OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 01:32:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic Mass: Liturgical Questions  (Read 10537 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 8,402


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: 8,402


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: 8,402


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: 342



« 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: 8,402


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 0.073 seconds with 41 queries.