OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 12:21:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic Mass: Liturgical Questions  (Read 10354 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« on: August 18, 2006, 10:46:22 AM »

So today I went to a Tridentine (Low Mass) service in downtown Chicago.  It was very interesting to me for several reasons.  I'm going to list them and maybe someone can help me and walk me through each point.  Thanks for any help! 

1.  Firstly, it was silent.  I didn't hear anything until the end of the service, at the dismisal. 
-  Why is it silent?  Especially at the Gospel and Epistle? 
-  I was told by a seminarian who was there that the Low Mass is recited, and that basically its the priest talking in a low voice and the acolyte responding.  I didn't hear a thing, but I was sitting way in the back. 

2.  Some liturgical things were very interesting to me, and I thought that I would ask. 

a)  At the consecration I THOUGHT that I saw the acolyte bring the water AFTER everyone took communion.  Any significance to that?  I could be wrong, I was REALLY far away. 

b)  I never saw the priest put the "bread" into the wine.  Is it pre-done?  Like I said, I was really far and I couldn't hear anything cuz it was silent. 

c)  When I saw the priest do a blessing to the acolyte he blessed in the same directions as Orthodox priests do. 

Example:  Point of view of the priest = up, down, left, right
               Point of view of the parishioner = up, down, right, left. 

According to Catholic priests i've talked to, the way they cross themselves is not an "antithesis" to the Orthodox.  There were aparantly many different ways to cross yourself and the Catholics chose this one. 

HOWEVER, in the Orthodox church (as far as I know) there is a specific reason why the priest blesses us the way he does.  He goes left to right in order for us to see right to left.  (I hope this makes sense)

So my question is, why are the Catholics using the same "system" when they cross themselves totally opposite??? 

Can anyone help with this stuff??
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2006, 11:34:19 AM »

Its been so long ago, but I still remember the Tridentine Masses with much love...(sorry that my responses got mixed in with the quote...its just not my day, today.  I guess my mind is on tomorrow's Feast of the Transfiguration and the blessing of fruit...my 1st as a deacon.  Ah, some many firsts.)

So today I went to a Tridentine (Low Mass) service in downtown Chicago.ÂÂ  It was very interesting to me for several reasons.ÂÂ  I'm going to list them and maybe someone can help me and walk me through each point.ÂÂ  Thanks for any help!ÂÂ  

As a former-Roman Catholic I always disliked the "Low Mass", it was so easy to just fall asleep, after all its boring trying to follow the priest while reading the service out of our missal.ÂÂ  There was always flipping pages to get "caught-up".ÂÂ  Now the "Solemn High Pontifical Mass was really something to behold.ÂÂ  I remember those lasting close to 2 hours, sometimes.ÂÂ  There were actually 3 types of Masses:ÂÂ  Low, High, and the Solem High Pontifical.b]

2.ÂÂ  Some liturgical things were very interesting to me, and I thought that I would ask.ÂÂ  

a)ÂÂ  At the consecration I THOUGHT that I saw the acolyte bring the water AFTER everyone took communion.ÂÂ  Any significance to that?ÂÂ  I could be wrong, I was REALLY far away.ÂÂ  

If this was after communion, the priest was cleaning the chalice.

b)ÂÂ  I never saw the priest put the "bread" into the wine.ÂÂ  Is it pre-done?ÂÂ  Like I said, I was really far and I couldn't hear anything cuz it was silent.ÂÂ  

The priest does bread the consecrated host and adds a small piece into the chalice.

c)ÂÂ  When I saw the priest do a blessing to the acolyte he blessed in the same directions as Orthodox priests do.ÂÂ  

The way I remember being told was that the change in the way Catholics make the sign of the Cross is based on what the people saw.ÂÂ  With the priest's back to the people, it looks like he going fromÂÂ  left to right.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2006, 11:38:46 AM by monkvasyl » Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2006, 12:25:06 PM »

a)  that would have been for the ablutions.  In the Roman Rite this is done before Mass is ended rather than after it is over among us using the Byzantine Rite.

b) The priest only puts in a very small particle of the Host into the chalice you probably wouldn't notice even close up.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2006, 12:29:28 PM »

I have info on the crossing subject. I asked this many times over the years and finally got some answers from a visiting Priest from India that was very good at explaining it to me. Sadly, after he explained it I must have disregarded the reasons since I found no objection with the explanation.

I will come back with the links that give a summary on it. Give me a few minutes to find it in my bookmarks....
Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2006, 12:46:17 PM »

Could not find it, but I think the reason RCC goes left to right is:

Jesus' decent into Hades (left) and his ascention into Heaven (right)

Now, I think the RCC used the practice of right to left at one time and I am at odds to recall when there was a uniform use of the left to right crossing.....

I think it was explained to me that there was no "right" or "wrong" way to practice this and that the custom in the West was not an innovation but a fuller expression of the Trinity by going left to right.

I may be wrong.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2006, 12:52:09 PM »

I think it was explained to me that there was no "right" or "wrong" way to practice this and that the custom in the West was not an innovation but a fuller expression of the Trinity by going left to right.

I may be wrong.

I was also told by a RC priest that there is no "right" or "wrong" way. 

How is the RC way of crossing a "fuller expression of the Trinity by going left to right"??

I was very interested in your response however, dealing with Jesus' decent and ascention. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2006, 01:02:41 PM »

You are going to laugh at me for saying this since it is my personal way of looking at it -

You don't want to leave Jesus in Hades right? So we leave him in Heaven doing it the the left to right way.....

But this is just my take on it , bear in mind. I wish I had that bookmark and a better memory, it is a great topic and really could use it's own thread.

As an aside, I hope you found the singing to be pleasant. Did you have any bad experiences there?
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2006, 01:33:17 PM »

It was silent.  So no singing.   Smiley

But I definately plan to go there when they have High Mass (or Pontifical High Mass). 

You are going to laugh at me for saying this since it is my personal way of looking at it -

You don't want to leave Jesus in Hades right? So we leave him in Heaven doing it the the left to right way.....

I liked your way of looking at it.  Here's what I don't understand.  How does Christ ascending correlate to the Trinity? 

I definately now understand more about the manner in which RC's cross themselves and why.  I'm still trying to figure out the other stuff.   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2006, 01:51:54 PM »

Okay here is another thought for you.

