Rusyn

  • Just Orthodox
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • Visit me at MySpace
Question? Did Jesus say the first mass facing the people or away from them?
Both ways are beautiful if done properly.

I am glad to see you go so far back to tradition to defend the Novus Ordo Liturgy. For consistency sake I hope you would publicly advocate that your priests be allowed to marry, as were most of those who attended "the first mass" were.

In all honesty, you know your question is a phantom question....as "the first mass" was also done without vestments, microphones, pews, altar girls, etc., etc.....

The Liturgy developed very carefully and the Fathers were very conscious of its connection to the Temple, synagogue worship, and the Last Supper. 
Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Offline optxogokcoc

  • orthodoxos
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
The answer on topic question:

Never ever, not even then.

Offline Rilian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • OC.net
I can say I learned two things before I came in to the church.

The Pagels crowd are not non-partial academics.  They have an agenda.  They reach conclusions and then search for the evidence.  The evidence they have is scant and open to varying interpretations.  It depends on things like deciphering isolated tombstones or mosaics (Theodora, Priscialla and Leta being favorites), or simply giving alternate readings to sections of sacred scripture.  The only hard evidence of priestesses is in the heretical sects (Marcionites, Montanists).  All the documentary evidence is that the church has condemned the priesting of women.  The people who soak this up are the modern day heretics who want to justify their deviations from tradition.

Whenever you hear somebody say something like Jesus did or said {blank}, and you know that {blank} runs counter the to traditions of the church, it is a good indication they are trying to justify something they know full well is a deviation.  They are grasping at straws.

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
the altar table of St. Peter's basilica has always faced the people.
But the Mass was not said facing the people till Vatican II.

Quote from: Irish Hermit on Sun, May 15, 2005, 09:38 PM
The new Pope Benedict may issue instructions that Roman Catholic altars face the East again.

See chapter three of his "Spirit of the Liturgy.

"THE ALTAR AND THE DIRECTION OF LITURGICAL PRAYER"
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-10/article.html

I read the booklet and I found this quote interesting
Quote
The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of the liturgy. The Eucharist — so it was said — had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar — as can be seen in the normative model of St. Peter’s — had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone — so it was said — was compatible with the meaning of the Christian liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper.

These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about “turning to the people”) new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the liturgy —the liturgy as a communal meal.

Misunderstanding the Meaning of the Meal
This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table (Liturgy and Architecture, pp. 53-54).
In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the “shape” of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term “meal.” True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with logos.

Thus it came to pass that the synagogue liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ’s Death and Resurrection to become the “Eucharist,” and precisely thus was fidelity to the command “Do this” fulfilled. This new and all-encompassing form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal, but had to be defined through the interconnection of Temple and synagogue, Word and Sacrament, cosmos and history. It expresses itself in the very form that we discovered in the liturgical structure of the early Churches in the world of Semitic Christianity. It also, of course, remained fundamental for Rome. Once again let me quote Bouyer:

Never and nowhere before [that is, before the sixteenth century] have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest should celebrate with the people before him or behind him Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently demonstrated it, the only thing ever insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East . . . Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation, together with him” (pp. 55-56).
I definitely think Pope Benedict wants to turn the altar table back around but I have serious doubts he will.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
IC XC NIKA
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't there a time when the Russian Orthodox Church made all their monks shave their beards? I remember reading something close to this somewhere, and I can remember seeing beardless schema-monks (wearing the Russian style of the schema) on www.orthodoxphotos.com. Please correct me if I am wrong.
copticorthodoxboy
Actually the picture you are referring to http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/cgi-bin/photo.pl?path=Monasticism&file=37.jpg is actually of Schema-Nuns as far as I can tell.
That is a beautiful pic, but the newer churches resemble a auditorium and the N.O. is a mirror of a Luthern service.

My 1954 Roman Missal has pictures of a bearded priest celebrating.

james
I was not aware that there were Catholic priest with beards before Vatican II. Still I am almost positive I was told that up to the twentieth century there were canons against RC priests having facial hair and that these canons were strictly enforced.

Interesting....I never knew. That just sounds soooo weird...considering how we have canons opposite this. It's almost as if they created an Anti-Constantinople canon 1000 years ago just to spite them.
To my knowledge clergy were required to shave because of the issue of cleanliness but I am not sure. I am also unsure how closely these canons were followed throughout history. There were Popes who had beards during the Counter-Reformation but as far as I know the norm in the West by the 9th century was for clergy to be without facial hair and the majority of popes that I have seen pictures of were without facial hair.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


Kizzy, the councils did not decide what the church did and didn't want in its hierarchy, they defended that which had been handed down to them from the Apostles against that which had not.

In Greek culture, the wife of a professional received honor for her husband's position, so a teacher's wife was addressed as Mrs Teacher, a doctor's wife was addressed as Mrs Doctor and a priest's wife was addressed as Mrs Priest. I will admit that there were female priests, however they were in sects that had broken off from the Church or were pagan. There have never been female priests in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who ordained women to the priesthood seperated both themselves and those they ordained from the Body of Christ.

John
That is true but I don't think Kizzy would agree with you that because they separated themselves from the Church that their Mysteries became invalid.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
But the Mass was not said facing the people till Vatican II.

In St. Peter's basilica, it was indeed said facing the people. Because of the local geography, the basilica had to be built facing west, so for the celebrant to serve facing east, he would have had to face the people. See here for a photograph.

Quote
I was not aware that there were Catholic priest with beards before Vatican II.

Most Catholic clergy were forbidden facial hair, but Capuchins have always been allowed to wear beards. Additionally, the prohibition on facial hair has been enforced with varying strictness at different periods and in different places.

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
I can say I learned two things before I came in to the church.

The Pagels crowd are not non-partial academics. They have an agenda. They reach conclusions and then search for the evidence. The evidence they have is scant and open to varying interpretations. It depends on things like deciphering isolated tombstones or mosaics (Theodora, Priscialla and Leta being favorites), or simply giving alternate readings to sections of sacred scripture. The only hard evidence of priestesses is in the heretical sects (Marcionites, Montanists). All the documentary evidence is that the church has condemned the priesting of women. The people who soak this up are the modern day heretics who want to justify their deviations from tradition.

Whenever you hear somebody say something like Jesus did or said {blank}, and you know that {blank} runs counter the to traditions of the church, it is a good indication they are trying to justify something they know full well is a deviation. They are grasping at straws.

Actually this crowd says it like it is soup to nuts, they state that Orthodoxy did not accept certain practices, which is very true and acknowledge Holy Tradition as the stated reason.   The problem is that Orthodoxy has some difficulty stating why things were so, other than that's the way it was via Holy  tradition.   But church tradition includes alot of things that are considered unacceptable today, such as slavery, and ill treatment of women- Slavery is still a practice in some cultures and so is ill treatment of women  (In some cultures genital mutilation is still a practice- and Orthodoxy might find a hard way to teach against it with the subservient role women have via Holy tradition. and we can still remember how the Taliban treated their women. This was their 'holy tradition'.)  So the 'tradition' answer is a bit of a weak response in this day and age  because in puts the Orthodox church on a level with other such 'traditions', rather than elevating it, as it should be.   

When we consider that in history women were either pregnant, giving birth, post partum, hemmoraghing, lactating, or dying from any of these- all the time, no wonder they had the treatment they did throughout history in all cultures...  It was  in the early church, before the hierarchy became well established and 'public' via Constantine I, that women lead the services  in the home- which was their exclusive domain.   If one looks at iconography in the early days, one will see Christ depicted as a 'peer' common folk, and not as a King on a throne as in the days of Constantine I.  Moving services from the home to a public church and Christ to a Throne was the big transformation in the church and canons then were issued to 'stop' certain practices already happening, not to say proactively how the church would practice. They were always retrospective- which is why they are not always easy to apply to current events.  To write in canons  that women could not be clergy is indication that it was an issue to be addressed.  So the home remained their domain... and the men were recognized in the church.

We need  to recognize that men have been playing 'game sealed' in all aspects of life and religion and justifying it with the word 'tradition'.  The Disciples and Church Fathers were not immune to this culture- they were after all, still human and male and the Orthodox Church has that within it.  However, we know that S. MMag. and the Theotokos are hard to 'dispute' in terms of their role.. but one is hard pressed to find much on either of them written in the Holy Bible...but what little their is, is highly significant.

in XC, Kizzy

   
 
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229

That is true but I don't think Kizzy would agree with you that because they separated themselves from the Church that their Mysteries became invalid.

Thanks Sabbas.  The Apostles clearly did not hand down any tradition for women... they ignored them in what they handed down, which was simply the culture of the time and not 'out of the ordinary'.   However, Scripture states that  in God's Kingdom there is no distinction between male or female...but the church never pulled this into it's structure.   Women had to do  it on their own...and if they were the first to offer 'liturgy' at their dinner table 'in hiding' from the Romans, then their mysteries were valid in the eyes of God.  In the end, it is always between oneself and God...

In XC, Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
But church tradition includes alot of things that are considered unacceptable today, such as slavery,

Which there is nothing intrinsically wrong with.

Quote
we can still remember how the Taliban treated their women. This was their 'holy tradition'.

Actually, their "holy tradition" only dates back to certain Arabian scholars of about 400 years ago who are widely considered errant in their beliefs.

Quote
if they were the first to offer 'liturgy' at their dinner table 'in hiding' from the Romans, then their mysteries were valid in the eyes of God.

But it has not yet been established that they did in fact offer up the Divine Liturgy at any point.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,444
  • Out for a stroll...
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Sorry, Kizzy, but your reasoning is very flawed and simplistic.  There is NO evidence that women were EVER priests in the Orthodox Church.  Please don't cite people like Elaine Pagels as an authority on this or any other subject.  She gets a lot of attention from the media, but she is not viewed by the vast majority of scholars as being anywhere near mainstream in her views, and does not seem to have credible evidence to back up her assertions. 

Your Pauline rationale that in the Kingdom of Heaven "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female" is the basis for the reasoning used by Elizabeth Behr-Siegel and a TINY contingent of Orthodox scholars that women should be priests.  The fact is, most Orthodox schloars disagree with this line of thinking.  They believe that a sexual difference of some kind will persist into the next age, and that male and female differences form part of the innate nature of the person. 

It's true that there has been a lot of sexism, clericalism, and other wrong things throughout history.  This by itself does not mean that women should be priests.  Have you ever read what Deborah Belonick has written about the lot of women in the world today and the issue of female ordination?

Bob
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.


Don't believe everything you think.


The more I know, the less I know.   ;)

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
Amazing, from altar tables to women & ordination. Only in American cyber space.

By the way, there is nothing within Vat II changing altars, communion rails etc, it was "someone's" innovation in 1969.

Google > The Mass of Vatican II, Rev. Joseph Fessio

james
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline emmanuelmelo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • OC.net
Kizzy,

As a fellow Greek Orthodox Christian, I must say that I am surprised at your attitude towards women's ordination.  Women deacons were used in the early church to prepare females for baptism.  To say that the apostles "ignored" women is an insult to our holy faith.  These God-bearing men are the pinnacle of our Faith.  Perhaps you should read a more diverse backgrouned of literature- especially that of the holy fathers- before you make such rash statements.  Women are an indispensable part of the Church, but to simply create a role for women out of political correctness would be contrary to Orthodoxy.  You might want to check out statements from the Church of Greece, which has recently encouraged the revival of deaconesses- in accord with their historical role- that of catechists and those who assist with the social mission of the Church.

God Bless

Emmanuel
NULL

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Sorry, Kizzy, but your reasoning is very flawed and simplistic. There is NO evidence that women were EVER priests in the Orthodox Church. Please don't cite people like Elaine Pagels as an authority on this or any other subject. She gets a lot of attention from the media, but she is not viewed by the vast majority of scholars as being anywhere near mainstream in her views, and does not seem to have credible evidence to back up her assertions.

Your Pauline rationale that in the Kingdom of Heaven "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female" is the basis for the reasoning used by Elizabeth Behr-Siegel and a TINY contingent of Orthodox scholars that women should be priests. The fact is, most Orthodox schloars disagree with this line of thinking. They believe that a sexual difference of some kind will persist into the next age, and that male and female differences form part of the innate nature of the person.

It's true that there has been a lot of sexism, clericalism, and other wrong things throughout history. This by itself does not mean that women should be priests. Have you ever read what Deborah Belonick has written about the lot of women in the world today and the issue of female ordination?

Bob

Bob, I did not say they were priests in the Orthodox church - in fact I said the opposite. Nor did I say they should be priests in the OC.  They were not accepted as priests by the Orthodox Church - that point is clear.(Although it appears they were deacons.) That does not mean that they did not perform priestly duties which were simply unaccepted.. Eliz. Rogers is doing much of the research in the area, I believe more that Pagels. This is a challenge for the Orthodox scholar.. as Orthodox tend to focus exclusively on that 'within the church' rather than research and question what is the church practice, for the sake of understanding...However, thank you for mentioning Deborah Belonick.. She is one of the few Orthodox researcher/trailblazers on the topic. I note she is female...which seems to be a prerequisite for interest in the subject...


I have read some of her articles and interviews, from which this quote is taken: "When I began to study the history of women in the Church, I discovered the early Christian women were much more emancipated than women in our parishes today. In the face of cultural taboo, they became missionaries, evangelists, prophetesses, teachers, and counselors. I discovered the illustrious history of women in the diaconate. Because my Master of Divinity thesis at Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary was a comparative study between feminist theology and traditional Orthodox theology, I was given several opportunities to speak to women's groups, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Amidst these groups, I heard harrowing tales of how these Christian women had been degraded in their own parishes, all in the name of Christianity. Some were denied reading the Scripture in church. Many were made to feel dirty because of their menstrual cycles. Many were denied positions on church councils or teaching positions. This is not Orthodox, and it shows an ignorance of our history.Do we know, for example, that Saint Gorgonia, sister of Saint Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, once entered the altar area to be healed of a malignant disease? Holding fast to the altar table, she prayed and cried all night, proclaiming she would not loose her hold until she had been cured. And she was. All these "thou shalt nots" regarding women in the Orthodox Church are nothing but cultural or Pharisaical or Western influences. The feminist movement has at least interested us in excavating the truth about women in the Orthodox Church, and for that we should be grateful."

Excavating the truth about women... that is an interesting way to describe the task..and according to Matushka Belonick, more remains to be done here. Maybe someday women will be promoted to sextons and get to organize and clean behind the altar...

In XC, Kizzy

 
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Kizzy,

As a fellow Greek Orthodox Christian, I must say that I am surprised at your attitude towards women's ordination. Women deacons were used in the early church to prepare females for baptism. To say that the apostles "ignored" women is an insult to our holy faith. These God-bearing men are the pinnacle of our Faith. Perhaps you should read a more diverse backgrouned of literature- especially that of the holy fathers- before you make such rash statements. Women are an indispensable part of the Church, but to simply create a role for women out of political correctness would be contrary to Orthodoxy. You might want to check out statements from the Church of Greece, which has recently encouraged the revival of deaconesses- in accord with their historical role- that of catechists and those who assist with the social mission of the Church.

God Bless

Emmanuel

Manny, It's amazing that some readers took a  big leap from  a statement on history to  an assumption of my personal belief on ordination...one thing has nothing to do with the other.  I recognize women  had a role in the early church, recognize the societal norms of the time, but also  recognize the tradition for the priesthood as Orthodox.     I have also  read scripture and writings of the Holy Fathers... and it is the attitude toward women expressed  in  the writing that is  concerning, not what is stated. Saying that women were 'ignored' is not intended as an insult, but a recognition of what the norm of the age was.     Both men and women were a pinnacles of our Faith. Wealthy women financed efforts of the disciples to spread the faith...this is not often spoken of. And women started the practice of linking the church with orphanages and the needy.    But the statements on women, as expressed in scripture and canon,  have been misconstrued over the years to create a very negative attitude within some parishes today towards women in many of the other roles in the church - from reading Scripture to Parish council ... see the quote from Matushka Belonick in my other post on this thread. It explains  that  this attitude is 'non-Orthodox'... So why does this attitude and misunderstanding exist? From the attitude used in statements about women in the scripture...

In XC, Kizzy
   
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Nigula Qian Zishi

  • Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,837
  • 我美丽的妻子和我。
    • Orthodox Ecclesiology and The World
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver
Besides the topic of priestesses which is an unfortunate heretical fantasy of some ultra-feminist historical revisionists, which I will hold my tongue from saying anything further, I must say something about the term "female deacons".

Deaconesses were not female deacons, they did have a catechetical role for the women catechumens housed on church property and had a role in holding up a sheet (for modesty's sake in not having the priest see here unclothed since all were Baptized naked back then) and assisting to make sure the woman was completely submerged 3 times at Baptism. When we misuse terms like "female deacons" we only give the ultra-feminist historical revisionists more straws to grasp at. So, please, can we use the term deaconess, which while not a "female deacon" was a very important role for single or widowed women of character over 40 in the early Church.
在基督
尼古拉
前执事
的博客

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229


Which there is nothing intrinsically wrong with.



Actually, their "holy tradition" only dates back to certain Arabian scholars of about 400 years ago who are widely considered errant in their beliefs.



But it has not yet been established that they did in fact offer up the Divine Liturgy at any point.

if you think there is nothing wrong with slavery, think again.. Only God owns people..one cannot serve a master to do however he wishes and serve God... The essence of slavery is complete giving up of all personal choice to that of the master.  And while you may think the Taliban were following scholars 'errant' in their beliefs, they didn't think so. They thought they were orthodox muslims.     As to women offering D.L. it depends on what you mean... in an Orthodox church, they did not, in their home, before the churches were built and the church clergy financed and 'free', they did... it was after all their kitchen, and they had responsibility for the bread and wine.  So if you lived back then, you would have been without 'the Gifts', unless you took them in secret at  a home at the dinner table,  where women were in charge.  Remember Orthodoxy doesn't claim it represents all of Christianity in the early Church... some of what was practiced it did not accept.. and that is a point to be recognized.

In XC, Kizzy

In XC, Kizzy

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
An excellent article by Matushka Belonick from Jacob's Well on the difference between Tradition and Traditionalism.

http://www.jacwell.org/Spring_Summer%2099/belonick.htm

Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia

As to women offering D.L. it depends on what you mean... in an Orthodox church, they did not, in their home, before the churches were built and the church clergy financed and 'free', they did... it was after all their kitchen, and they had responsibility for the bread and wine.


I've yet to see any evidence supporting this claim Kizzy. Providing the bread and wine is a far cry from consecrating the bread and wine. I would be extremelyy surprised to learn that families were having private divine liturgies in their homes. Everything I've read regarding the times of persecution seems to state the opposite, that the believers always celebrated Divine Liturgy as a body.

BTW, it is a fact that most of the bread and wine used for the Eucharist in the Orthodox church is still provided by the women of the church.

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!
John

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Sabbas,

Quote
I was not aware that there were Catholic priest with beards before Vatican II. Still I am almost positive I was told that up to the twentieth century there were canons against RC priests having facial hair and that these canons were strictly enforced.

I'm not sure what the state of "the rules" is now (since the RCC re-did it's entire canon law schemata in 1983), but I know previously (at least in the Latin rite) Priests were required to shave.  The only exceptions I'm aware of were certain religious congregations, and missionary priests - for whatever reasons (I believe part of it had to do with the fact many cultures esteem men with beards more), they were allowed to grow beards.  For example, I've seen photos of bishops, priests, etc. with beards in Africa back in the day.

Quote
To my knowledge clergy were required to shave because of the issue of cleanliness but I am not sure. I am also unsure how closely these canons were followed throughout history. There were Popes who had beards during the Counter-Reformation but as far as I know the norm in the West by the 9th century was for clergy to be without facial hair and the majority of popes that I have seen pictures of were without facial hair.

I don't know what the origin of the clean-shaven thing was, but I suspect it had something to do with the "neo-classicism" (so to speak) of the Franks, who were fond of anything classically Roman (as in pre-Christian, pagan Roman).  That's just a guess.


Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Kizzy,

Quote
  But church tradition includes alot of things that are considered unacceptable today, such as slavery, and ill treatment of women- Slavery is still a practice in some cultures and so is ill treatment of women  (In some cultures genital mutilation is still a practice- and Orthodoxy might find a hard way to teach against it with the subservient role women have via Holy tradition. and we can still remember how the Taliban treated their women. This was their 'holy tradition'.)

You're mixing up all sorts of things here, and confusing matters.

First, I was unaware that there was a "Church Tradition" of keeping slaves.  What there was though, was a tolerance of such - in cultures where slaves were kept, the Church only insisted that they be treated properly.   The idea that owning slaves is inherently immoral is an outgrowth of modern humanism - it's actually a difficult idea to defend on the basis of the Scriptures, or even reason.

What the Taliban or what have you do to women, is frankly, irreleven to the discussion of Christianity.  Also, I think you're really stretching to confound the abuse of women with denying they have access to every sort of vocation in life.  That a woman cannot be made a Hierarch or a Presbyter who ministers in the Altar, is no more an injustice than the fact that I cannot give birth.

As an aside, I think something else needs to be said about historical hardships endured by women.  Did they exist?  Of course, of course they did.  But what the politicized debates on these topics forget (and it is made worse by other delusions often inherent to such debates - such as rabid egalitarianism, or the implicit denial of gender by denying the real differences between the sexes), is that historically life was rought for everyone, or at least almost everyone, save the men and women who often sat at the top of the "food chain" in any given societal context.  Life has often been cruel and short, in many a pagan land (and depending on the times, even in many Christian ones.)  I think it'd be hard to insist that women historically were the only ones being dumped on, when you consider who it was who got stuck in the mines, pushed into fighting wars (often of no interest to themselves, but only to their rulers who typically behaved like ceremonially glorified gangsters), etc.

Quote
So the 'tradition' answer is a bit of a weak response in this day and age  because in puts the Orthodox church on a level with other such 'traditions', rather than elevating it, as it should be.

Umm...I don't see the parity between the traditions of the Theandric Body of Christ and those of heretics, infidels, and pagans.

Quote
When we consider that in history women were either pregnant, giving birth, post partum, hemmoraghing, lactating, or dying from any of these- all the time, no wonder they had the treatment they did throughout history in all cultures...  It was  in the early church, before the hierarchy became well established and 'public' via Constantine I, that women lead the services  in the home- which was their exclusive domain.   If one looks at iconography in the early days, one will see Christ depicted as a 'peer' common folk, and not as a King on a throne as in the days of Constantine I.

This is just nonsense.  Did St.Constantine write the Bible too?  Because in there, it's quite clear that Christ, as God-Man is now seated in glory.

There is absolutely no history of Orthodox female Hierarchs or Presbyters.  We keep hearing about this, yet all we seem to get are ambiguous references to presbyteras (which btw., still exist - just go to a Greek Church, as for "Presbytera", and someone will bring you to the Priest's wife!), and not once to a Hierarch (Bishop - Episkopos - Overseer).

Quote
To write in canons  that women could not be clergy is indication that it was an issue to be addressed.  So the home remained their domain... and the men were recognized in the church.

Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

The fact is, heretics do and say lots of things - they also had wild orgies, called the "God of the Old Testament" a demon and a "lesser god", possibly practiced cannibalism, etc. etc.  I don't see how an honest, moderatly informed person can fail to understand this, and see that it ultimatly doesn't have any bearing on normative, Orthodox Christianity.

Quote
We need  to recognize that men have been playing 'game sealed' in all aspects of life and religion and justifying it with the word 'tradition'.  The Disciples and Church Fathers were not immune to this culture- they were after all, still human and male and the Orthodox Church has that within it.  However, we know that S. MMag. and the Theotokos are hard to 'dispute' in terms of their role.. but one is hard pressed to find much on either of them written in the Holy Bible...but what little their is, is highly significant.

Actually we know quite abit about both the Theotokos and St.Mary Magdalene.  Yes, a lot of it is not from the Scriptures - but then again, we don't know much about the lives of any of the Holy Apostles, early Hierarchs, Holy Martyrs, etc. from the pages of Scripture either!  The only account of martyrdom that we in fact have of any of the Apostles is that of St.James in the book of Acts, and a prophetic allusion to that of St.Peter.

And guess what - in all of this, not a word about either being a Priest!  If the Priesthood were about worthiness, either would qualify - St.Mary Magdalene was a Saint, and the Mother of God is more exalted than even the Seraphim and Cherubim.

Quote
The Apostles clearly did not hand down any tradition for women... they ignored them in what they handed down, which was simply the culture of the time and not 'out of the ordinary'.

When people say things like this, it indicates to me a total lack of comprehension of just who the Apostles were, and what the source of their knowledge was.  The same goes for those who throw scorn upon the authority of the Saints, in particular the Fathers, when their sayings contradict the conventional wisdom of the practical atheists who we can thank for the "modern west" and it's many phillosphical/moral assumptions.

I don't mean by "lack of comprehension" a kind of "how dare you?!" horror, because the Apostles knew Christ personally, having walked with Him and witnessed His miracles and His Ressurection, etc.  Rather, I mean by this, their spiritual insight - the fact they, and all Saints (and certainly all of the genuine Fathers of the Church, which we recognize as such, were Saints) have a purged and cleansed spiritual vision, which thus gives them confirmation and knowledge of such things.  This is not to say that there is no kind of ignorance in Saints, or that they don't express things in different words, or that they were always Saints (they weren't born that way!), etc. etc.  But to just simply dismiss the towering fact that in none of them (including the female ones!) will you find evidence of "Priestesses", or any pining for women to be admitted into the Altar as sacrificing Priests, demonstrates an astounding lack of understanding about Orthodox Christianity, period, let alone this particular topic.  Theology is not a game of philosophers (heterodox misunderstanding of it) or a sport for the clever, but is ultimatly the articulation of personal revelation, tested against that which has come before that.  The real theologians, are ones who speak of God and holy things out of the fullness of their experience (once again, measured against what was taught beforehand, in all places, in all tmes).  What westerners (and many of us today in Orthodox Christianity) understand to be "theology" is at best, the pious repetition by lesser men of what real God-bearers knew for a fact (which is what academic theology ought to be), at worst, the philosophical/innovationist enterprise which occupies all manner of "Christian" modernists, ecumenists, revisionists, etc.

If one will not take the Holy Fathers (and Mothers!) of the Church seriously, but dismiss them as slaves of culture (which is odd, since we know them as Saints precisely because we believe they overcame the world, and were slaves to none save Christ), then frankly I don't know who is worth listening to, ever.  That includes fallen heterodox nuns with obvious agendas, or other "scholars" who I cannot fathom being any less "victims of cultural indoctrination", particularly given the fact they are manifestly not God-bearing Saints.

Quote
However, Scripture states that  in God's Kingdom there is no distinction between male or female...but the church never pulled this into it's structure.

St.Paul also said there was neither free man nor slave...yet he recognized the rights of masters over their servants, even commanding a runaway slave to return to his master.  The point?  Sanctity is an equal opportunity venture - in the world to come there will be ruddy poor children who were fed to lions for Christ's sake, who will be "closer to the Throne" than pious Christian Emperors who died contrite and in the grace of God.  Indeed, we're told explicitly that the "pillars" of the Heavenly city, will be twelve poor Jews, who for the most part were probably void of formal education and worldly status.

Yet, the reality is that in this world, not only due to the opression of sin, but also because of the economy/arrangement of things according to God's design there exists not only an order of things, but real inequalities.  Commoners may not resist their Sovereigns willy nilly, children must obey their parents, wives must obey their husbands, husbands must be able to provide for their families (or die trying) and cherish their wives as Christ does His Church, etc. etc.  All sorts of inequalities, all sorts of examples of one person have authority over another.  All by the will of God.

IOW, you're making the Scriptures inchorent and wrending them out of context.

Quote
if you think there is nothing wrong with slavery, think again.. Only God owns people..one cannot serve a master to do however he wishes and serve God... The essence of slavery is complete giving up of all personal choice to that of the master.

See, here you go again confusing things.  There is a marked difference between having slaves, and being a sadist.  A huge difference.

Using your logic, because it's possible for an employer to ask someone to do immoral, dangerous things, that means there is some tension between showing up to work 8 hrs a day under any circumstances.

Human life is filled with examples of one person having rights over another - whether it be spouses, parents and children, children and parents, Kings and subjects, etc.

A slave is fundamentall someone who is subject to permanent servitude.  That is not inherently immoral.  What is immoral, is when people act immorally in this context.  Now if you were to say that given fallen nature there is a tendency to abuse this situation, and that the tendency of Christianized civilizations is to move away from this situation, that would be one thing.  But to say any possible example of slave ownership is immoral in and of itself, is indefensible.

Quote
And while you may think the Taliban were following scholars 'errant' in their beliefs, they didn't think so.

Ok, "good" for them.  I could also find you a wino on a streetcorner who thinks he's Napolean.

Quote
As to women offering D.L. it depends on what you mean... in an Orthodox church, they did not, in their home, before the churches were built and the church clergy financed and 'free', they did... it was after all their kitchen, and they had responsibility for the bread and wine.

This is just baloney.  That women have helped in making prophora in various times and places is hardly shocking.  That the Divine Eucharist was celebrated in homes isn't a shock either (I'll let you in on something - it still is, where a lack of funds or persecutin prevents a public, dedicated Church ediface from being built.)  But the idea that the Eucharist was ever some casual brunch is just an assumption aped off of the Protestants, and unsurprising when mouthed by secular scholars who are usually atheistic in their assumptions on such matters.

Quote
So if you lived back then, you would have been without 'the Gifts', unless you took them in secret at  a home at the dinner table,  where women were in charge.

You're making this up, or whoever you read this from is just making this up.  The fact of the matter is that people often went through great pains to transport the Holy Gifts to people who couldn't make it to the gatherings for the Holy Eucharist, precisely because no one believed "just anyone" save a right believing Bishop or one of authorized Presbyters, could preside over the celebration of the Holy Oblation.  A woman could no more preside in such an affair fruitfully than I could.