We talked about left to right.

Let's go over it in totality (even though I can not assure you I am spot on here)

Christ came down to earth from the head or the Father if you will, by his incarnation.
This is the top
And from earth into the left side (Hades) by his Passion, and sitting at his Father's right side in (Heaven) by his ascention.

So truly he is Risen!

Um, just not sure if I am right on this.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2006, 02:17:53 PM »

Serb1389,

I sent you a link with info that might help...

james

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2006, 05:11:54 PM »

Dismus,

Thank you for that further explanation.  It actually helped!  I'm sure i'm gona have a further question about it, sooner or later.   Wink

Jakub,

The link was very helpful.  It did, however, bring up even MORE questions. 

1)  In the link you sent to me it said that the acolyte REPRESENTS the people.  He also responds to all of the petitions, etc. AS the representative of the people. 
     a)  does this mean that at the Tridenting (Low Mass) that I just attended THIS SCENARIO was the case? 
     b)  do the acolytes do this at EVERY service?  The article was a little unclear. 

2)  How do the people know what is going on?  Does the Missal help in directing them to the movements of the priest while he is reciting all the petitions, etc.?

3)  Does anyone know if the order of the Mass (any of them) has beginings with the Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil or St. John (Chrysostom)?? 

I'm going to try to research this as much as I can on my own.  I really have no idea where to start. 

I also have a lot more questions based on the article mentioned above, but I think i'm gona try to keep it answer by answer so as to not swamp people, or myself. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2006, 08:09:56 PM »

I found a link for you that might be interesting to watch- make sure your speakers are on. You might enjoy the comments and the music.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64&search=catholic
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2006, 09:34:35 PM »

Thanks, that's really cool.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2006, 11:52:14 AM »

My grog funds are running low so all questions answered in the public forum will require a donation in US funds...please avoid sending them to that notorious group "the Atlantic City Two"

Thank you,
JB - President of the Capt. Jack Sparrow for Admiral of the Moderators Inc.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2006, 11:53:42 AM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,812



« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2006, 01:03:10 PM »


Christ came down to earth from the head or the Father if you will, by his incarnation.
This is the top
And from earth into the left side (Hades) by his Passion, and sitting at his Father's right side in (Heaven) by his ascention.

So truly he is Risen!

Um, just not sure if I am right on this.

I was told that the reason Catholics and other Western Christians cross left to right is because they were merely following the priest who was blessing them at the conclusion of the mass.  The priest's right becomes the congregants' left, and so on.  However, if that were just a natural, unintentional development, I wonder why it didn't happen among the Orthodox. 

I do like your explanation Dismus.  If anything it should remind us not to get all worked up about people who may not cross themselves the "right" way (no pun intended).  Cheesy

Scamandrius
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2006, 03:44:32 PM »

some comments...

I sometimes visit this RCC chapel which does both the Low and High Masses.

Anyhow, if you're sitting up close you can hear 80% of the Mass. The other 20% is enshrouded in like pure mystery besides the priest and the somewhat the acolyte.

I've read that the Low Mass came into being  was for the original purpose of celebrating Mass OUTSIDE of a Catholic/perhaps Orthodox setting. Thus there is no music, or incense or "unecessary" robes. Everything is simplified. Think of an orthodox army chaplian celebrating liturgy. He might not be able to burn incense in the setting. Not all orthodox army people will know all the responses, they might come from different rites, so he will most likely celebrate he liturgy as simply as possible. Same thing with the Low Mass. It was meant for Catholics for example in Spain during Muslim invasion times, in England during Reformation times when the priest and people had to hide and be very quiet...for Crusader times where the Mass was probably celebrated outside/ inside a tent....

Thus Roman tradition dictates that High Mass is celebrated on Sundays and Feast Days, whereas Low Mass is to be kept for the weekdays where not as many people might be in attendance such as acolytes, or choir members....it actually makes a lot of logical sense.

http://wftsradio.com/

If you click on this link, fidn the radio, and you can hear a very beautiful Low Mass (with music) every morning @ 6.AM and 10 AM. The other stuff the radio has to offer is quite radical anti-modernist anti-Vatican II stuff....so just a warning.
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2006, 10:29:55 PM »

If you were wondering, the chip from the Host is placed in the chalice in rememberance of the bishop.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2006, 09:11:58 AM »

Just after Vatican II, but before the changes were enforced, our parish would have what was called a "Dialogue Mass", it was the Tridentine Mass, but instead of the acolyte (altar boy) doing all the responses, we students of our parish school (only grades 1 to Cool would do the responses and sing the hymns.  After English came the norm we substitute English for the Latin.  Since our parish was Polish, the hymns were in Polish.  Surprisingly the older people loved it more than we students.  Every so often, I'll pull out some of my VHS tapes that I have of commerically produced Tridentine Masses.  The Liturgy back them was beautiful.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2006, 10:20:51 AM »

So here's where i'm trying to get to with all of these questions about the Tridentine Mass in specific. 

In the Orthodox church there is a HUGE emphasis on the people.  The priest could NEVER do the Liturgy by himself.  He would HAVE to have at least 2 or 3 other people there. 

The people CONFIRM everything that the priest says or does, with the exclamation AMEN, and others.  The Liturgy is the "work of the people" and the priest just leads them in prayer and is the intermediary between God and the people at the time of the consecration (i'm skipping a lot). 

So my whole question is, why has this idea been lost in the RC church?  I don't want to open any wounds, but i'm really curious as to how the people got taken out of the whole process?  It seams to me that the clergy have become all powerful.  I say this just from a liturgical stand-point. 

Monkvasyl,

I liked what you said about the "Dialogue Mass"  it reminds me of congregational singing, which I think really brings the community together and pushes people to know about the liturgical services, etc.  Do you think that the Tridentine Mass helped people know the Mass better?  Do you think it helped them know their faith better, and provided a GOOD means of worship?  Or do you think that it was lacking? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2006, 10:50:31 AM »

So here's where i'm trying to get to with all of these questions about the Tridentine Mass in specific. 

[That specific Mass you went to is not representative of all Tridentine Masses.]

In the Orthodox church there is a HUGE emphasis on the people.  The priest could NEVER do the Liturgy by himself.  He would HAVE to have at least 2 or 3 other people there. 