Quote
Remember Orthodoxy doesn't claim it represents all of Christianity in the early Church... some of what was practiced it did not accept.. and that is a point to be recognized.

See, you say this, but then go on as if it's an insignificant point.  Or perhaps you are even more profoundly confused than I'd imagined - since Orthodoxy is Christianity.  Yes, there are heretics who call themselves "Christians", just as there are men who will call themselves "women", and get into drag.  But that does not make what they say true, does not make them authentically what they claim to be, and ought to make us consider what they do or say to be of little or no consequence.  And that is where you're confusing things - because you believe what heretics and schismatics do does matter, that they do have something to say to the Church, and that we'd better be all ears.


Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229


I've yet to see any evidence supporting this claim Kizzy. Providing the bread and wine is a far cry from consecrating the bread and wine. I would be extremelyy surprised to learn that families were having private divine liturgies in their homes. Everything I've read regarding the times of persecution seems to state the opposite, that the believers always celebrated Divine Liturgy as a body.

BTW, it is a fact that most of the bread and wine used for the Eucharist in the Orthodox church is still provided by the women of the church.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John
When I say'early church' I am referring to within the first three centuries. During that time, from place to place, services were 'fluid'... not written down, performed either as a public service in the Jewish temple and also as a private service in the home... by the Jews/with the Jews - who always had prayer services in the home... And while we speak of 'word of mouth' as a way things were communicated across wide geographies, there were variations on the theme. This is what makes the later role of St. Constantine so important... because it was through his efforts that the church became 'standardized' across his Empire, we have the emergence of the D.L's of both S.Basil and S. J.C. , in written form.
The point is, the original comment on this thread implied that women should not be handing out the 'host' in the Catholic church. I see no issue with this- assuming they are of the diaconate -as in the early church. For that one can turn to the research of Matushka Belonick at SVS. But you see, even today people take the role of the male priesthood, for which I agree, and leap straight to the conclusion that eveything must be done by males....which is not Orthodox at all, but a confusion of our history...and Matushka points that out very well.

I think this quote from her article in Jacob's Well on Tradition is very interesting:
 "As Orthodox Christians we realize the canons are given to us, not to restrict us, but to guide us as disciplinary decrees regulating our institutional life. There are many ways in which they have been reinterpreted and sometimes misinterpreted throughout the centuries.7 As an example, take St. Olympias [A.D. 361 to A.D. 408] , a contemporary of St. John Chrysostom, who was ordained as a deaconess before age 35 [A.D. 397].8 The age of admission to this ministry had been fixed by Tertullian at sixty years (De Vel. Virg. Cap.ix), and only changed to age forty by Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.9 It is clear that St. Olympia, perhaps because of her outstanding piety, was granted entry into the rank of deaconesses outside the traditional custom of the Church. Further, consider Canon XIV of the Quinisext Council in A.D. 692 which sets the minimum ages for ordination of a priest at thirty, of a deacon at twenty-five, and of a deaconess at forty.10 Many bishops today would be guilty of breaking this canon. However, as Orthodox, we practice economia ,11 recognizing the freedom of the movement of the Holy Spirit."

 
 In XC, Kizzy
 
In XC, Kizzy

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Kizzy,

I note that you appear (from your postings here at least) to believe that there were no church buildings prior to the time of St. Constantine. This might sound convincing to a low church Protestant, but surely as an Orthodox Christian you now this to be nonsense? There was not a permanent three centuries long persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, you know, and sources from both secular and Church history clearly show that there were indeed churches built prior to he 4th century.

If this were not the case, how could one of Diocletian's edicts be that churches should be destroyed? How come Eusebius talks at great length of a re-built church? And how could St. Constantine decree that Christian places of worship that had been taken from them should be returned? Surely you don't believe all these refer to house churches? It seems to me that you are swallowing the usual Protestant line with regards to the state and worship of the early Church and particularly when you seem to be suggesting that women must have served the Liturgy because it was performed in houses rather than churches.

St. Constantine and the Council of Nicea did not change the Church into something different from what it previously was (contrary to Protestant and, perhaps, your belief) but merely reaffirmed the practices and beliefs previously held. Women were never priests or bishops, nor were they even deacons, the role of the deaconess being quite different as others have pointed out. And this was true both before, during and after St. Constantine's reign.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Kizzy, are you claiming that women served the Divine Liturgy or not? If yes, you still haven't given any evidence. If no, why did you say they did, and that they were priests?

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
See, here you go again confusing things. There is a marked difference between having slaves, and being a sadist. A huge difference.

Using your logic, because it's possible for an employer to ask someone to do immoral, dangerous things, that means there is some tension between showing up to work 8 hrs a day under any circumstances.

There is this tension.. that is why there are laws at least in the USA to protect the employee from this. A slave is not an employee- an employee is someone who can leave 'at will'... a slave has no rights.. and if the master believes it is his right to 'use' his female slave as mistress, how can she practice the tenets of Christian morality? Tell me please that moral treatment of slaves in keeping with '''Christian tradition' is written somewhere in Scripture or canon... somewhere is it written that slaves may be kept, but their rights to Christian worship and practices (i.e. abstinence) is to be obeyed. Is it written anywhere in Scripture that sadistic treatment of slaves is wrong?

 
See, you say this, but then go on as if it's an insignificant point. Or perhaps you are even more profoundly confused than I'd imagined - since Orthodoxy is Christianity.


Orthodoxy is Christianity but, Orthodoxy also teaches that it does not render judgement on the salvation of non-Orthodox Christians. Nor can it state whether Christ is present in the Eucharist of other denominations. It only states it is present in Orthodoxy.  This was discussed at length on another thread.. I don't remember which one.
In XC, Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
I think a new thread is warranted, y'all way off topic, unless I missed something in the 1st post.

james
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
Is it written anywhere in Scripture that sadistic treatment of slaves is wrong?

"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." Col. 4:1.

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
.. and if the master believes it is his right to 'use' his female slave as mistress, how can she practice the tenets of Christian morality?

Augustine's already dealt with this: the ABuse (which is not right use) of slaves is wrong.

Tell me please that moral treatment of slaves in keeping with '''Christian tradition' is written somewhere in Scripture or canon... somewhere is it written that slaves may be kept, but their rights to Christian worship and practices (i.e. abstinence) is to be obeyed. Is it written anywhere in Scripture that sadistic treatment of slaves is wrong?

Sure is:

Col. 3:22-4:1:

22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Colossians 4
  1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

I think it'd help if you remember this: slavery is one thing; cruelty--which CAN go along with it but doesn't always HAVE to--is quite another. The former had a place in the first Christian society; the latter never has.
 

Quote
Orthodoxy is Christianity but, Orthodoxy also teaches that it does not render judgement on the salvation of non-Orthodox Christians. Nor can it state whether Christ is present in the Eucharist of other denominations. It only states it is present in Orthodoxy.  This was discussed at length on another thread.. I don't remember which one.

Nor can it state that Christ IS DEFINITELY present in heterodox groups (we are not a denomination ourselves, after all) or that those in heterodox groups DEFINITELY WILL be saved. The other side is there, too.
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline catholickid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Totus Tuus Maria


I am glad to see you go so far back to tradition to defend the Novus Ordo Liturgy. For consistency sake I hope you would publicly advocate that your priests be allowed to marry, as were most of those who attended "the first mass" were.

In all honesty, you know your question is a phantom question....as "the first mass" was also done without vestments, microphones, pews, altar girls, etc., etc.....

The Liturgy developed very carefully and the Fathers were very conscious of its connection to the Temple, synagogue worship, and the Last Supper.

Those are all very good points. I just want to stress the fact that any mass celebrated with reverence is good.   

Celibacy is a good thing, no one is forced into it. If the Roman Church wants to require that of men seeking the priesthood, Amen so be it. I think it makes the Roman Rite unique, and adds a beautiful element to it... just like the Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) have things that make them unique and beautiful.

Altar girls... my diocese does not allow that. I share negative sentiments with you about that, the 2diocese in America which don't allow them have an abundance of new vocations. However the diocese that allow it, and aren't full of lunatic modernists, have an abundance of vocations to the contemplative life, Poor Clares especially are numerous in Alabama.

I am thankful to the Church Fathers for protecting and safegaurding the sacred mysteries to the tiniest details. You will find that any Novus Ordo mass celebrated with Reverence is beautiful.

There have been many years with poor catechisis and their was an era in the last century where the faith was dying, but along came John Paul II. He inspired youth, and demanded the Bishops and priests focus on teaching them the unabridged faith. These were seeds he planted. I feel I am one of them. In the years to come, I think the Catholic Church will flourish. The "John Paul Generation" will renew the Catholic Church. It will be beautiful. :)


Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229

To my knowledge clergy were required to shave because of the issue of cleanliness but I am not sure. I am also unsure how closely these canons were followed throughout history. There were Popes who had beards during the Counter-Reformation but as far as I know the norm in the West by the 9th century was for clergy to be without facial hair and the majority of popes that I have seen pictures of were without facial hair.

The issue of hygiene may have been a big factor.  It is known that within the laity in Western Europe the wealthy had shaved heads and used powdered wigs to cover their heads. This was to prevent human parasitic lice infestation. (Still the only real treatment for lice by the way other than picking out the nits one by one and cleaning everything in the house -vacuuming all upholstery, sealing stuffed things in plastic bags for any nits to die.) In general long hair was associated with the spread of illness and pests... and that is true even today. When there is a school lice outbreak the boys sometimes shave their heads and the girls tie up their hair so nothing is 'hanging'.  Due to the role clergy played in meeting with multitudes of people, long hair would have been a magnet for lice and body crabs from the populace- both infestations were rampant.  In those days both of these parasites lead to serious skin infection and illness.  Probably was a good idea to protect the clergy from these.

 In XC, Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline catholickid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Totus Tuus Maria
This group of Franciscans encourage friars and priests to have beards. (The big bushy kind) I think they all have them.

http://www.franciscanfriars.com/frontpagefriars.htm
« Last Edit: May 18, 2005, 02:10:43 PM by catholickid »

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
I think a new thread is warranted, y'all way off topic, unless I missed something in the 1st post.

james

James, this topic was in reference to a negative statement concerning a modern RC practice of lay men and women dispensing the Host in the RC mass. A discussion on the role of women in the church evolved. Matushka Belonick is an Orthodox scholar from SVS and has written how common practices making women feel 'unclean' due to menses, or banning women from certain church duties such as parish council and reading Holy Scripture- as some churches do - she has stated that these are not based in church Tradition but in misunderstanding it and are definitely not Orthodox.
In my GO parish, women assist the priest during HC, holding the cloth for parishioners, and they also do the Bible readings. We are a small parish, so the work is spread around. In a neighboring large parish the priest brings both infant boys and girls behind the altar during their 40 day churching. I did not ask him at the time when he did that for my daughter.. but I suspect it may have been due to some of the things that scholars like M.Belonick are surfacing concerning females.
 

In XC, Kizzy
 

 
In XC, Kizzy

Offline Carpatho-Rusyn

  • Just Orthodox
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • Visit me at MySpace

I just want to stress the fact that any mass celebrated with reverence is good.  

You will find that any Novus Ordo mass celebrated with Reverence is beautiful.

There have been many years with poor catechisis and their was an era in the last century where the faith was dying, but along came John Paul II. He inspired youth, and demanded the Bishops and priests focus on teaching them the unabridged faith. These were seeds he planted. I feel I am one of them. In the years to come, I think the Catholic Church will flourish. The "John Paul Generation" will renew the Catholic Church. It will be beautiful. :)


As a former Roman Catholic I must disagree with you here. While a Novus Ordo Liturgy reverently celebrated may be 'good' or 'beautiful', it does not make it valid. Place any pre-Vatican Council II Roman Catholic liturgical text side by side with the Novus Ordo and you will find omissions so glaring as to cast doubt on the validity of the consecration itself. The savaging of the offertory, the confusing placement of a 'proclamation' after the 'mystery of faith', which by the way is the consecration, not the banal proclamations that follow, and the mis-translation of 'pro multis' as 'for all', are indications that the Novus Ordo is what Cardinal Bugnini wanted it a be...just a 'service' that would be palatable to protestants and prgressives. And we all know where he ended up.

Re: the John Paul generation, sadly what I observed was a man who was very popular almost to the point hysteria for many. He had superstar status, but was he relevant? He was like the kindly old uncle who everyone loved but no one really listened to. Just look at US stats on complicance with your church's birth control stance and Roman Catholic belief in the "Real Presence" for example. The most disappointing aspect of his pontificate was the failure to take any direct action in the priest sex-abuse scandal and the promotion of two of the most scandal ridden bishops, Egan and Law. The sheer joy exhibited by conservative catholics on the election of Ratzinger speaks volumes. it says, we loved John Paul but now Benedict XVI will take action. That says more about the real feelings many had about John Paul than any calls for "Santo Subito". Overall, if I were catholic, I would consider it a most disappointing pontificate. I think what you'll get from the John Paul generation is enthusiasm without content and reverence without meaning. That is why I am curious to se what the new Pope wil do.

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
I am thankful to the Church Fathers for protecting and safegaurding the sacred mysteries to the tiniest details. You will find that any Novus Ordo mass celebrated with Reverence is beautiful.

There have been many years with poor catechisis and their was an era in the last century where the faith was dying, but along came John Paul II. He inspired youth, and demanded the Bishops and priests focus on teaching them the unabridged faith. These were seeds he planted. I feel I am one of them. In the years to come, I think the Catholic Church will flourish. The "John Paul Generation" will renew the Catholic Church. It will be beautiful.

Yes, the John Paul Generation is also quite smitten with the innovations of the Second Vatican Council, which stepped far outside the bounds of Tradition. The Novus Ordo Missae is likewise an abberation which falls outside of tradition, considering it was created by "liturgical experts" in cooperation with Protestant observers. You can read a full, yet short critique of the new Mass called the Ottaviani Intervention (made by 2 Cardinals and some theologians) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html.

It seems that Pope John Paul II was either oblivious on many occasion or he had no real principles. For example, whilst the Vatican says No to giving communion to pro-abortion politicians, Pope John Paul II gave communion to pro-abortion, Anglican politician Tony Blair. That speaks volumes. This case is also exemplified, as brought out by CR, by the sexual abuse scandal. He did basically nothing. Now because of his and his predecessors inaction, dioceses are going bankrupt. Indeed, the Diocese of St. George, in Newfoundland, is selling ALL of its churches and mission and parish halls to pay for sexual abuse settlements.

Quote
I think what you'll get from the John Paul generation is enthusiasm without content and reverence without meaning.

I agree, look at any World Youth Day. Its not how a Christian should behave.

Offline TomS

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,186
  • "Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono
Women are an indispensable part of the Church, ....

Well of course they are. Who else could have babies and bake all the pastries for the Greek Festival?

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Sean,

I agree, that alot of the "John Paul II, we love you" stuff is just hype.  I cringe whenever I hear "say-it-enough-and-it'll-be-so" neo-conservative Roman Catholics speaking of "John Paul the Great".  Yes, they put him in the same category as a St.Leo or St.Gregory... one gave us the great tome which kept the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon on the straight and narrow of Orthodox moderation (neither falling into the errors of Nestorianism or Monophysitism), the other a great dialogist, codifier of western sacred chant and liturgy, and composer of a service used in the Orthodox world to the present day (Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts.)  Oh yes, and both undoubtedly Saints, in the pre-pop-culture understanding of such things.

John Paul II, gave us World-Youth-Day, and basically more of what the world was offering us already - the cult of youth, the glorification of enthusiasm, irenicism to the point of saying nothing of substance, etc. etc...

He flip-flopped on what little "traditionalism" he had...institutionalized abuse was given his blessing, in the name of "local custom", even where it violated centuries old customs.  It's also worth noting that he only excommunicated six Latin bishops in his many years on the Papal Throne.  Six in an ocean of craziness, where you have men like Baloney Mahoney in Los Angelas being promoted to metropolitan see's, and given the red hat, etc.  The worst part though, was who these six were - yes, you guessed it, the "Lefebvre Bishops".  In that ocean of queer clerical pederastry (and seminaries so bad, that they developed reputations for being "gay brothels" and acquired names like "the Pink Palace", etc.), neo-pagan "nuns", "clown Masses", creative catechesis, bishops inviting Buddhists to chant in their sanctuaries, etc. etc... in all of that filth, I guess a bunch of dinosaurs who (gasp) just wanted to keep on using the pre-Vatican II services, were the biggest threat on the planet.

If that isn't a condemnation of modern Catholicism, I don't know what is.

This is not to say that there are not problems with even the pre-Vatican II Latin services (particularly from an Orthodox perspective, since they did change somewhat in the centuries after the Great-Schism), and obviously with pre-Vatican II dogmatics.  I do not want to put on rose colour glasses with such things.  And certainly while I feel great sympathy for the pickle that the Lefebvrists find themselves in, I know they're not friends of Orthodoxy either (they hold to the slightly more consistant, but obviously objectionable opinion that Orthodox Christians are "schismatics" and heterodox on some points!).  I wish that they'd come to realize that their struggle to follow Tradition, as opposed to the whims of the Pope, is not a new tension - it's precisely what caused the Eastern Patriarchs to cease commemorating the Pope in their Diptychs, and then in a series of pan-Orthodox Synods condemn the key errors advanced by the Popes and those under them.


Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Quote
It seems that Pope John Paul II was either oblivious on many occasion or he had no real principles. For example, whilst the Vatican says No to giving communion to pro-abortion politicians, Pope John Paul II gave communion to pro-abortion, Anglican politician Tony Blair. That speaks volumes.

Really? I thought Roman Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, refused the Eucharist to those outside the church? If this is true then either a.) marrying a Catholic somehow makes you Catholic too in the eyes of the Pope (Cherie Blair is RC) or b.) Politicians don't have to follow the rules. Somehow, given the Vatican's love of worldly politics, I'd guess the latter.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


James, this topic was in reference to a negative statement concerning a modern RC practice of lay men and women dispensing the Host in the RC mass.  A discussion on the role of women in the church evolved.  Matushka Belonick is an Orthodox scholar from SVS and has written how common practices making women feel 'unclean' due to menses, or  banning women from certain church duties such as parish council and reading Holy Scripture- as some churches do - she has stated that these are not based in church Tradition but in misunderstanding it and are definitely not Orthodox.
In my GO  parish, women assist the priest during HC, holding the cloth for parishioners, and they also do the Bible readings. We are a small parish, so the work is spread around.  In a neighboring large parish the priest brings both infant boys and girls behind the altar during their 40 day churching.  I did not ask him at the time when he did that for my daughter.. but I suspect it may have been due to some of the things that scholars like M.Belonick are surfacing concerning females.
 

In XC, Kizzy
I am sad such things are actually happening in the Orthodox Church. Women should definitely not be helping with the serving of Communion.

Quote
In a neighboring large parish the priest brings both infant boys and girls behind the altar during their 40 day churching.  I did not ask him at the time when he did that for my daughter.. but I suspect it may have been due to some of the things that scholars like M.Belonick are surfacing concerning females.
Actually Kizzy I highly doubt that this has anything to do with a priest taking it upon himself to make his parish like what M.Belonick imagines early-Church parishes were like. St.John of San Francisco would take the little girls present into the Sanctuary on the Feast of the Presentation at the Temple, for obvious reasons. Why the priest at your neighboring parish has decided to take the infant girls into the sanctuary I don't know but I definitely don't think it is related to caving in to Feminist theology.

Quote
He flip-flopped on what little "traditionalism" he had...institutionalized abuse was given his blessing, in the name of "local custom", even where it violated centuries old customs.  It's also worth noting that he only excommunicated six Latin bishops in his many years on the Papal Throne.  Six in an ocean of craziness, where you have men like Baloney Mahoney in Los Angelas being promoted to metropolitan see's, and given the red hat, etc.  The worst part though, was who these six were - yes, you guessed it, the "Lefebvre Bishops".  In that ocean of queer clerical pederastry (and seminaries so bad, that they developed reputations for being "gay brothels" and acquired names like "the Pink Palace", etc.), neo-pagan "nuns", "clown Masses", creative catechesis, bishops inviting Buddhists to chant in their sanctuaries, etc. etc... in all of that filth, I guess a bunch of dinosaurs who (gasp) just wanted to keep on using the pre-Vatican II services, were the biggest threat on the planet.

If that isn't a condemnation of modern Catholicism, I don't know what is.
Thank you for saying what is going through the minds of anyone from a traditional Catholic background!
If you go to pockets of 'conservative' Catholics like in Northeast Iowa Vatican II did not have the devastating affect it had elsewhere. At Dyersville Basilica the Latin Mass is still said. There is a monastery that follows the 'old ways.' In many ways these people were able to resist the evil and maintain their traditional way of life. Of course for others active resistance had to be taken and that is why SSPX was founded. For a long time, both as an adolescent, and for a while as an inquirer into Orthodoxy, I seriously wanted to or was considering going to a traditional Latin Mass church and be a loyal son of the Roman church like many of relatives. Aside from coming to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism had deviated from Church doctrine in many serious areas it was also this underlying feeling that something is very wrong when you believe that the Pope is the supreme arbiter of tradition but in order to save tradition in this trying time you have to actively resist him and the reforms he has instituted or upholds.

As for the 1988 excommunication of Lefebvre the bishops he consecrated: nothing really saddens me more about Pope John Paul II's reign. Excommunicate the loyal sons of the church but not those pushing for further radical reforms. 

Quote
This is not to say that there are not problems with even the pre-Vatican II Latin services (particularly from an Orthodox perspective, since they did change somewhat in the centuries after the Great-Schism), and obviously with pre-Vatican II dogmatics.  I do not want to put on rose colour glasses with such things.  And certainly while I feel great sympathy for the pickle that the Lefebvrists find themselves in, I know they're not friends of Orthodoxy either (they hold to the slightly more consistant, but obviously objectionable opinion that Orthodox Christians are "schismatics" and heterodox on some points!).  I wish that they'd come to realize that their struggle to follow Tradition, as opposed to the whims of the Pope, is not a new tension - it's precisely what caused the Eastern Patriarchs to cease commemorating the Pope in their Diptychs, and then in a series of pan-Orthodox Synods condemn the key errors advanced by the Popes and those under them.
Of course I completely agree and yes they do refer to the Orthodox as schismatics but that actually makes me like them more. They actually care enough about what they believe to say others are wrong. what is interesting is that in talking with my sister and others who are in SSPX I have found it easier to talk about the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism than in talking with Ecumenists who just want to white wash everything.
As for traditionalist Catholics being jostled into seeing the light of Orthodoxy by reflecting on all the ills in the Roman church now, I know this was the case with Hieromonk Ambrose, formerly Fr.Alexey Young, the first Orthodox priest I met, and you Augustine and I think it is possible with others. But the biggest impediment to their becoming Orthodox is the attachment to the Latin Mass. The beauty of the Gregorian Canon and hearing the prayers in Latin just seems an almost unbearable thing to have to give up considering that is what they are fighting for in SSPX.

For anyone interested I found this SSPX seminary website's info interesting http://www.stas.org/apologetics/index.shtml
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
But the biggest impediment to their becoming Orthodox is the attachment to the Latin Mass. The beauty of the Gregorian Canon and hearing the prayers in Latin just seems an almost unbearable thing to have to give up considering that is what they are fighting for in SSPX.

I think thats a major problem. I've been looking around at the Orthodox parishes available in my area (a large, Canadian city) and the closest Divine Liturgy in English is around 1h30m away. Most are either in European languages that are too foreign for me (French, I can handle) or half and half. I've been to a Melkite Liturgy that was supposedly half-English, but it was mainly in Arabic and Greek (for the readings).

I don't know about anyone else, but as a Classicist, I can understand Latin alot more than Arabic or Ukranian.

I'm a bit ignorant, but what kind of things are considered 'deficient' in the Latin Mass?

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
I'm a bit ignorant, but what kind of things are considered 'deficient' in the Latin Mass?

As has been shown by several saints of the Russian church, among them St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovich, the only thing that is missing is an explicit epiclesis. Once that is added, it's perfectly ok for Orthodox use -- even ROCOR has not one but two Western rite monasteries, and at one time had an entire diocese. If certain elements among the Orthodox were not so insistent that everybody follow the Byzantine rite, there would be no impediment in this area.

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
The epiclesis in the Roman Canon looks pretty specific: "Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe to bless+, approve+, ratify+, make worthy and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body + and Blood + of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the pre-schism epiclesis that likely originated from the first Roman Canon, as we can see the same epiclesis in the Stowe Missal and the Sarum Missal.

Although, as contained in the Sarum Missal, there is a second epiclesis after the words of institution, which the pre-Vatican II Roman Canon does not contain. Of course, in the copies of the Sarum Ordo Missae that I've seen, it says that the second epiclesis has been "recently added."

The first one looks clear to me, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm a theological idiot.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
The epiclesis in the Roman Canon looks pretty specific: "Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe to bless+, approve+, ratify+, make worthy and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body + and Blood + of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the pre-schism epiclesis that likely originated from the first Roman Canon, as we can see the same epiclesis in the Stowe Missal and the Sarum Missal.

St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Hanc igitur was the actual epiclesis:
Quote
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. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

I tend to this same view, but St. Tikhon, St. John, and the Synod of the Russian Church decided that it needed an explicit descending epiclesis as well. It doesn't really matter much to me, but I like the approach taken by St. Petroc's monastery of inserting a descending epiclesis that was taken from an old Gothic liturgy book, so that even though it's inserted, it's still Western.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
banning women from certain church duties such as parish council and reading Holy Scripture- as some churches do - she has stated that these are not based in church Tradition but in misunderstanding it and are definitely not Orthodox.


I think we need to clear up something here about parish councils and readers.  First, parish councils:  parish councils are NOT part of the apostolic ministry. They were not instituted by Christ. In fact, the parish council exists at the pleasure of the diocesan bishop. And at least in the OCA, the bishop has to approve the people elected to the parish council BEFORE they can serve.  If a bishop wants to allow women on the parish council, he certainly can. That is his perogative as the diocesan hierarch. However, if a bishop doesn't want to allow women on the parish council, that is his perogative too.  I also know of instances where a parish council got rebellious and insubordinate with the priest, and began to act as if it were the hierarch appointed OVER the parish priest. In such cases, it is not unheard of for the diocesan bishop to suspend the parish council and have the parish ruled by the priest alone.  I am sure this really must shock and horrify us as Americans because we are so used to egalitarian ideas and are raised with the attitude that "you are no better than me." But honestly, we do NOT have to have parish councils. The bishop may permit them, but they are in no way required by Orthodox eccelisology.
   In regard to women readers, let me say this. NO ONE in the Orthodox Church has a "right" to demand to be a reader, whether it be a man or a woman. Reading the Holy Scriptiures in the Divine Liturgy is not something that people do merely because they want to, or enjoy. It certainly is not anyone's "right" to do it. The Orthodox Church has always considered reading the Scriptures in Church to be a PRIVILEDGE, not a "right." And this priviledge is not bestowed on everyone, but on those whom the bishop sees fit to do it. Historically, as far as I know, the Orthodox Church has never had tonsured female readers. I will admit I might be wrong, but I have never read or heard of any.  However, in America, some bishops (by no means all) permit women to read the Schriptures in the Divine Liturgy. Often this is done where no tonsured readers are available. But to view reading the Scriptures as a "right" that women are being "denied" by chauvinist men is just absurd. That's the wrong way to look at it. It is taking a secular, worldly feminist viewpoint and bringing it into the Church. NO ONE has an inherent right to read the Scriptures aloud at the Divine Liturgy. The Church, rather, BLESSES, some individuals to do this as a priviledge and an honor.

Offline Kizzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229

I am sad such things are actually happening in the Orthodox Church. Women should definitely not be helping with the serving of Communion.

 I have seen women hold the cloth under the chin for people  in many parishes. Normally the person is on the PC and the duty is rotated among members of the PC in parishes where there is no deacon.  Sometimes they hold the basket of antidoron.  This is also true for staffing the pangari, and passing the basket. 

Actually Kizzy I highly doubt that this has anything to do with a priest taking it upon himself to make his parish like what M.Belonick imagines early-Church parishes were like. St.John of San Francisco would take the little girls present into the Sanctuary on the Feast of the Presentation at the Temple, for obvious reasons. Why the priest at your neighboring parish has decided to take the infant girls into the sanctuary I don't know but I definitely don't think it is related to caving in to Feminist theology.

This is interesting Sabbas because there is a common perception that females are not allowed behind the altar for any reason. Perhaps the reason for my daughter was in rememberance of the same thing.  The service you describe sounds wonderful.
 In XC, Kizzy
In XC, Kizzy

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
I am sad such things are actually happening in the Orthodox Church. Women should definitely not be helping with the serving of Communion.

I don't think its about who should not be allowed to serve the Eucharist, but who should. In Roman tradition, only priests and deacons were allowed to do this until Vatican II. And there was a specific minor order (I forget which one, acolyte?) which was also allowed to do this and bring Viaticum to people.

However, I do feel it is legitimate to examine whether the exlusion of women in the early Church and subsequent centuries was more due to cultural rather than doctrinal reasons.

Offline Nacho

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,482
  • The face of Corporate America
Quote
However, I do feel it is legitimate to examine whether the exlusion of women in the early Church and subsequent centuries was more due to cultural rather than doctrinal reasons.

Well, Christ chose 12 men as his successors, do we need anymore proof than that? I'm sure if women were meant to be priest or bishops he  would have included them, but he didn't.
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
Well, Christ chose 12 men as his successors, do we need anymore proof than that? I'm sure if women were meant to be priest or bishops he  would have included them, but he didn't.

Sorry, I should've been clearer, I wasn't talking about Holy Orders, just things like distributing the Eucharist. We shouldn't become Pharasaic in our traditions (little 't') or customs.