[I am not sure if it is the same with RCC and OC priests,  but an RCC Priest must celebrate the Mass everyday EVEN if NO ONE is present.]

The people CONFIRM everything that the priest says or does, with the exclamation AMEN, and others.  The Liturgy is the "work of the people" and the priest just leads them in prayer and is the intermediary between God and the people at the time of the consecration (i'm skipping a lot). 

[I have never attended this particular Mass you went to, but in other TM's there is the participation you describe above.]

So my whole question is, why has this idea been lost in the RC church?

[It is not lost based on this one Mass. It is present in all others.]
 
  I don't want to open any wounds, but i'm really curious as to how the people got taken out of the whole process?  It seams to me that the clergy have become all powerful.  I say this just from a liturgical stand-point. 

[The clergy is not equal to the layity in all functions. If it were we would not need clergy. Everyone has an important part, just a different part.]

***Good observations, and I am now curious to attend this specific type of Tridentine Mass you attended so I can see what you are saying about it more clearly. My Priest might have some insight as well, I will ask him if he gets a chance between Golf breaks.

Anyway, Catholics are not "stuck" with this Mass and are not compelled to go to it.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2006, 01:32:13 PM »

Quote
an RCC Priest must celebrate the Mass everyday EVEN if NO ONE is present

How interesting. Without a congregant (at least ONE), an Orthodox priest cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy.
Logged

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

Posts: 486


« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2006, 01:57:53 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9781.msg132596#msg132596 date=1156267933]
How interesting. Without a congregant (at least ONE), an Orthodox priest cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy.
[/quote]

Do you know why not?
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2006, 02:26:00 PM »

Do you know why not?

Just as in the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit was needed to overshadow the Theotokos so that Jesus Christ could become Incarnate.

Therefore, the Spirit must be present for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

We know scripturally that the way to ensure the Spirit's presence is to have '2 or 3 gathered in His Name'. Therefore we need multiple people present to consecrate our Offering, and why the epiklesis is so crucial.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2006, 03:12:49 PM »

Just as in the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit was needed to overshadow the Theotokos so that Jesus Christ could become Incarnate.

Therefore, the Spirit must be present for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

We know scripturally that the way to ensure the Spirit's presence is to have '2 or 3 gathered in His Name'. Therefore we need multiple people present to consecrate our Offering, and why the epiklesis is so crucial.

This is a good explanation but one that gives me another question. How does this way of thinking apply to the many monastics who lived years in total isolation? Were they lacking the Holy Spirit's presence?
Just wondering.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2006, 03:57:43 PM »

How does this way of thinking apply to the many monastics who lived years in total isolation? Were they lacking the Holy Spirit's presence?

Absolutely not, paidi mou!

But what it does explain is why many monastics who lived in isolation would seek out priests from whom they could recieve the Eucharist, or would enter within a monastery for the Litrugy, etc. Because the Eucharist cannot be consecrated if the person is alone.

This by itself gives us a glimpse of the nature of humanity and of Christ, who is the fulfillment of humanity--all that we should be.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2006, 04:45:58 PM »

Okay. Many apologies for my confusion. I got this all wrong. The Priest who told me this was refering to layity having to be present- not number of people needed to be present- therefore I rushed to the conclusion that meant even if no one was present he would have to go ahead.
I had asked him a long time ago if he would be able to do the Mass if say no one came. He was clear in saying if no one showed up he would still have to do it.
Not realizing that there are 3 other Priests there and as long as one joined him he would have been able to and no laity needed to be there.

Another example of me getting it wrong. My fromer pastor just cleared this up for me now.

Chris your comment was right on -and almost verbatum what he told me.

Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2006, 05:31:43 PM »

Serb, you may live close to a western rite parish.  I know there is a mission in South Weymouth that does the western rite evensong.  http://www.allsaintsma.org/WO.shtml
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2006, 05:41:30 PM »

I wonder why that link calls the Tridentine Mass "pre Vatican II" when it still is in existance and use today in the RCC. The correct way to say it would be the Tridentine Mass used Prior vatican II up to today.
A touch misleading.
Logged
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2006, 06:52:48 PM »

Just as in the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit was needed to overshadow the Theotokos so that Jesus Christ could become Incarnate.

Therefore, the Spirit must be present for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

We know scripturally that the way to ensure the Spirit's presence is to have '2 or 3 gathered in His Name'. Therefore we need multiple people present to consecrate our Offering, and why the epiklesis is so crucial.
Chris,
I will disagree with you here.
1)  If the Epiklesis is "so crucial" * , why is it read inaudibly by the priest?  And, when the priest serves alone (without a deacon) why does he answer the Epiklesis himself - "Make this bread...Amen, And that which is in this cup...Amen, Changing them by the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."?  The Amens should be the response of the laity.  This is not done in most Orthodox Churches anymore!
2) There are early liturgies that do not contain an Epiklesis.  As a matter of fact, the liturgy ascribed to Sarapion of Thmuis, the Epiklesis is directed to the Logos not to the Holy Spirit.  "God of truth, let your holy Word come upon this bread, in order that the bread may become body of the Word..."
3) I think the reason for a "public" celebration of the Eucharist is due to the Orthodox understanding that the Liturgy is "a public work"  the actual meaning of Liturgy (leitourgia) in Greek.
The Roman Church sees the sacraments as administered by the priest alone, as can be seen in the words of the sacraments themselves..."I pronounce you man and wife", "I absolve you of your sins", I baptise you".
*Just to clarify, by crucial I mean in this arguement, not crucial as to the validity of the sacrament from Orthodox thought.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 07:01:57 PM by Carpatho Russian » Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2006, 06:57:52 PM »

This is a good explanation but one that gives me another question. How does this way of thinking apply to the many monastics who lived years in total isolation? Were they lacking the Holy Spirit's presence?
Just wondering.

Even the Desert Fathers would go into a villiage or to the nearest church (which was usually really far away) to recieve communion regularly. For some it was every week, for some it was once a month.  They all had their own rule, usually dependent upon the community.  They DID all live in the same general geographic area, and those areas usually followed certain rules to when you recieve communion.  Those areas also had churches IN the desert to provide this type of coexistence and support the monks in their endeavors. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2006, 07:05:48 PM »

I know i'm not Chris, and I DEFINATELY want him to answer these questions, but I had some answers/questions of my own, if you don't mind CR. 