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Sean,

Aside from concerns about the descending, explicit epiklesis (which according to the respectiable, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgical scholars I've read, certainly once was part of the Roman Rite), other possible concerns would involve the following points (all of varying degrees of importance)...

- return to the use of leavened bread and giving Holy Communion "under both kinds"
- the question of kneeling/genuflections vs. prostrations, and the whole "no kneeling on Sunday" issue (though this is something of a controversy in some Orthodox parishes as well). The same goes for the presence of pews...but once again, this is an untraditional blot upon many North American Orthodox parishes as well (you rarely find them in the "old world").
- return to Orthodox fasting rules (and the observance of Wednesday as well as Friday).
- clerical grooming (while long hair is more an extension of monastic piety, Orthodoxy has been pretty consistant about the beard thing, for those who could grow them obviously...and that once included western clergy as well.) And once again, here in the west, some Orthodox fudge on this too (clean shaven Orthodox Priests, who are by no means "Western Rite").

I know not all of those directly have to do with the Missal itself, but they're related. Other possible changes, depending on who you ask, may include removal of any references to the "merits" of saints, or things like this.

I'm kind of "in the middle" on the topic of Western Rite parishes - generally favorable, if they're using some form of the Sarum or corrected Tridentine Rite, disfavorable toward the "Anglican Use", and on the whole not convinced of the western rite's necessity for the mission of the Orthodox Church, particularly to already unchurched or Protestant westerners (or even most modern Roman Catholics for that matter.) I think the normative Divine Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, translated into English works for westerners as well as anyone else. However, I think if it'll help some people, or if it could ever be a vehicle to bringing more souls to the Orthodox faith, then obviously I think it can be a good thing.


Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
Aside from concerns about the descending, explicit epiklesis (which according to the respectiable, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgical scholars I've read, certainly once was part of the Roman Rite),

It's a debatable point; to my knowledge there's not enough hard evidence either way to make a definitive statement.

Quote
- return to the use of leavened bread and giving Holy Communion "under both kinds"

I agree that this is an issue.

Quote
the question of kneeling/genuflections vs. prostrations, and the whole "no kneeling on Sunday" issue (though this is something of a controversy in some Orthodox parishes as well). The same goes for the presence of pews...but once again, this is an untraditional blot upon many North American Orthodox parishes as well (you rarely find them in the "old world").

The rule against kneeling on Sundays has never been as hard-and-fast as some think it is. The Old Believers to this day always perform a prostration after the megalynarion, even on Sundays during Paschaltide, and they see no contradiction between this and the prohibition on Sunday kneeling. The rule against kneeling on Sunday is meant to prohibit kneeling as a penitential gesture; if the kneeling is part of a long-standing tradition of showing reverence rather than penitence, there is no contradiction with the point of the canon.

Quote
return to Orthodox fasting rules (and the observance of Wednesday as well as Friday).

This would be a good thing as well; however, traditional Western fasting rules have always differed from those in the East; for example, fish has always been allowed on fast days. Even the Celtic monks, who were notoriously strict fasters, permitted this.

Quote
clerical grooming (while long hair is more an extension of monastic piety, Orthodoxy has been pretty consistant about the beard thing, for those who could grow them obviously...and that once included western clergy as well.)  And once again, here in the west, some Orthodox fudge on this too (clean shaven Orthodox Priests, who are by no means "Western Rite").

Again, this has been far from a universal rule through all time. While for the past thousand years or so it has been normative for Byzantine clergy to be bearded, during the heydey of Byzantium there were plenty of clergy with close-cropped and shaven faces, in both East and West.

Quote
I'm kind of "in the middle" on the topic of Western Rite parishes - generally favorable, if they're using some form of the Sarum or corrected Tridentine Rite, disfavorable toward the "Anglican Use", and on the whole not convinced of the western rite's necessity for the mission of the Orthodox Church, particularly to already unchurched or Protestant westerners (or even most modern Roman Catholics for that matter.)

The Byzantine rite has a completely different feel than the Western rites. The latter are much more formal, quiet, sober, and spartan. While the Byzantine rite is fine for those who like it, I see the Orthodox Church's insistence on the Byzantine rite ++ber alles to be one of the big hindrances to making great headway in the West. I personally don't mind the Byzantine rite, though there are times when I wish the choir would shut up for a while, but I've known people who would gladly become Orthodox if only a Western rite were provided. If there were a Western-rite parish near me, believe me, I'd abandon the Byzantine rite in the twinkling of an eye. I don't mind the Byzantine rite, but I love the Western rites, and they move me in a way the Byzantine rite never has.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
Here's my two cents on the Western Rite:
     In short, I don't like it and feel that while it is valid, it is rather divisive for Orthodox life here in the USA where we already have a multitude of bickering and feuding jurisdictions. The last thing we need is to add a Western Rite to this chaos.
     I was received into Orthodoxy in a Western Rite parish of the Antiochian Archdiocese ten years ago. While the priest and the parishioners there were lovely, warm people, I felt like I had to become ANGLICAN first before I could become Orthodox. In fact, I daresay the "feel" of that parish was that it was "Anglicans in Communion with Orthodox" rather than simply Western Rite Orthodox. 
    I found a LOT of liturgical inconsistencies in that Western Rite parish. They CLAIMED to represent "pre-Schism Western Rite usage."  If that had really been true, it would have been wonderful.  The reality was that they represented the Anglican Missal usage with a Byzantine Epiclesis added on and supplemented by hymns from the Protestant Episcopal Church.  They kept a LOT of post-schism Western customs, they even kept a few Protestant customs from the Episcopal Church from whence they sprang.  If I had not had a good knowledge of Western liturgical history, their practices probably would not have bothered me.  But I was a raised a conservative traditional Lutheran and I knew that the Episcopal Church was not the only Protestant church with a liturgical tradition. You can imagine my shock in going from a traditional Lutheran Church where the Eucharist was received on the tongue (in good old pre-Vatican Roman Catholic style) to a "Western Rite Orthodox" parish where it was placed in my hand as Thomas Cranmer insisted and Episcopalians have done ever since. Somehow they manage to excuse that. Then there were the delightful "icon veils" that they covered everything for two weeks before Easter.  Veiling crosses, artwork and the whole chancel is a very very late medieval custom, certainly not pre-schism, and it completely contradicts the Orthodox view of icons as windows into heaven. Rather is a 100% rationalistic Western viewpoint that views icons as "mere art" that should be "covered up" during the rather "Spartan" Lent so that everything can be properly "decorated" at Easter.  In addition, there were organs, pews and much kneeling (practically the whole "Mass" was celebrated kneeling). Again, none of that is pre-Schism Western usage either. The Roman Catholic Church had no pews until AFTER the Protestant reformation. The pre-schism Western Church, while it did make use of the organ in a limited way (mainly outside the Liturgy), stilll sang most of the Liturgy a capella. And the posture in the pre-schism Church during Mass was standing, except for the Consecration when everyone would kneel. Kneeling throughout the Mass was only introduced after pews were introduced.
     In short, those are my problems with the so-called "Western Rite." It really isn't all that old or even "Western". We ought to be honest and call it the Anglican Rite.  And I highly doubt that this "Western Rite" is going to attract anyone to Orthodoxy. People that convert to Orthodoxy want the real thing. They want normal, standard Orthodox worship, and, for good or for bad, that means the Byzantine Rite.  All the people that are going to leave the Episcopal Church have left ALREADY. We aren't going to get anymore of them. And the Western Rite is not going to attract them.  And as far as Roman Catholics go, I think we Orthodox are deceiving ourselves if we think any mere RITE is going to attract Roman Catholics to Orthodoxy.  Most Roman Catholics are very attached to the Papacy and have a strong sense of loyalty to their church, even if they are irregular in their attendance.  Worshipping in Elizabethan English like Anglo-Catholics is NOT going to attract them either. In fact, all the Roman Catholic converts I know, LOVE the Byzantine Rite. They don't view it as some cultural "barrier" at all.
     I hope I don't offend the Western Rite people too much. I just wish the Western Rite would go the way of the dinosaur.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
I found a LOT of liturgical inconsistencies in that Western Rite parish. They CLAIMED to represent "pre-Schism Western Rite usage."

I agree that many Western Rite commentators need to stop claiming this. The pre-schism West is gone, and no amount of archaeology is going to get it back. Rather, what should be focused on is taking the post-schism rites, eliminating what is erroneous (which really isn't that much), and baptizing them for Orthodox use. The Byzantine rite is not necessary to Orthodoxy; indeed, it was only by virtue of the might of the Byzantine empire that the Byzantine rite spread as far as it did, supplanting earlier rites that have been maintained by the non-Chalcedonians. Orthodoxy is defined by adherence to the scriptures, councils, and fathers, not what anaphora the priest prays or what chant the choir sings.

Quote
You can imagine my shock in going from a traditional Lutheran Church where the Eucharist was received on the tongue (in good old pre-Vatican Roman Catholic style) to a "Western Rite Orthodox" parish where it was placed in my hand as Thomas Cranmer insisted and Episcopalians have done ever since.

The same as is done in the Liturgy of St. James as celebrated today in the Byzantine rite?

Quote
Veiling crosses, artwork and the whole chancel is a very very late medieval custom, certainly not pre-schism, and it completely contradicts the Orthodox view of icons as windows into heaven.

But it doesn't contradict the Western view, held before the schism, that icons were primarily for the edification of the faithful. The elaborate theology of the icon found in the East never developed in the West.

Quote
practically the whole "Mass" was celebrated kneeling

But in the Western rite, kneeling is a sign of reverence, so there is no contradiction with the spirit of a canon that only makes literal sense in the context of a rite in which kneeling is a sign of penitence only.

Quote
The pre-schism Western Church, while it did make use of the organ in a limited way (mainly outside the Liturgy), stilll sang most of the Liturgy a capella.

The West also had the idea that the organ, as it produces sound through the vibration of a fipple or reed through air pressure, was functionally equivalent to the human voice and so did not fall under the prohibition of liturgical instruments.

Quote
In short, those are my problems with the so-called "Western Rite." It really isn't all that old or even "Western". We ought to be honest and call it the Anglican Rite

There are, though, WR parishes that follow the Sarum and Roman rites; it's only among the Antiochians that the heavy Anglo-philia seems to have taken hold.

Quote
And as far as Roman Catholics go, I think we Orthodox are deceiving ourselves if we think any mere RITE is going to attract Roman Catholics to Orthodoxy.

You'd be surprised at the number of Catholics who have no great attachment to the Papacy per se, or to the dogmas of infallibility and universal jurisdiction, and would be thrilled to have a Church in which they can worship according to the rite of their ancestors, without being either morally adrift like the Episcopalians or isolated and wingnutty like the various Catholic traditionalist sects.

Quote
In fact, all the Roman Catholic converts I know, LOVE the Byzantine Rite. They don't view it as some cultural "barrier" at all.

Well, now you've met one who disagrees.

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
In fact, all the Roman Catholic converts I know, LOVE the Byzantine Rite. They don't view it as some cultural "barrier" at all.

Well, for me the cultural barrier is great with Orthodoxy. ALL of the Divnie Liturgies within an 1h30min distance are half-English/half-Eastern European (or Arabic) language, or no English at all.

The Western rite has always seen as more universal, especially considering how the Easterns could not expand East because of the expansion of Islam and West because of the Patriarch of Rome. Whereas the Western rite has taken hold of all over the world.

The Western liturgy is based upon the Roman Canon, which is the oldest Canon of them all. The liturgy of Rome is built upon blood of the martyrs of Rome, indeed the main martyrs of Rome are honoured at each Mass.

Ask yourself, should Orthodoxy be Eastern Orthodoxy, or should it be the one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church.

The Apostle tells us to "hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good." Indeed, we have seen Christians throughout the ages adapting this principle to pagan culture (ex., the use of a halo in pre-Christian Greek culture, did not signify holiness as it does with saints, but deity; Christians incorporated this artistic feature into icons to show the holiness of saints). If Christians can accept the ideas of pagan culture in a Christian sense, what sense is there in not accepting the traditions, especially liturgical, of schismatics who have the orthodox teaching on what is important to the liturgy (that Christ is truly present in the mysteries and that we pay homage to the Holy Trinity).

I have to say, I am attracted to Orthodox theology, but not the ethnicity that has sunk into every detail of Orthodox life. How can the Orthodox claim to be universal, when they are so deeply divided along ethnic lines? I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is the impression I've been getting, hopefully it's not true for the majority (of course, most laity couldn't care less).

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
How can the Orthodox claim to be universal, when they are so deeply divided along ethnic lines?

Iv'e been hearing such statements for years with absolutely no evidence provided. Now I just switch off to them the same way I do with Leonard Cohen.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
The same as is done in the Liturgy of St. James as celebrated today in the Byzantine rite?

No, it is not the same at all. In the Byzantine Rite of the Liturgy of Saint James (celebrated in most places only ONCE a year, and not all places at that) the Body and Blood of our Lord are indeed administered separately, but the Consecrated Bread is NOT put in the palm of the communicant's hand. It is placed in his mouth by the priest, just like the Host was placed in the mouth of the Communicant in the Roman Rite.  It was the Protestant insistence of Thomas Cranmer that demanded the the Host be placed into the hands of the faithful. Perhaps this is a small point, but it is worthy mentioning.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
The Western liturgy is based upon the Roman Canon, which is the oldest Canon of them all. The liturgy of Rome is built upon blood of the martyrs of Rome, indeed the main martyrs of Rome are honoured at each Mass.

Perhaps I should make myself clear. I have no problem with the historical Roman Rite. It is indeed a venerable, ancient and patristic rite and we in the Orthodox Church were in communion with it for over 1,000 years.   The Roman Canon is FINE. No problem whatsoever.  The problem I have is with Thomas Cranmer's Canon (Eucharistic Prayer).  It is Protestant to the core and should be called the "Anglican Rite" if we are to be historically honest. And adding a Byzantine epiclesis to Cranmer's 1549 canon doesn't magically make it Orthodox. If that is the case, let's be fair. There were some things I loved about the Lutheran Church. Can we take the Swedish High Mass and add an epiclesis to it and make it Orthodox? Can we take Luther's Mass and add an epiclesis to it and make it Orthodox? If we can baptize Anglican stuff and drag it into Orthodoxy, why not the Lutheran stuff too?
Do you see where this logic leads?  To liturgical chaos.

Offline Jennifer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,154

Well, now you've met one who disagrees.

Same here.  I was raised Roman Catholic and have come to love the authentic western traditions of Roman Catholicism.  I was only briefly exposed to them in my post-VII upbringing, unfortunately.  I also love the Byzantine rite.  I can't say which one is my favorite.  My decision, if you will, is made for me because the Byzantine rite is available to me while the traditional western rite isn't. 

Speaking as a former, RC, I think that many RCs would be very attracted to western Orthodoxy if it was more widely available and less anglican.  We can quibble about whether these traditions are pre or post schism but IMHO that's irrelevant.  Traditions such as vieling crosses after Passiontide and kneeling during the Mass are entirely consistent with the pre-schism western theological understandings. 


Offline Michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
There are a few things I've picked up on on this thread, which I'll try to comment on.

Firstly, Catholickid posted:

"Question? Did Jesus say the first mass facing the people or away from them?"

This is very anachronistic. Jesus never offered the Mass.

Sabbas posted:

"So former Anglicans get to be traditional but not mainstream Catholics? This just amazes me!"

It would amaze me too, if it were actually true, but it isn't. The standard for the Novus Ordo Mass is Eastward-facing. One only need look at the Novus Ordo rite itself and the General instruction to the Roman Missal to see this. Westward-facing Mass is provided as an option, but it is not the norm.

As for the Western rite, the epiclesis after the dominical words in the sarum Canon is an addition of ROCOR. However, in the earlier Sarum version, God was asked to change the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, and although this was not specifically stated, it was always understood to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Upon closer comparison of the text of the Sarum Mass to the Tridentine ones, it becomes apparent that Sarum focuses much more on God as Trinity than does the Tridentine.

The Western Rite is a Good Thing IMO. There ar epeople whose entire lives and spirituality have been fed, nurtured and nourished by the western rites, and would find itmuch easier to convert to Orthodoxy if this did not involve being deprived of the spirituality that took them to the point of conversion in the first place. There is no need for this deprivation and so I see no reason to enforce it, and so cause further difficulty for potential converts. In my reading, many of the objections have been due to effects that the spread of the Western Rite may have on relations between supporters and opponents: they generally are not against the Western Rite itself.  The majority of objections that I have heard seem to be mostly based on the mentality of "east good, west bad".

I think that St John Maximovitch put it best:

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be Eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies"
« Last Edit: May 21, 2005, 09:13:19 AM by Michael »

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
It's not Byzantine chauvenism to insist someone embrace Orthodoxy with both hands.  The reality is, the "Byzantine use" is what survived in a genuinely Orthodox context.  In subtle and not so subtle ways, the additions/developments of the various Latin liturgies, reflect the heterodox theologies and schism of those bodies.  In many respects, a return to a genuinely pre-schism western Liturgy, would be as foreign to most modern western Christians as becoming "Byzantine rite".

Every time I get into this discussion, I find myself being disheartened by the reality that there are boosters for the western-rite, who rather than wanting Orthodoxy, want continuing "Anglo-Catholicism", or continuing-Tridentine-Catholicism.

Also, a lot of the claims being made here for extant western liturgies (like that the "Roman Canon" as we now have it is the "oldest" anaphora in existance) are incorrect.

As for the more honest request that heterodox liturgies be "baptized", that is good...but requires some obvious modifications.  I think the problem some Orthodox would have, is that this is not occuring, or not to the extent required.

As for communion-in-the-hand, this would be scandalous for many Orthodox, and for that reason alone should not be done.  This is beside the fact that such primitive usages reflect a time when there were many other conditions in place which would have prevented the practical problems/abuses which caused the universal movement away from this practice throughout the Church (thus why it's only Protestants, or Protestantizers, who have moved back to this custom).  In the earliest period of the Church, only Christians (whether Baptized or Catechumen) were allowed into the services for any duration, and even the catechumen were dismissed before the Holy Oblation.  It was also assumed, that if you were present for the Oblation, you were receiving communion - and to be a practical, regular communicant back in those days required a rigor in one's observance that is frankly lacking now.  Hence, why so many people delayed Baptism back then.

All of those circumstances are gone - Churches are now also open to anyone, with the dismissal of catechumen being an unobserved artificat in most places.  Those are precisely the changing conditions, which brought on the movement away from placing the Holy Gifts in people's hands to begin with.

Thus, when the Anglican-use folks start dismissing catechumen, and basically checking people's credentials at the door, re-institute public penances and open confession, and all of those ascetic rigors, then I might be a little more sympathetic towards such liberalities with how the Holy Gifts are being handeled.


Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
Quote
Sabbas posted:

"So former Anglicans get to be traditional but not mainstream Catholics? This just amazes me!"

It would amaze me too, if it were actually true, but it isn't. The standard for the Novus Ordo Mass is Eastward-facing. One only need look at the Novus Ordo rite itself and the General instruction to the Roman Missal to see this. Westward-facing Mass is provided as an option, but it is not the norm.

Michael do you know what percentage of Novus Ordo churches in America still offer the Mass facing the Altar? Do you also know that most Roman Catholic churches face north not east?
All I was saying was that the Roman Catholic church allows traditional Anglicans to come into their fold and maintain their traditional mass while the American RC bishops do not often allow the use of the Latin mass.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2005, 02:19:35 PM by Sabbas »
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Sabbas,

Thanks for your reply.  Regarding the percentage of churches that face either way, this doesn't change the fact that the standard is eastward-facing.  Someone above pointed out that what was given as an option has been seen by many as the norm.  I agree that this is the case.

Thank you as well for the information about the intervention of bishops.  Being an Anglican in Britain, I am not entirely familiar with the American RC situation.  I didn't realise that bishops had the authority to overrule the Missal rubrics.  I'm sad to hear that this is going on.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
Every time I get into this discussion, I find myself being disheartened by the reality that there are boosters for the western-rite, who rather than wanting Orthodoxy, want continuing "Anglo-Catholicism", or continuing-Tridentine-Catholicism.


Concise and well said, Augustine!

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
Sabbas,

Thanks for your reply. Regarding the percentage of churches that face either way, this doesn't change the fact that the standard is eastward-facing. Someone above pointed out that what was given as an option has been seen by many as the norm. I agree that this is the case.

Thank you as well for the information about the intervention of bishops. Being an Anglican in Britain, I am not entirely familiar with the American RC situation. I didn't realise that bishops had the authority to overrule the Missal rubrics. I'm sad to hear that this is going on.
Sorry if I was somewhat snotty in my last post but seriously every RC church I have been to in the Midwest faces north. In fact the tiny church in a town adjacent to mine had the choice of facing east and could easily change any time but decided to go with the altar being to the north. When this tradition of facing north began I don't know but from what I have heard this is common throughout europe with churches as far back as the middle ages.
I also realize that VII did only say that the altar should be free-standing and that the institutional norm is to face the altar but I have never known a Novus Ordo church to do this. Also for the regular Joe Schitz Roman Catholic the norm for Novus Ordo is facing the congregation, at least in America.

As for the American Roman Catholic churches bishops, the chaos and bad relations with the Vatican: this is a big problem and has been for a long time. You have outspoken priests and bishops who want more liturgical reforms and have no problem allowing their priests to perform wild masses, such as the one featured in a previous post, in which priests dance and process around like buffoons and have their congregation clap and sing! In fact I found some good pictures of what Augustine mentioned: clown masses!!!! You can find more info on this here http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8_1E95ADT1sJ:www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp%3Ftopic_id%3D5000+clown+masses&hl=en If this does not spell out what is wrong with the American Catholics, these clown masses originated in America and only spread to other countries later, than I do not know what does.
What is really sad is that many really do believe that more reform is necessary to increase church attendance and create 'Christian Unity'. Others, like Pope Benedict, who was an outspoken proponent of reform until 1968 with the wild rallies at Tubingen calling for the removal of the crucifix in all churches, have seen the light and realized Tradition is what creates solidarity. I would even venture to say that if the Mass had not been changed more people would being going to church right now. But back to America, I have even heard some say that there could be a possible schism in the future with the 'conservative' dioceses staying with Rome while the rest make a break in an attempt to force reform. Personally I think the worse situation is in Ireland. Ireland has been the loudest voice calling for reform but it also has the largest number, I think, of laity who prefer the Latin Mass and have been allowed to continue its celebration. It is a situation similar to what has been granted the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales but I have been told that many 'regular working class' Irish attend the Latin Mass trying to maintain the connection with the ancestors and because they, like others, like the Latin Mass better. Here is the Latin Mass Society of Ireland's website http://indigo.ie/~colmgren/latsoc/
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Jennifer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,154
"Clown Masses?"  Come on now.  That's an old and tired argument.  We've all seen those pictures a million times before.  But as someone who spent almost 35 years as a Roman Catholic, I never witnessed one nor spoke with anyone who had witnessed one either. 


Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
I witnessed a Clown Mass at Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina in 1978. It was absolutely dreadful.

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
["Clown Masses?"  Come on now.  That's an old and tired argument.  We've all seen those pictures a million times before.  But as someone who spent almost 35 years as a Roman Catholic, I never witnessed one nor spoke with anyone who had witnessed one either. ]

Hey, ya all haven't lived until you've seen a polka Mass!  I have a VNS tape called 'In Heaven There Is No Beer' which is all about the Poles in America and their love of polkas!

Orthodoc

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
Hey, ya all haven't lived until you've seen a polka Mass!


I've seen a Polka Mass too. Mankato, Minnesota, 1985 and Duluth, Minnesota, 1986. Those German Catholics love the polka too, ya know. LOL

Offline Landon77

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 308
[quote
- return to the use of leavened bread and giving Holy Communion "under both kinds"
Quote

I know of no WR parish that gives unleavend bread for communion.  And recieving under both kinds is sort of, MANDITORY.


   Ok, for some time I've been getting the feeling that there is no real way for converts (as in those that were not raised Orthodox) to please those that have grown up in Orthodox families.  If reading the threads on this site has done anything, it has confirmed that.  We don't fast the way you do, so yeah, we must not be doing it correctly.  We have pews, so we must not really be commited.  Some of our women like to cover their heads- those silly converts, thinking that it makes them more Orthodox.  And boy oh boy!  Those WR, they don't use the same liturgy, so we know they aren't fully commited!  (When my WR "convert" parish gets together with the Greeks next door from time to time for special occasions, the ONLY differences are skin color and accents.)  Any one that thinks the use of different rites causes divisions, needs to go to a place were they get togeather from time to time. 
    When a branch is cut off from a tree, for a time, it is still alive, and it continues to grow.  Have you ever considered that when the West broke from the East, it contained some in it with a truely Orthodox spirit and that they didn't just all of a sudden loose the grace God had once given to their bishops and priest?  Have you ever thought that after a thousand years, maybe the Antiochian WR and the ROCOR WR is all that is left to be returned to Orthodoxy?  I know you guys want the "Western Church" to return- this may be as good as it gets.
     I guess that concludes my monthly rant, thank you all for indulging me.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2005, 10:35:23 PM by Landon77 »
"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
No need to ask for indulgences here, Landon77. This cradle BigO has abstained heretofore in this WR controversy, but I should at least state that I for one am neither threatened by nor against any western expression of Orthodoxy. I CAN understand how some may feel uncomfortable with the WR and feel that it MIGHT gloss over aspects of our Faith when viewed by the nonOrthodox, but a little maturity (time) in the Faith will lessen that fear.

Demetri
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
What is a clown mass?! Is this a joke?

Please refrain from the use of profanity in the future
« Last Edit: May 24, 2005, 11:31:50 PM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é »
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
You don't want to know.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Iti s a mass wherein the celbrants or some of the layity are dressed like clowns.  Part of the "clown Ministry movement of the 1970's and 80's if memery serves.  I knew I had clown minsiter when I was presbyterian at the very least.  He would take Christ Jesus from a lighter side, concentrating on smiles and love and flowers.  And sometimes dress like a clown.  I still remeber his funeral.  Clowns. Clowns everywhere.  And his ashes went up in Balloons.  And I wish I was joking.

Another case of good intentions, bad taste. :- 

 
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Nacho

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,482
  • The face of Corporate America
Come on now guys.....you aren't serious? A Clown Mass? This has to be some kind of joke. I don't even think some parts of the ECUSA could pull something off so ridiculous as that... ::) 
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Iti s a mass wherein the celbrants or some of the layity are dressed like clowns. Another case of good intentions, bad taste. :-
   :o
  :o  :o
 :o  :o  :o

I bet the Bishops of Vatican II didn't see that one coming!
Well, I suppose you may be right that the intentions may have been good, but what exactly are the intentions?
Hopefully, "Clown Masses" are now well and truly out of fashion. I can imagine that they would have divided parishes and alienated people.
First rule of fashion- "never tamper with the classics".
« Last Edit: May 22, 2005, 01:11:01 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Quote
I still remeber his funeral.  Clowns. Clowns everywhere.  And his ashes went up in Balloons.  And I wish I was joking.

A clown funeral? Would it be inappropriate of me to pee my pants at this stage? (regardless of the fact that I am beyond my pants wetting days...)

Peace.
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
"Clown Masses?" Come on now. That's an old and tired argument. We've all seen those pictures a million times before. But as someone who spent almost 35 years as a Roman Catholic, I never witnessed one nor spoke with anyone who had witnessed one either.


I am not trying to attack the piety of Roman Catholics who would never condone such a monstrosity. The point simply is that Vatican condones this and that is wrong and it discredits the Roman church. A priest involved in such 'liturgical renewal' before Vatican II would have been excommunicated. Instead the Roman church excommunicates those who support the Latin Mass, SSPX, while condoning priests who dance, dress up as clowns, and all sorts of other things inimical to the spirit of reverance and piety that is supposed to be present in the liturgy.

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Jennifer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,154

I am not trying to attack the piety of Roman Catholics who would never condone such a monstrosity. The point simply is that Vatican condones this and that is wrong and it discredits the Roman church. A priest involved in such 'liturgical renewal' before Vatican II would have been excommunicated. Instead the Roman church excommunicates those who support the Latin Mass, SSPX, while condoning priests who dance, dress up as clowns, and all sorts of other things inimical to the spirit of reverance and piety that is supposed to be present in the liturgy.


Sabbas,

First, the Vatican doesn't excommunicate "those who support the latin Mass."  Some of those who support the Latin Mass were excommunicated, not all.  Second, there is no evidence that the Vatican "condones" priests who say "clown Masses."  Do clown Masses currently happen?  We saw reference in this thread to one in 1978.  1978!  Almost twenty years ago. 

You're creating a strawman. 


Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!

       :o
    :o    :o
 :o    :o    :o

I bet the Bishops of Vatican II didn't see that one coming!
Well, I suppose you may be right that the intentions may have been good, but what exactly are the intentions?
Hopefully, "Clown Masses" are now well and truly out of fashion. I can imagine that they would have divided parishes and alienated people.
First rule of fashion- "never tamper with the classics".

I wish I could say they were all gone.  But You can naever be sure, especially when one is so far from church doctrine and disconnected from the Holy Church that anything goes. 

Part of the clown ministry seemed, at least in my eyes, as an attempt to clean up the "hellfire and brimstone" reputation of many churches, particular those of Calvinist veins.  Somehow this, like several other protestant heresies (like Catholic Charismatic centers wherein people "speak in tounges" and get "Slain by the Spirit"......again, I wish I was joking.) infiltrated the Roman Church.  I see it as a sad, sad, sad attempt to regain what was lost, while ignoring the truth and rigor of the faith.  People want a dog and pony show complete with miracles, and not the everlasting word and presence of God in the sacrament in the Eucharist where God is, while turning its back on the holy line that has exhisted since Christ, calling us demagogues and simple idiots who belive in miracles such as the Communion.


Even if they kept the classics, it still wouldnt matter much.  There is so little to lean on anywhere esle.   :-[

Pazi

Ian Lazarus
 
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!