Chris,
I will disagree with you here.
1)  If the Epiklesis is "so crucial", why is it read inaudibly by the priest?  And, when the priest serves alone (without a deacon) why does he answer the Epiklesis himself - "Make this bread...Amen, And that which is in this cup...Amen, Changing them by the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."?  The Amens should be the response of the laity.  This is not done in most Orthodox Churches anymore!

I wouldn't go as far as to say "most Orthodox churches"  I know from going to an undergrad Seminary for 4 years that 90% of the guys that I went to school with who are now priests are VERY into saying those prayers out loud.  So there is a change happening. 

Also, just because you can't hear what's being said doesn't mean that you can't confirm what's happening.  I say all the Amen's even though I can't hear a word from the priest.   So what, that's MY responsabily as an Orthodox Christian to CONFIRM what I believe.  The priest DOES prompt me.  I am just responding, as is my "job" in the "work of the people" so...why can't we all do that?  (curiousity, not calling you out)

Quote
2) There are early liturgies that do not contain an Epiklesis.  As a matter of fact, the liturgy ascribed to Sarapion of Thmuis, the Epiklesis is directed to the Logos not to the Holy Spirit.  "God of truth, let your holy Word come upon this bread, in order that the bread may become body of the Word..."

Can you maybe tell me (us) more about this Liturgy?  Do you happen to have any links, or even books about it?  I'll try to do my own research but any help would be nice.  Thanks! 

Since I don't know anything about this Liturgy I feel it inappropriate to comment on its parts.  However, one thing I WOULD like to say is that this Liturgy is (obviously?) not in use.  The liturgies that we use now DO have the Epiklesis and therefore our understanding of what we do IN liturgy needs to be contingent upon how the liturgy is DONE.  Perhaps there's more to this than what I'm seeing...

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2006, 07:11:01 PM »

Serb1389,
I modified my post while you were composing your answer to me.  See my note on "crucial".
As for the Anaphora of Sarapion, there is an essay by Maxwell E. Johnson in a book called "Essays on Early Eastern Eucharist Prayers".  I don't know if it's online.
Dinner time, I'll be back.   Smiley
Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2006, 07:14:46 PM »

CR,

That clarification did help me put things into a better context. 

I still stand by what I said and responded.  Hope to hear from you soon  Wink

Prijatno! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2006, 08:43:06 PM »

Okay!
I wouldn't go as far as to say "most Orthodox churches"  I know from going to an undergrad Seminary for 4 years that 90% of the guys that I went to school with who are now priests are VERY into saying those prayers out loud.  So there is a change happening.
Yes, change is happening, and in my opinion, for the better in those parishes where the anaphora is read aloud.  It is the "meat of the liturgy.  I think Basil's anaphora is one of the most beautiful and profound prayers ever composed!  In my travels, I would say less than 40% of OCA priests take the prayers aloud.  This percentage is much higher in Antiochian parishes.  I've only been to a few GOA parishes were they were taken aloud.  My own parish, in the past 20 years, 1 priest always read the prayers aloud, 2 never did.  The current priest is very inconsistent, sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Never seen it done in Russian  MP parishes or ROCOR parishes.
Also, just because you can't hear what's being said doesn't mean that you can't confirm what's happening.  I say all the Amen's even though I can't hear a word from the priest.   So what, that's MY responsabily as an Orthodox Christian to CONFIRM what I believe.  The priest DOES prompt me.  I am just responding, as is my "job" in the "work of the people" so...why can't we all do that?  (curiousity, not calling you out)
I do the same, however, this may border on a "private" devotion.  As you say, if it is our responsibility  as Orthodox Christians to confirm what we believe, let's do the prayers aloud, everywhere, consistently.  We certainly (as laity) respond with "Axios!" at ordinations!
Can you maybe tell me (us) more about this Liturgy?  Do you happen to have any links, or even books about it?  I'll try to do my own research but any help would be nice.  Thanks!
 
As for the Anaphora of Sarapion, there is an essay by Maxwell E. Johnson in a book called "Essays on Early Eastern Eucharist Prayers".  The book is edited by Paul F. Bradshw.  I don't know if it's online.  There are other references but it would probably be impossible for me to go through all my books.  If I come across any others, I will let you know.
Since I don't know anything about this Liturgy I feel it inappropriate to comment on its parts.  However, one thing I WOULD like to say is that this Liturgy is (obviously?) not in use.  The liturgies that we use now DO have the Epiklesis and therefore our understanding of what we do IN liturgy needs to be contingent upon how the liturgy is DONE.  Perhaps there's more to this than what I'm seeing...
No, this anaphora is no longer in use.  The epiklesis only entered the anaphoral prayers in the 4th century.  Yes, according to Orthodox understanding today, the epiklesis is necessary for the "consecration" to take place.  The liturgies of Chrysostom, Basil, and James would be "invalid" (to use a Roman term) without it. 

Now, to get back on topic, as I previously stated, the reason why the Roman Rite has "private" masses is that the priest first of all is mandated to say the mass daily (or at least was, I don't know if they are still required).  All RC priest friends of mine still say mass daily (and the Divine Office) and carry a Chalice, Paten, and hosts with them even when on vacation to fulfill "their obligation".  Second, the priest in the Roman Rite is seen as the sole administrator of the sacraments, as seen in the formulae of most of their sacraments, "I prononuce...", "I absolve...", I baptise...".  On the other hand, the Orthodox Church has held on to the concept that the liturgy is a "public work".

Serb1389,
A question for you...Which seminary?

« Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 08:48:48 PM by Carpatho Russian » Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2006, 09:53:48 PM »

So here's where i'm trying to get to with all of these questions about the Tridentine Mass in specific. 

In the Orthodox church there is a HUGE emphasis on the people.  The priest could NEVER do the Liturgy by himself.  He would HAVE to have at least 2 or 3 other people there. 

The people CONFIRM everything that the priest says or does, with the exclamation AMEN, and others.  The Liturgy is the "work of the people" and the priest just leads them in prayer and is the intermediary between God and the people at the time of the consecration (i'm skipping a lot). 