A clown funeral? Would it be inappropriate of me to pee my pants at this stage? (regardless of the fact that I am beyond my pants wetting days...)

Peace.


I'm surprised you havent yet.  If you do, do it upwind.  Or at least in your own home.  I dont wanna see it.  And see a doctor about that.   :P :)

Ian Lazarus
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Quote
You can imagine my shock in going from a traditional Lutheran Church where the Eucharist was received on the tongue (in good old pre-Vatican Roman Catholic style) to a "Western Rite Orthodox" parish where it was placed in my hand as Thomas Cranmer insisted and Episcopalians have done ever since. Somehow they manage to excuse that.

 :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o

Is this commonplace for all WRO churches?


Quote
Hey, ya all haven't lived until you've seen a polka Mass!

A local parish by me has at least one of these every year.

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Quote
And see a doctor about that.   


LOL oh how I tried; he recommended I refrain from seeing or hearing all forms of stupidity. The clown mass could not be anticipated in advance unfortunately, at least now I'm aware and alert.

Peace.
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
I guess that concludes my monthly rant, thank you all for indulging me.

Landon77 -- even though I attend an ER parish in Ft. Worth, I love what y'all are doing at St. Benedict's and St. Peters.  I thought your "rant" entirely justified.  You go, boy.   ::) ;D

No need to ask for indulgences here, Landon77. This cradle BigO has abstained heretofore in this WR controversy, but I should at least state that I for one am neither threatened by nor against any western expression of Orthodoxy. I CAN understand how some may feel uncomfortable with the WR and feel that it MIGHT gloss over aspects of our Faith when viewed by the nonOrthodox, but a little maturity (time) in the Faith will lessen that fear.

Demetri

Always grateful for a sympathetic "cradle easterner" ear, Demetri.
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833


 :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o

Is this commonplace for all WRO churches?

Not at St. Peter's it ain't...
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


Sabbas,

First, the Vatican doesn't excommunicate "those who support the latin Mass." Some of those who support the Latin Mass were excommunicated, not all. Second, there is no evidence that the Vatican "condones" priests who say "clown Masses." Do clown Masses currently happen? We saw reference in this thread to one in 1978. 1978! Almost twenty years ago.

You're creating a strawman.


The picture on the right was from September 27, 2004. It is clearly not a strawman. Here is a website with many current pictures of the blasphemy going on in the Roman church http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/ChurchRevIndex.htm

Quote
First, the Vatican doesn't excommunicate "those who support the latin Mass." Some of those who support the Latin Mass were excommunicated, not all.
While not every member of SSPX is considered excommunicated in the formal sense of having a bishop issue your formal excommunication it has been repeatedly said that members of SSPX are not in communion with Rome and therefore there is no need to issue a formal excommunication. Every time that they are referred to by the Roman church they are called schismatics. Also you have to remember that Archbishop Lefebvre and the 'Hawaii 6' were formally excommunicated in 1988. The whole point of my argument was that those who stayed loyal to tradition were excommunicated while those who engaged and continue to engage in speculation about the Resurrection and/or destroy the liturgy are not.

Quote
Second, there is no evidence that the Vatican "condones" priests who say "clown Masses."
None of the priests who have celebrated the mass in this awful way have been excommunicated or disciplined. What else is that but condoning?

Quote
Do clown Masses currently happen? We saw reference in this thread to one in 1978. 1978! Almost twenty years ago.

You're creating a strawman.
Not only do clown masses still happen but even worse things happen. Here is one of the less offensive photos of Bishop Mahony with the wine in lemonade pitchers .

Jennifer Roman Catholics cannot afford to put their heads in the sand over this. It is a big deal and needs to be confronted.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2005, 11:48:08 AM by Sabbas »
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,675
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
You're right, Sabbas, to a point.

But most, if not all, of the abuses you point out belong to the American Roman Catholic Church, which cannot be viewed as representative of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church.  Indeed, Pope John Paul II had repeatedly told the American bishops to clean up their act.

I find it amusing that someone who by definition (being Orthodox) is against the Vatican's ability to be in the business of every bishop in the world would be scolding the Vatican for not doing just that.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Landon77

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 308


Landon77 -- even though I attend an ER parish in Ft. Worth, I love what y'all are doing at St. Benedict's and St. Peters.  I thought your "rant" entirely justified.  You go, boy.   ::) ;D
Oh, don't tell me that!  LOL, I'll be tempted to do it more often.

Demetri, your comment made me feel a lot better, thank you.
"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface

Offline SeanMc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Quote
the wine in lemonade pitchers

It's interesting, when I first received the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, the priest consecrated the wine in a glass pitcher. And what's more is that the Host had a bunch of honey in it.

I live in what you might call a normal parish, with charsmatics and "glory and praise" to boot. What is extraordinary, is during the Our Father everyone holds hands, and when the Our Father ends and gets to the "For the Kingdom, the Power..." every was raises their hands, still held together. It's so... so... PROTESTANT!

I became a Catholic, not only b/c I believed it, but because I wished to take part of the ancient liturgy of the Church. Nowadays, that doesn't exist, and the ancient liturgy is pushed to the fringe where it almost feels like a cult. Now that I've pretty much stopped believing in Papal claims to infallibility, it guess all this stuff about liturgy in the Catholic Church is a moot point.

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
The picture on the right was from September 27, 2004. It is clearly not a strawman.

That's when the picture was posted on the website, not when it occurred.

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,621
Not only do clown masses still happen but even worse things happen. Here is one of the less offensive photos of Bishop Mahony with the wine in lemonade pitchers image changed to link.

Mahony's taste is questionable-- but calling this "blasphemous" is uncalled for. If nothing else, having enough chalices on hand to hold that much wine would completely cover the altar. And when I look at the other pictures on this site-- well, they're a bunch of hysteria-mongering prudes. Oh, and papal supremacists too: they inevitably refer to the Orthodox as "schizmatics".

In case anyone hasn't figured this out: the most important praxis is what happens in your own parish. If you spend all your time hand-wringing about what happens elsewhere, then you need to find something better to do with your time.

Offline Rilian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • OC.net
Come on now guys.....you aren't serious? A Clown Mass? This has to be some kind of joke. I don't even think some parts of the ECUSA could pull something off so ridiculous as that... ::)

http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/article_483.shtml

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
In case anyone hasn't figured this out: the most important praxis is what happens in your own parish. If you spend all your time hand-wringing about what happens elsewhere, then you need to find something better to do with your time.


Brilliant, profound, simple, and TRUE.  Bravo, Sir Keble!

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Jennifer,

Quote
First, the Vatican doesn't excommunicate "those who support the latin Mass."  Some of those who support the Latin Mass were excommunicated, not all.  Second, there is no evidence that the Vatican "condones" priests who say "clown Masses."  Do clown Masses currently happen?  We saw reference in this thread to one in 1978.  1978!  Almost twenty years ago.

Well, what you say here is true, and it isn't.  If that makes any sense. :)

Strictly speaking you're right, it is possible to be a "Latin-Mass'er" and be in the Vatican's good graces.  However this was for one simple reason - precisely because of the Lefebvre/"Traditionalist" movement which refused obedience to the "New Mass", new sacramentary, etc.

In other words, that the first "indult" appeared in '84, and later a more "generous" one appeared in '88, was precisely because the Lefebvrists were scaring the crap out of certain people in the Vatican.  They were also something of a walking embarassment, since they were something of a living emblem of liberalism gone awry - the Vatican bending over backwards it seemed for all manner of things, except for it's "old fashioned" folks.  Apparently even Archbishop Christodoulos (of Athens), first primate of the Orthodox Church of Greece, round-aboutly commented on this situation while talking to Cardinal Kaspar, the notoriously modernistic Bishop red-hatted by the "conservative" late John Paul II...

Quote
Kasper went on this ecumenical mission to Athens, attended the Greek Orthodox liturgy in the morning and in the afternoon he was having lunch. Then the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Athens (Christodoulos, head of the Church of Greece), who is a good friend of Count Capponi and Una Voce, asked his Eminence how he had enjoyed the liturgy in the morning. "Oh wonderful, wonderful," said the Cardinal, "I thought I was in heaven." Then the Archbishop said that he thought perhaps that they should make some changes to the Greek liturgy because, perhaps for modern people today, some of it is too mystifying. Kasper said, "No that would be a mortal sin. You mustn’t change a thing. Keep it exactly as it is." And the Archbishop said, "Then why did you destroy your liturgy which was the equivalent of ours?" (excerpt from the late Michael Davies' last interview before his recent repose - courtesy of A Conservative Blog For Peace)

This is precisely why, nine out of ten times, where you will manage to find an "Indult Mass", will be in an area where the Lefebvrists have set up shop.  I guess fortunately for those Latins with scruples over obeying "infallible Rome", the Lefebvrists are so well spread out now that if they're in a large urban centre, there will now be at least one indult Mass offered on a regular basis, or even a chapel/oratory for this purpose.

As for the "clown Masses" and more grievous things, I agree, they're not super common.  In fact, I'd be inclined to say they're less common now than they were, as the more whacky spirit of experimentation has passed...now we see a more institutionalized crappiness, the endemic but bland forms of impiety which one ought to expect from mediocrity.  Thus, while you won't see the really super-crazy-stuff in most parishes, you will see the communion-in-the-hand everywhere, altar-girls almost everywhere, and things like "liturgical dance" (ex. young girls frolicking in leotards) or really really awful "praise music", iconoclastic temples, post-modern (and aesthetically atheistic) church-temples, etc. etc.  Also, it is very common to see other liberties being taken, particularly with the altar bread (adding things like honey, sugar, butter, etc. to the recipes for making hosts, etc.)  I could go on and on.

Back in my RC "Novus Ordo" days, I was actually "lucky", in that the local parish was relatively speaking pretty conservative.  But even there, a lot of zany stuff went on - some of it reflecting the proclivities of our "charismatic" priest, some of it just him simply caving into the whims of whatever the busy-bodies on the parish council wanted.

I also think it's worth mentioning that while some of the liberalities I've mentioned (and which you've probably seen or maybe only read about, if you were more fortunate than most) are certainly prohibited by Rome (though this doesn't mean much when they're unwilling to make such prohibitions meaningful), many are not.  You only need to have been paying attention to the Papal Masses of globe-trotting John Paul II to see this, as a large part of the silliness I've mentioned was manifest at those events, particularly the awful "World Youth Days" (I was actually quite close to the last one they had in Toronto - I'm about a 1hr drive away).

Of course in the end, this is really a problem internal to the Roman Catholics.  I think it's relevence to Orthodoxy, is only that it shows what the ecumenists are currently trying to "negotiate" and "dialogue" with (which frankly, is a mess), and also in part, what is perhaps fertile ground for Orthodoxy's mission in the western world (appealing to those Roman Catholics who upon witnessing the disintigration of their church, might be moved to question whether "always obeying the Pope" is really a dogma of faith or a tyrannical innovation opposed to the Apostolic Faith.)


Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,621
Just as a point of interest, Augustine, what kind of church do you attend?

Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Keble,

All Saints of North America Orthodox Church (OCA).  You can visit the parish website here.


Offline Augustine

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • pray for me, please
    • Beyond Nihilism
Keble,

Quote
In case anyone hasn't figured this out: the most important praxis is what happens in your own parish. If you spend all your time hand-wringing about what happens elsewhere, then you need to find something better to do with your time.

To a great extent, I actually agree with this.  However, I do think there is a point where the magnitude of certain problems (whether it be a particularly bad type of problem/abuse that is conspicuously present in this or that place, or a widespread series of abuses) requires attention - particularly when it starts to communicate a different theology, or even something as subtle as a spirit/attitude opposed to grace.  At the very least that can create a situation where you find yourself avoiding certain people or places (not good, and thus why it ought to be resolved by competent authorities), though at worst it creates a situation where you find yourself avoiding more people than you are not.

I think for many traditional Roman Catholics, that's precisely the situation they're in - because at least on a popular level, Catholicism has taken a very drastic leap away from what even my parents and grand parents could have recalled as a living memory of how things were.  I know for me at least (as someone who never knew the Tridentine Mass as a normative form of worship, but only knew of it through those struggling to preserve it), it became a call for some very serious (and often disturbing/painful) soul searching - precisely because I did not believe, deep down, that the Pope and the "hierarchy in obedience to him" could blindly be trusted, that they were in any circumstance the "supreme interpreters" or such matters.  Well, once that can of worms opened...

But I agree with what you're saying, if you're talking about splitting hairs, or letting one's self be scandalized by any impropriety, anywhere.  I confess that I've been thrown about by precisely this, precisely when I was finding my way around what one could at least nominally recognize as being "Orthodoxy" - since as you're probably well aware, the Orthodox Church is not without it's scandals, some of them of a doctrinal nature.  It's very easy to become unbalanced by such things, or to confuse the royal-middle-path with simply becoming the anthithesis of whatever excess or odious thing has come to offend your budding sense of piety.  Thus, if someone inclined to promiscuous speach about something speaks excessively, it's a very easy trap to believe one is siding with what is right, by simply going to the other extreme.


Offline catholickid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Totus Tuus Maria
I will be attending my first Tridentine Mass this Friday at 7o'clock. Im brushing up on my Latin.  I just recently (because of this thread) have stumbled across the www.unavoce.org, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the Latin mass society.

Thanks!

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
I will be attending my first Tridentine Mass this Friday at 7o'clock. Im brushing up on my Latin. I just recently (because of this thread) have stumbled across the www.unavoce.org, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the Latin mass society.

Thanks!

I hope you enjoy it! If more RCs would just attend a Latin Mass I think more would be in favor of its restoration. I am also glad that this discussion helped. Sorry I forgot to about FSSP http://www.fssp.com/ There is also a Society of St.Pius V http://www.sspv.net/index.htm  believe it or not!
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Quote
There is also a Society of St.Pius V http://www.sspv.net/index.htm  believe it or not!

I'd advise anyone to steer clear of them - unless you are fond of sedevacantism, that is.

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


I'd advise anyone to steer clear of them - unless you are fond of sedevacantism, that is.
Thank you for pointing that out! I only took a glance at the website before I posted the link. I found the site when it was mentioned in a blog http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/
However SSPV might be the most 'respectable' of the sedevacantism as they are a breakaway from SSPX. I hope they are more respectable than the other sedevacantist groups I just read about.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Hi I'm New

Why not go all the way and return to the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great and St James?

By the way once a year we EO do have the ancient Liturgy of St James the Apostle where the liturgy is conducted in front of the iconostasis outside the nave doors and the bishop faces the people. The bread and wine is distributed separately.. But this is only done once a year on the feast day of St James (Agios Ikovos)and in the presence of a Bishop.

The Liturgy of St Mark is believed to be the oldest Liturgy yet it has been adapted to suit the Ethiopian Church tradition. We don't use this one in the Eastern Orthodox Church anymore, but St John Chrysostom and St Basil have compiled something very similar.

In Peace
Kosmas
« Last Edit: July 14, 2005, 12:08:23 PM by Fr Chrysostomos »
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Quote
Why not go all the way and return to the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great and St James?

Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used?  The Western eucharistic canon is certainly older than the Byzantine, and both liturgies were not codified until the middle ages anyway (the Byzantine Rite as we know it today dates to the 15th century in its final form).

Anastasios
« Last Edit: July 14, 2005, 01:37:21 PM by Anastasios »
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Silouan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas
Quote
Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used?

Not only that but it needs to be in Greek as well, since that is the language of the Oecumenical Throne. 

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
The ecumenical throne? What a great church! :)

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used? The Western eucharistic canon is certainly older than the Byzantine, and both liturgies were not codified until the middle ages anyway (the Byzantine Rite as we know it today dates to the 15th century in its final form).

Anastasios

My Dear Friends,
 
The Liturgy as described by the St Pauline in the NT was kept in all the primitive Churches. Then extra prayers and hymns were added along with greater respect for the body and blood of the Lord. This made the Liturgy longer and longer. What was lost in this development was perhaps the simplicity of just hearing hymns and psalms a fe prayers and then partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. But what was gained was much more when there was Gospel and Epistle readings and the rich Glorification of God .

The Roman Church used Greek in the Liturgy. The tomb stones of Popes and official writings of the Popes were all written in Greek before the 4th century. The Liturgy of St Clement of Rome was written in Greek. And if you see the surviving manuscripts you will see that it was similar to the Liturgy of St Irenaus. Although primitive in form, the Liturgy was very similar to that of the Greek Liturgies of Byzantium, Alexandria and Jerusalem.


Quote
"...probably by the neglect of preaching, which is an anomaly in its history, and hardly less probably by its adherence to a Greek liturgy long after the Christians of Rome had ceased to understand Greek familiarly. At such a moment St Hippolytus proves himself a reformer. His historical elucidations of the period, therefore form an admirable introduction to Cyprian, and will explain the entire independence of Roman dictation, with which he maintained his own opinion against the Church and its bishops. --- (AnteNicean Fathers vol 5).

Quote
The Pauline Norm being born in mind, we shall best comprehend this Clementine liturgy, as to its primitive claims, by taking the testimony of Justin, writing in Rome to the Antonines A.D. 160. Referring to the Apology in our first volume, we observe that the order kept up in his day was this: —
1. Prayers for all estates of men.
2. The kiss of peace.
3. Oblation of bread and wine.
4. Thanksgiving.
5. Words of institution.
6. The prayer ending with Amen.
7. Communion.

Now, a century later, we may suppose the original of this Clementine to have taken a fuller shape; of which still later this Clementine is the product. Bear in mind that the early Roman use was (Greek) borrowed wholly from the East; and, comparing the testimony of Justin with the Pauline Norm, ... this norm in Rome was augmented by the Eastern uses, and so preserves a true name in that of the first Bishop of Rome, who accepted it from Jerusalem or Antioch"
REV. ROBERT
ERNEST WALLIS, PH.D.
---- AnteNicene Fathers vol 7.ÂÂ  


- Fr Chrysostomos

« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 11:09:00 AM by Fr Chrysostomos »
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
That liturgy may have been in Greek but it was never the DL of St John Chrysostom.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Well ST John Chrysostom did not invent his Liturgy out of the blue there had to be a model they all refered to.
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,621
Well ST John Chrysostom did not invent his Liturgy out of the blue there had to be a model they all refered to.

Really? Would that be the liturgy of, say, the Diddache?

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
And if you see the surviving manuscripts you will see that it was similar to the Liturgy of St Irenaus. Although primitive in form, the Liturgy was very similar to that of the Greek Liturgies of Byzantium, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

However, you must keep in mind that all the liturgies of that time were more similar to each other than any of them are to any of the modern-day liturgies. The Eastern liturgies developed in one direction, the Latin ones in another. And in point of fact, the extant Roman liturgy resembles the liturgy of the 4th century much more than the Byzantine one does.

Offline arjuna3110

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Sabbas, even though I'm investigating Orthodoxy, I'm a practicing Catholic;  and I must object to parts of your post:


Sorry if I was somewhat snotty in my last post but seriously every RC church I have been to in the Midwest faces north.

So what?  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.  That is the direction that matters to us.



Quote
Also for the regular Joe Schitz Roman Catholic the norm for Novus Ordo is facing the congregation, at least in America.

"Schitz"?  I'm reading this phonetically.  If this is a joke, it's not funny.

As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.  It is Jesus, come amongst us. 



Quote
As for the American Roman Catholic churches bishops, the chaos and bad relations with the Vatican: this is a big problem and has been for a long time.

In some ways, yes.  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).


Quote
You have outspoken priests and bishops who want more liturgical reforms and have no problem allowing their priests to perform wild masses, such as the one featured in a previous post, in which priests dance and process around like buffoons and have their congregation clap and sing! In fact I found some good pictures of what Augustine mentioned: clown masses!!!! You can find more info on this here http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8_1E95ADT1sJ:www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp%3Ftopic_id%3D5000+clown+masses&hl=en If this does not spell out what is wrong with the American Catholics, these clown masses originated in America and only spread to other countries later, than I do not know what does.

Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.  I have never seen a clown Mass.  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.  But, for all that, it is the Mass.  There are the readings.  There is the Eucharist.  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.


Quote
What is really sad is that many really do believe that more reform is necessary to increase church attendance and create 'Christian Unity'.

Who are you talking about?  In what place?  In what decade?  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.

And as for the Latin Mass . . .  <sigh>.  It was before my time.  I knew people who missed it dearly.  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).  But the fact remains:  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church. 

In sum, Sabbas:  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church. 

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
Sabbas, even though I'm investigating Orthodoxy, I'm a practicing Catholic;ÂÂ  and I must object to parts of your post:


So what?ÂÂ  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.ÂÂ  That is the direction that matters to us.



"Schitz"?ÂÂ  I'm reading this phonetically.ÂÂ  If this is a joke, it's not funny.

As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.ÂÂ  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.ÂÂ  It is Jesus, come amongst us.ÂÂ  



In some ways, yes.ÂÂ  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.ÂÂ  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.ÂÂ  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.ÂÂ  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.ÂÂ  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).


Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.ÂÂ  I have never seen a clown Mass.ÂÂ  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.ÂÂ  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.ÂÂ  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.ÂÂ  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.ÂÂ  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.ÂÂ  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.ÂÂ  But, for all that, it is the Mass.ÂÂ  There are the readings.ÂÂ  There is the Eucharist.ÂÂ  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.ÂÂ  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.ÂÂ  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.ÂÂ  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.


Who are you talking about?ÂÂ  In what place?ÂÂ  In what decade?ÂÂ  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.ÂÂ  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).ÂÂ  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.

And as for the Latin Mass . . .ÂÂ  <sigh>.ÂÂ  It was before my time.ÂÂ  I knew people who missed it dearly.ÂÂ  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).ÂÂ  But the fact remains:ÂÂ  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.ÂÂ  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:ÂÂ  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.ÂÂ  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.ÂÂ  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church.ÂÂ  

In sum, Sabbas:ÂÂ  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.ÂÂ  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.ÂÂ  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.ÂÂ  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.ÂÂ  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.ÂÂ  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church.ÂÂ  


Quote
So what?  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.  That is the direction that matters to us.

I was making an observation not an accusation. I still have not discovered why they all face north? I wish their was someone here who could explain to me Roman Catholic architecture and how this practice came about.
Quote
"Schitz"?  I'm reading this phonetically.  If this is a joke, it's not funny.
Where I live we says Joe Schitz instead of Joe Schmoe.
Quote
As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.  It is Jesus, come amongst us. 
The very end of Richard Wagner's opera "Parsifal" in which Parsifal takes hold of the Grail turns toward the people and blesses them is very powerful and "holy" too but I certainly would not consider it Divine Liturgy. Having the celebrant face the people completes the destruction of the Sacrificial character of the Mass which is already cut down in the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself. The celebrant is no longer Christ offering Himself to His Father and the Trinity for the remission of sins but the head of a banquet.
Quote
In some ways, yes.  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).
For the sake of Roman Catholics I hope you are right.
Quote
Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.  I have never seen a clown Mass.  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.  But, for all that, it is the Mass.  There are the readings.  There is the Eucharist.  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.
One of the areas of modern Roman Catholicism I originally I intended to address were these abuses because I felt that the celebrating clergy at these events should be excommunicated but ended not even being disciplined which seems outrageous. Now I will go further and say that I am also appalled that no great action was ever taken to thwart the practice of having 'lay eucharistic ministers' and/or altar girls serving as well as the use of goofy hymns and guitars. These seem to be just terrible innovations as well though I admit not as bad as having clowns in the sanctuary.

I will now go even further and state that the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself is riddled with problems and though much of it resembles the Tridentine Mass it is in a drastic departure from all previous Liturgical forms even when celebrated properly (facing the Tabernacle, Gregorian chant, etc.)
The focus of the Tridentine Mass is the Sacrifice in the oblation of the Victim (Offeratory), immolation (doble consecration), and consummation (Communion). The Novus Ordo is a Memorial and Supper that is based on the form of a Jewish meal being broken into three parts: berakah or blessing of the gifts (presentation of the gifts), thanksgiving for gifts received (Eucharistic prayer), breaking and partaking of the bread.  So you see the Novus Ordo even without the scrapping of the traditional rubrics is not a Mass based in Tradition but something radically different. The scrapping of the rubrics is merely a part of the spirit behind the Novus Ordo which no longer is focused on Absolute Truth but on fallen humanity. What better way to inaugurate this new humanism than to pervert the Mass and have the celebrant face the people?

Quote
Who are you talking about?  In what place?  In what decade?  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.
Considering that a lot of your bishops, archbishops, and even one cardinal, I know of, are radicals I think this is still an issue. Also I do not think the reform movement has waned as much as you think. The theology department at the Catholic University I attend was practically banging its head against the wall when they found out Cardinal Ratzinger was elected. I seriously think that within fifty years the Roman Catholic church is either going to have to return to Tradition or continue on its destructive path. Many seriously think the ordination of women is right down the corner. Here is one serious group interested in liturgical reform http://webelieve.cc/html/May2005.pdf Of course this is not to mention the weird stuff that passes for Roman Catholic theology these days. There are still a lot of fans of Teilhard de Chardin out there.

Quote
And as for the Latin Mass . . .  <sigh>.  It was before my time.  I knew people who missed it dearly.  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).  But the fact remains:  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church. 
The Latin Mass is not before your time and I am willing to bet there is a parish, within an hour or two's drive from where you live, that serves the Latin Mass. More and more RCs are going back to the Tridentine Mass everyday. SSPX and FSSP continue to grow which would seem odd if the Latin Mass was yesterdays news. I mean come on! it has only been 35 years. More and more people are not satisfied with having the Liturgy of their forefathers and saints taken away from them. If the number of Latin Mass parishes continues to grow this may indeed become a bigger issue in the future.

Quote
In sum, Sabbas:  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church. 
As I have already mentioned the Novus Ordo constitutes a drastic departure from Tradition and can only continue to cause problems in Roman Catholic church. No matter how reverent the Novus Ordo is celebrated you cannot deny the changes were made for a reason that has nothing to do with Tradition.

If you want to look further into this issue I would recommend  "A Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci" http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/critical_study_of_the_new_mass.htm or reading the booklet "The Problem of The Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study" http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis3.htm#new_mass
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Not only that but it needs to be in Greek as well, since that is the language of the Oecumenical Throne.


For those not in the know, the Oecumenical Throne, is neither a French bistro, a sushi bar or a fancy pay toilet in california.

It refers to the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Just FYI.

Ian Lazarus
« Last Edit: July 19, 2005, 08:38:10 PM by Ian Lazarus »
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453

The Roman Church used Greek in the Liturgy. The tomb stones of Popes and official writings of the Popes were all written in Greek before the 4th century. The Liturgy of St Clement of Rome was written in Greek....





INDEED!!!  The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!

Er, are you asserting that Greek was the original language of the people of the city of Rome? (It was a mixture of Etruscan and various Italic languages, of which Latin was the foremost, btw, or at least that's the earliest group of languages in the area we can pin down with any certainty) Or that the Roman republic was not in fact Latin-speaking?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 04:18:01 PM by Beayf »

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia
INDEED!!!  The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
You need to qualify this a bit. The original language of Rome in pre-empire times was not Greek, however with the expansion of the Roman Empire into territory formerly conquered by Alexander the Great, such was the legacy left by Alexander that Greek quickly became the common language in Rome as well. People came to Rome from all over the empire and they pretty much all spoke Greek in the East.

John

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
INDEED!!! The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
I do not think that the Roman Patriarchate could have been duped by Charlemagne. Latin and Greek were both languages of the Roman Empire. I also do not think that we can say that fidelity to the language of the Roman Republic had anything to do with using Latin in the Mass.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline sin_vladimirov

  • ANAXIOS!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 477
  • ICXC NIKA
Oh come on... it was Serbian... get it right next time will ya!

I am sick of you greeks trying to paint it your way.... LOL
Lord have mercy.

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
         
    The very exsitence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne`s lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagnes lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franko-Latins from the free East Romans . Frankish Emperor Louis II clearly support this with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I ( 867-885) that " we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city ( of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different language..."
    The Franko-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franko-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Latin "Papal dignity" since.
    Luitprand writes, " We Lombards , Saxons (of Germany) , Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians , Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempT ( for Romans and their Emperors) that when we become enraged with our ememies , we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious,deceitful, and indeed, evil. "
    Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to "Greeks" in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand , like all Franko-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman "serfs" and "villains" that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors , in the East, but only a bunch of " Greek heretics".
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline Esteban

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Of course Greek was the first language of Rome! Doesn't that historical text by Virgil note that the ancestor of the Romas was Æneas, who, according to that other historical text by Homer, was taken away from the reach Achilles, because he was destined to be the king of the New Troy (i. e., Rome)?  ;D
"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania

 The very exsitence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne`s lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagnes lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franko-Latins from the free East Romans . Frankish Emperor Louis II clearly support this with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I ( 867-885) that " we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city ( of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different language..."
 The Franko-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franko-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Latin "Papal dignity" since.
 Luitprand writes, " We Lombards , Saxons (of Germany) , Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians , Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempT ( for Romans and their Emperors) that when we become enraged with our ememies , we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious,deceitful, and indeed, evil. "
 Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to "Greeks" in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand , like all Franko-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman "serfs" and "villains" that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors , in the East, but only a bunch of " Greek heretics".
Moses I completely agree with this but I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion. The decision to use Latin in the Mass was made more than 400 years before Charlemagne was born. Latin is just as Roman as Greek! I fail to see what the point is in debating what the original language of the Romans was considering that whether it had its origins in Greece or Italy it would have sounded little like Koine or Ecclesiastical Latin. The reprehensible actions of the Carolingian heretics should have no bearing on a discussion about the use of Latin in the Mass.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Yeah , you`re right. Sorry my bad.
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Has anything been resolved on the topic "Is the Roman Catholic church ever going to turn its altar tables back around?".   Or did it just die a silent death?

JoeS   ::)