So my whole question is, why has this idea been lost in the RC church?  I don't want to open any wounds, but i'm really curious as to how the people got taken out of the whole process?  It seams to me that the clergy have become all powerful.  I say this just from a liturgical stand-point. 

Monkvasyl,

I liked what you said about the "Dialogue Mass"  it reminds me of congregational singing, which I think really brings the community together and pushes people to know about the liturgical services, etc.  Do you think that the Tridentine Mass helped people know the Mass better?  Do you think it helped them know their faith better, and provided a GOOD means of worship?  Or do you think that it was lacking? 


This post has given me yet another question for thought...
The "participation" factor is interesting, I wonder how much "participation" was in the very fist Mass if you will?
I guess Jesus really got it wrong the first time no?
Anyway- is it really "participation" we are talking about here or a strong need to be entertained due to one not being able to focus on what is happening at the altar? If one needs more than that to feel like they are participating -
geeze. You are participating in it if your mind is focused on the whole point of what is going on. I guess demands of more more more for me me me are what the mass populations out there are seeking. In variying degrees.
Sure I love the bells and whistles- but would the Mass be any less if it were not filled with our selfish expectations of what WE want out of it? As if the body and blood are a side issue.
This is the reason Charasmatics have crept into the RCC.
This thought process that "participation" is such a big deal. Yeah, for the ADD crowd maybe.
For those who are not there for entertainment but something more, alas they are not "participating".  There will always be many seeking something they will never find.Namely their needing to find entertainment.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 09:56:41 PM by Dismus » Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2006, 11:10:50 PM »

First off, you are free to disagree...

1)  If the Epiklesis is "so crucial" * , why is it read inaudibly by the priest?  And, when the priest serves alone (without a deacon) why does he answer the Epiklesis himself - "Make this bread...Amen, And that which is in this cup...Amen, Changing them by the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."?  The Amens should be the response of the laity.  This is not done in most Orthodox Churches anymore!

I have never been in a parish--GOA, Antiochian, or Serb,---where the Epiklesis is said inaudibly. Now, the priest may have said the Epiklesis in a low voice, but it was still said.

Also, at least at Holy Cross, we are specifically chided if we become priests to never, ever answer our own epiklesis invocation. We are instructed that someone in or near the altar---an acolyte, your chanter, or the neokhouros---must answer your petition. Otherwise, as you pointed out, it is not in keeping with the liturgical tradition of the Church.

I guess it is different in the OCA?

Quote
2) There are early liturgies that do not contain an Epiklesis.  As a matter of fact, the liturgy ascribed to Sarapion of Thmuis, the Epiklesis is directed to the Logos not to the Holy Spirit.  "God of truth, let your holy Word come upon this bread, in order that the bread may become body of the Word..."

I am confused by your example, as first you state that there is no epiklesis, but then you cite an epiklesis directed to the Logos. If you look at what I wrote, although I use the Annunciation as an example I do not state that the epiklesis can only be directed to the Spirit.

Additionally, not all liturgics sources agree with your statement regarding the lack of an epiklesis. Even the Liturgy of Mari had an epiklesis, and the Catholic Encyclopedia starts its discussion of the epiklesis with this statement:

Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer

even though this work later has to use a huge amount of convoluted logic to argue why the Latin priests do not use an epiklesis now!

So, the 'least confrontational' statement is that there is evidence for both our point of views. However, one of the reasons we have an epiklesis in our Mysteries such as Baptism is because of the acknowledgement within the Orthodox Church of the crucial nature of this prayer as well as the long tradition of having such an invocation.

Quote
3) I think the reason for a "public" celebration of the Eucharist is due to the Orthodox understanding that the Liturgy is "a public work"  the actual meaning of Liturgy (leitourgia) in Greek.
The Roman Church sees the sacraments as administered by the priest alone, as can be seen in the words of the sacraments themselves..."I pronounce you man and wife", "I absolve you of your sins", I baptise you".
*Just to clarify, by crucial I mean in this arguement, not crucial as to the validity of the sacrament from Orthodox thought.

I am unsure with what points we disagree here. I pointed out that the Liturgy is done with more than one person in attendance (i.e., in public) and then you indicate that the Eucharist is celebrated in public. No disagreement I see here!

We even agre on this statement, which is what I had always heard from my RC priest friends..

Quote
the reason why the Roman Rite has "private" masses is that the priest first of all is mandated to say the mass daily (or at least was, I don't know if they are still required).  All RC priest friends of mine still say mass daily (and the Divine Office) and carry a Chalice, Paten, and hosts with them even when on vacation to fulfill "their obligation".  Second, the priest in the Roman Rite is seen as the sole administrator of the sacraments, as seen in the formulae of most of their sacraments...

which is, of course, another huge problem regarding the 'validity' of Mysteries administered outside of the Church.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2006, 11:43:28 PM »

Pardon me for asking Chris, but what is the "huge problem" you state with the RCC saying the Mass daily?

I ask since I wonder where this "problem" came about in history......
Logged
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2006, 09:16:25 AM »

I have never been in a parish--GOA, Antiochian, or Serb,---where the Epiklesis is said inaudibly. Now, the priest may have said the Epiklesis in a low voice, but it was still said.
Maybe I’m showing my age, but for years, these prayers were referred to as “the inaudible payers”.  I’m answering this from work (since I probably won’t have a chance to log on for a day or two after this and I didn’t want to leave this hanging) so I don’t have any prayerbooks in front of me to back this up.  You’ll have to take my word on this.

and the Catholic Encyclopedia starts its discussion of the epiklesis with this statement:

even though this work later has to use a huge amount of convoluted logic to argue why the Latin priests do not use an epiklesis now!
Surprising, since the epiklesis was such a bone of contention (whether it was necessary or not) between the Orthodox and Roman Churches for many years!

I am unsure with what points we disagree here. I pointed out that the Liturgy is done with more than one person in attendance (i.e., in public) and then you indicate that the Eucharist is celebrated in public. No disagreement I see here!
I take back my disagreement with you.  We’re looking at the same thing from two different perspectives.
CR
« Last Edit: August 23, 2006, 09:17:07 AM by Carpatho Russian » Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2006, 10:25:43 AM »


This post has given me yet another question for thought...
The "participation" factor is interesting, I wonder how much "participation" was in the very fist Mass if you will?

The first "Liturgy" was when people would get together at each other's houses and have an agape meal together.  This meal consisted of the sharing of Bread and Wine in the rememberence of Christ.  So, it was 100% participation.  However, even back then there was seperation.  Gentile Christians were not always allowed in the room and would many times have to stay in the courtyard of the house and do their own thing. 

Quote
I guess Jesus really got it wrong the first time no?

Not really sure what you mean by this.  But I would say no...usually Jesus isn't wrong... Wink

Quote
Anyway- is it really "participation" we are talking about here or a strong need to be entertained due to one not being able to focus on what is happening at the altar? If one needs more than that to feel like they are participating -
geeze. You are participating in it if your mind is focused on the whole point of what is going on. I guess demands of more more more for me me me are what the mass populations out there are seeking. In variying degrees.
Sure I love the bells and whistles- but would the Mass be any less if it were not filled with our selfish expectations of what WE want out of it? As if the body and blood are a side issue.
This is the reason Charasmatics have crept into the RCC.
This thought process that "participation" is such a big deal. Yeah, for the ADD crowd maybe.
For those who are not there for entertainment but something more, alas they are not "participating".  There will always be many seeking something they will never find.Namely their needing to find entertainment.

I personally tend to agree with what you're saying.  There is "creeping" into Orthodoxy this Protestant ideal of experiential faith.  HOWEVER, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe we've come to a point where we are "going through the motions" and not actually EXPERIENCING anything. 

The whole point is to follow the model that has the most to do with Scripture and Orthodoxy in its truth.  I think that Christ would WANT us to experience and to confirm what is going on.  We are called to know EVERY part of the Liturgy and to participat in it.  We are called to validate EVERYTHING that the priest is doing.  This means EVERY "Lord have mercy" and "Amen" and etc.

So yes, maybe this is "placating" the ADD or former Protestant crowd.  But it is also helping us understand more fully what our job as (orthodox) Christians is during our services.  We are SUPPOST to be as involved as possible.  Every single one of us should be chanters, or servers, or participants to the FULLEST during our services. 

In all things we should strive to find a balance.  We shouldn't go to either extreme.  Extremes always lead to bad things, and usually to heresy. 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2006, 10:45:01 AM »

even though this work later has to use a huge amount of convoluted logic to argue why the Latin priests do not use an epiklesis now!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that they do still use the epiklesis. I thought that all Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayers include an epiklesis prior to the words of institution, (even though they consider the latter to be the "effectual" part).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2006, 11:03:39 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that they do still use the epiklesis. I thought that all Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayers include an epiklesis prior to the words of institution, (even though they consider the latter to be the "effectual" part).

My quick answer...I have to leave shortly..is that actually the epiklesis issue is one of the items that we and the RCC have discussed. Here is an entry from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration.

So, this article is indicating that the invocation has 'practically disappeared'. I am uncertain of the text of the Novus Ordo at this moment, but based on the literature I have read (but cannot reference now due to tie constraints) as well as the nature of the prior-referenced discussions, the epiklesis appears to have been gradually de-emphasised.

I cannot remember if there is an epiklesis for the RCC's rite of baptism either...it's so short nowadays I do not remember if it has been done away with or not, but I don't think I remember one the last RC baptism I attended.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2006, 10:43:47 PM »

Serb-

A few answers to your questions


1.  Firstly, it was silent.  I didn't hear anything until the end of the service, at the dismisal. 
-  Why is it silent?  Especially at the Gospel and Epistle? 
-  I was told by a seminarian who was there that the Low Mass is recited, and that basically its the priest talking in a low voice and the acolyte responding.  I didn't hear a thing, but I was sitting way in the back. 

This is the nature of the low Mass.   The Low Mass is supposed to be an easy to execute Mass that only needs a priest and an acolyte, and is supposed to be said in a low voice without the response of the people in the pews.  Sometimes a choir would sing, even during a low Mass, but I'm told by a good Irish Catholic author  (Thomas Day in "Why Catholics Can't Sing) that the dominance of the Irish clergy in the US meant that the Irish habit of having completely silent Masses generally prevailed over other, more musical Italian or German customs.   

This is just the nature of the Roman Liturgy.  Even in a High Mass, there's much more a role for the schola or choir than there is for the people (even though the Gospel is read aloud, in Latin). 

Quote
a)  At the consecration I THOUGHT that I saw the acolyte bring the water AFTER everyone took communion.  Any significance to that?  I could be wrong, I was REALLY far away. 

it's been a long time since I was an acolyte at the so-called "Tridentine Mass", but IIRC the water is used simply to rinse the chalice.   The priest pours some in and then drinks it to be sure the Precious Blood isn't in there anymore. 
Quote

b)  I never saw the priest put the "bread" into the wine.  Is it pre-done?  Like I said, I was really far and I couldn't hear anything cuz it was silent. 

I don't recall the rubrics, but if this is done I'm sure you'd never be able to see it.

As for the direction of crossing, that's just a matter of tradition.  I'm told that if you look at Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Syriacs etc. there are several different ways to cross yourself.   I just accept the local tradition and leave it at that. 

Funny story about Latins crossing themselves.  There is a 13th century encyclical from Pope Innocent III that says that the proper way to cross yourself is the Eastern Orthodox way.   I have a friend who teaches at a traditionalist RC seminary.  The traditionalist RCs always ask him why the Greek Church crosses itself funny.   He pulls out a copy of the Latin original and begs them to translate it for him.  After a short period of translation the questioner is completely dumbfounded  Cheesy

Quote
So my whole question is, why has this idea been lost in the RC church?  I don't want to open any wounds, but i'm really curious as to how the people got taken out of the whole process?  It seams to me that the clergy have become all powerful.  I say this just from a liturgical stand-point.

As far as the people, we don't know "when" this happened because there are not enough missals from the early era to chart this.  What we do know is that by the 10-1100s, in a large cathedral or monastery, "singing" the Mass was in many ways the job of the choir, and in many places priest was generally hidden behind something similar to an icon screen (yes an icon screen) who was rarely heard in the main part of the Church (we know a lot less about the practices of a parish Church). 

Factors I would say caused this include:

- the decision to retain Latin after it was no longer the language of the people - restricting the Mass to what was then the highly educated
- the complexity of Western liturgical music, especially once Gregorian chant was completely replaced by polyphony in the 1300s or so
- the extinguishment of the office of the deacon.   If you removed the litanies and other parts prayed by the deacon from our Divine Liturgy, and made the music unsingable by the average guy standing in the church, your liturgy would resemble the Latin "High Mass" in many ways.   

And for all of these "flaws", a Mass similar to the "Tridentine" Mass was the norm in western Christianity for nearly 500 years, and for Roman Catholics for another 450 some years.   During that time, millions of Western Christians lived and died, Western Christanity spread to the New World (and indeed many other parts of the world) and hundreds of westerners I (of course) consider saints lived.   People were brought to God, even if they couldn't understand the liturgy or (in the post-printing press world) if they needed to keep their noses in their missals.   I don't look back nostalgically to it, but it wasn't as bad as you might think.   
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2006, 12:06:04 AM »

MarkosC

First of all I wanted to say thank you for your answers.  They were enlightening and they really helped, which is always a nice thing. 

Also, I hope that you didn't think that I was trying to downgrade the RC church in any way.  I actually kind of wish we in the EO church would have a silent service.  I prefer silence a lot times to having things be over-done. 

Quote
There is a 13th century encyclical from Pope Innocent III that says that the proper way to cross yourself is the Eastern Orthodox way.

Do you perhaps have this on file somewhere?  Or even a link or something.  I'm gona try to find it, but if you could help I would appreciate it. 

Thanks again! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2006, 09:17:09 AM »

MarkosC--

I also would be interested in this encyclical, if you can find it on-line or whatever!

Serbski--

You beat me to it---asking for an interesting piece of church history, that is!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2006, 09:47:18 AM »

I already spent some time trying to find it but all I could find were references to Pope Innocent III actually SAYING it.  There was no actual text.  I'm so bad at this kind of research...

Anyway, my next question then is, if this Pope did say that the Orthodox manner of crossing oneself is the correct way (which he apparantly did declare)  then why has the manner not changed?

Was there a reversal to this proclamation?  If not, are not all Catholics then required to adhere to this Papal declaration? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2006, 11:02:49 AM »

Here's a good link to a missal of the Ordinary parts of the Tridentine Mass:  http://www.detroitlatinmass.org/jospht/missal.htm

It does contain some of the rubrics and will pinpoint the moment that the Host is broken and a small piece is placed in the chalice.  At some point I'll have to check out the entire site...looks interesting.  Also, I'll have to dig up my missal of the Mass.  I was one of those who never throwns anything away.  A real packrat!   Wink
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2006, 11:08:55 AM »

Me again, I just checked some of the site and under "Links" there's a listing of churches in the US and Canada that celebrate the Tridine Liturgy. 
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2006, 12:49:14 PM »

Thank you very much MonkVasyl!  I will definately study this further.  Maybe i'll go to a High Mass one of these days.  The only problem would be the after-math....more questions from me... Grin
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2006, 03:25:31 PM »

One thing, you will be impressed with the High Mass. I never liked the Low Masses.  The only odd thing about a High Mass with a deacon and subdeacon, the roles were always performed by priests.  The pastor was always the celebrant, the next oldest was the deacon and the youngest was always the subdeacon.  When you look at the "15 min specials" now a days in a RCC, these were quite grand.  Sadly, among Eastern Rite Catholics there was an introduction of the Low Mass for weekday Liturgies.  I never could stomach those, either.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2006, 06:49:16 PM »

Serbski-

I'm glad the answers helped.  And no, I didn't get the impression that you were trying to downgrade the RC church.  I just included the last paragraph because I was sounding like I didn't think too well of the "Tridentine" liturgy.  And frankly I don't; all things being equal ("tradtional" music, chanted Mass, priest facing the east) I prefer the so-called "new" Mass over the "Tridentine" Mass (and yes I have seen it done correctly).   I just wanted to put in that caveat so I didn't sound like a Tridentine basher.   

And as for the encyclical, I don't think it's on the web, and I don't have a copy.  Sad  I'll have to find someone I know who has a copy.  In fact, someone I see at Vespers may have one.  I'll ask him and if he has one I might have a scanned copy by available by next week. 

One thing, you will be impressed with the High Mass. I never liked the Low Masses.  The only odd thing about a High Mass with a deacon and subdeacon, the roles were always performed by priests.  The pastor was always the celebrant, the next oldest was the deacon and the youngest was always the subdeacon.  When you look at the "15 min specials" now a days in a RCC, these were quite grand.  Sadly, among Eastern Rite Catholics there was an introduction of the Low Mass for weekday Liturgies.  I never could stomach those, either.

The reason for this was because there are no permanent "minor" orders in the old Roman Rite.  Acolyte up to deacon were just stepping stones for priest candidates.   "Acolytes" were mostly just untonsured volunteers, and they'd just get priests to fulfill the subdeacon and deacon functions.    That changed after Vatican II  - and interestingly enough, at one high Mass I attended a permanent deacon served as, well, the deacon.   Cheesy
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2006, 08:34:59 PM »

I just split the topic for those that wish to continue the discussion on the Epiklesis of different liturgical rites so that this topic can continue to focus on the Roman Mass.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=9844.0


Logged

Joseph
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2006, 01:25:17 AM »

if this Pope did say that the Orthodox manner of crossing oneself is the correct way (which he apparantly did declare)  then why has the manner not changed?

Was there a reversal to this proclamation?  If not, are not all Catholics then required to adhere to this Papal declaration? 

I don't know what happened to the encyclical (note that it was not, to my knowledge, a declaration or mandate, but just an encyclical or other kind of explanation).   My guess is that once Innocent III died and the next pope came, the next pope disagreed with Innocent's statement, or at the very least was preoccupied by other matters and the way people crossed themselves was not high on his priorities.  I'm reading medieval history around the time of the crusades, and believe me new popes (or Emperors for that matter) frequently mean changes in several emphases in policy.  Also remember that this was the early 1200s, and I'm not even sure if it would have been possible to have implemented a full change in the Western Church.  If it's difficult today with mass media and cheap printing, it probably would have been even harder back then.   

Overall, I don't think this is a bad thing.  Unlike some issues (e.g. I think they should remove filioque from the Roman Mass ASAP) I don't think that the method sign of the cross is a matter of huge importance as long as it's done reverently.   The church is a place where people come to participate in the Kingdom of God, not the ceremonial playground of a hierarch or liturgist.   Unless there's a real problem, liturgy should generally not be changed.   

I'll end with a thought from Cardinal Ratizinger's 2000 book on The Spirit of the Liturgy , which I think is insightful on this topic. 

Quote
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the
fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of
 obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development
 and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity."
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2006, 04:49:02 PM »

In general about the cross, you can go:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_cross

At the bottom is a little 3 sentence paragraph that explains about the difference between East and West way of crossing oneself. I don't know how accurate it is, but it's the best I can come up with at this point in time.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 26, 2006, 11:56:39 AM »

Nick,

I read that article when the whole topic got brought up.  The thing that gets me about it is that its pretty stagnant when it comes to actually explaining intricacy's of the Cross.  At least they mentioned praying with your whole mind, heart and strength, etc. 

I think that there's more to this than that article says. 

Markos,

Thanks for that clip from Cardinal Ratzinger!!!  It was VERY interesting.  Would you say that this is a mainstream idea amongst Catholic THEOLOGIANS? 

I think that the sign of the cross IS of major importance.  Look at the "Old Believers" in Russia.  They were declared Heretics.  Why?  Because they focused on ONE THING, just like all other heresies do.  They focused on HOW TO CROSS YOURSELF!  So there's more to this than meets the eyes. 

I also believe that there is a LOT of theological significance in the Cross and making its sign.  If it can ward off demons, then we should take a deeper look at its meaning. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #54 on: August 26, 2006, 11:17:44 PM »

Would you say that this is a mainstream idea amongst Catholic THEOLOGIANS? 

Well, depends what you call 'mainstream'.  If you mean mainstream as the most easily accessible writings (especially on the internet) then decidedly not. 

If you consider mainstream as the thinking of the orthodox Catholic academia [lowercase o capital C] in the major universities, as well as the opinions of the important members of the Vatican curia [basically the people who matter because they govern the Church], then the answer is  'basically, yes'.  These people have can read the original documents and put them in their broader context.   However, their writings are not at all easily accessed, and are frequently written in French, German or Italian, quoting on Greek or Latin texts.    This teaching on the Pope purports that the understanding of the papacy that St. Gregory the Theologian, the medieval popes of and immediately after the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century, Vatican I and Vatican II are consistent with each other - when taken in their proper context.    And I know of no Catholic theologian who purports that the Pope is an absolute monarch who can go against the tradition of the Church; the mainstream understanding of the papacy is that his authority is given to him to safeguard the tradition of the Church.   

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger - among the most important Catholic theologians of the second half of the twentith century - is using this quote as a common thread to discuss the history of the papacy.  In this quote he uses this understanding of the Pope and Christian tradition as a bulwark for the inherent liturgical Rites of a particular church, because they come from Christian tradition and should not be tampered with, since liturgy springs from the Church itself and cannot be altered without

Quote
I think that the sign of the cross IS of major importance.  Look at the "Old Believers" in Russia.  They were declared Heretics.  Why?  Because they focused on ONE THING, just like all other heresies do.  They focused on HOW TO CROSS YOURSELF!  So there's more to this than meets the eyes. 
I also believe that there is a LOT of theological significance in the Cross and making its sign.  If it can ward off demons, then we should take a deeper look at its meaning. 

Oops, let's step back a bit.  Yes the meaning behind the Sign of the Cross is definitely of major spiritual significance, and I don't want to give the impression that I don't think so.   However, it is a fact that the Roman tradition does it one way, our tradition does it a seperate way, Old believers a third way, and the Coptic tradition reportedly do it the western way (I've never been to a Coptic church so I don't know how they do it).   In the patristic era, the tradition supposedly began with simply a cross on the forehead, like the Latins do at the Gospel.   
(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_cross)

My view on this is that there are certain traditions that grow in a particular Church or group of Churches that are inherent to it.  Its liturgy and symbolism are among the major traditions of a Church, and they should be allowed if they're not newfangled and arbitrary changes, if they have spiritual significance, and it they come from a long tradition of a real particular church.   

Particular churches, when confronted by differences, can deny the validity of the other and become schismatic with each other, submit to the demands of one  (a grave ecclesiological error) or learn to accept the differences while maintaining a common faith.   Accepting the differences is in my view the best ONLY when the matters are not dogmas of faith, and it's the only one that can work in a Church where Roman, Byzantine, Coptic etc. rites are in union (though submitting to the demands of one - Latinization  - has been tried, with horrible result).   This is also the Catholic [capital C, meaning churches in union with Rome rather than simple "catholic"] view since the Catholic church purports to unite all the traditions of Christianity in union with each other and the Roman See.   Only certain differences can be held as dogmas of faith; others - especially ones so rich in significance as the sign of the cross - must be mutually tolerated.   

Now, I won't speak for you Orthodox.   But aren't there old ritualists under the omphor of the Moscow Patriarchate?   If so, do they use the two or three finger cross?

Anyway, I hope some of that makes some sense.   I think it does, but I can't proof read it right now.  It's getting late and it's time for prayer.

Markos
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2006, 03:58:05 PM »

I can agree to what you said... Wink

Actually, it makes a lot more sense than my senseless ranting about making the Cross. 

I think I was speaking more out of anger than anything else.  It really bugs me when people don't take simple things seriously.  But that's different than trying to have a dialogue with someone else, who is not involved with those issues... Wink

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Brigidsboy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian
Posts: 336



« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2006, 06:28:05 PM »

If you were wondering, the chip from the Host is placed in the chalice in remembrance of the bishop.

Actually its the mingling of the Body and Blood of Christ, and has nothing to do with the Bishop.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2006, 08:05:39 PM »

Actually its the mingling of the Body and Blood of Christ, and has nothing to do with the Bishop.

Is there perhaps a dual meaning?  I would assume that it being the Body and Blood has precedence over the commemoration of the bishop. 

Is commemorating the Bishop a part of the "consecration process?  I should just read the books and articles that have all of the liturgical rubrics, but i'm lazy right now and i'd rather get a quick answer... Grin
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 86 queries.