www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West St.Theodore Romzha:Greek Catholic Martyr

Dear Rusnak,

Vatican II was an ATTEMPT to reach some balance, not the last nor perfect word. Clearly, more sensitivity would haven't hurt on one side of the scale or the other, where ever it was missing.

I have a question or two.

Would you tell me what the quote below means to you, please?

"....the synthetically produced Novus Ordo at least in practice is a move away from the Christian East and its ancient and organically developed rites."

I don't want to ask more about this area before I understand what you mean. Specifically, I don't know how you're using synthethically? I'm also not sure if you're implying through this statement that the Novus Ordo is less than any other rite in its practice or its effects? Are you speaking in terms of aesthetics, rubrics, ritual, theology?

Thanks.

Joy!

Please do not let my written expression impede the meaning.

>>>In Orthodoxy, all dogmas are about God. The sole "Marian" dogma ("Theotokos") is itself not a Marian dogma at
all but a christological statement -- therefore a dogma about God. <<<

Which brings up an interesting point: a dogma, even in the Latin Church, is a belief that is necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church has, over the years, declared many things indigenous to the Latin Church to be dogmas, but in recent years, the Catholic Church's own ecclesiology has changed, so that the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church are no longer recognized as co-terminous.

Official statements from the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council have repeatedly reiterated the fact that it views the Orthodox Church as being a true Church, whose sacraments and orders are "valid", and which contains the fullness of divine grace sufficient to ensure the salvation of its adherents. The Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism even says that the Church of God is built up by the celebration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church.

Now, we enter the realm of cognative dissonance:

1. A dogma is necessary for salvation.
2. Those who do not believe in dogmas are heretics
3. The Eucharist of heretics is not valid, and lacks grace.
4. The Orthodox Church denies a number of so-called Catholic "dogmas", including

-Papal infallibility
-Purgatory
-The Filioque (although the Latins have basically conceded all important points to the Orthodox)
-Immaculate Conception (although Orthodoxy is really mute on this matter, it rejects the definition of the doctrine as a dogma)

5. The Catholic Church, despite this, insists that the Orthodox Church is a true Church, and that conversion from one Church to the other is not a prerequisite for salvation.

From which we can conclude either that:

A. The Catholic Church suffers from a severe case of schizophrenia
B. That the Catholic Church is engaging in a very cynical, even demonic power play
C. That many of the doctrines which Roman Catholics believe are dogmas are in fact only expressions of doctrine specific to the Latin Church.

Of the three, the first is at least partly true, and the Eastern Catholic Churches exhibit the symptoms in spades.

The second is believed by the monks of Athos and most other Orthodox fundamentalists, but is dismissed by those Orthodox who actually know the Catholic Church.

That leaves the third, which by a process of historical examination, we can see is the main problem. The Church of Rome, from the middle of the 13th century onward, increasingly came to think of itself as the Catholic Church in its entirety--and that the doctrines and useage of the Church of Rome were normative for all Christians. Exceptions could be granted, but Catholic means Latin was the general rule. Thus, since the Church of Rome saw itself as the sole manifestation of the Catholic Church, when formally enshrined one of its particular beliefs, it tended to proclaim these as "universal dogmas"--much in the same way that the United States refers to the playoff between the American League and National League champions as the "World Series".

The problem today is that the legally-minded Latins haven't been able to reconcile their doctrinal definitions with their new ecclesiology--at least, not without relativizing them and in effect, degrading them from their lofty "dogmatic" stance. There are a couple of reasons for the difficulty, of which the most serious is the mindset of the Catholic Church, which tends to see itself as infallible guardian of the faith. Any backsliding is seen as evidence of error, and therefore becomes intolerable.

Brendan is thus correct in saying that the solution lies in the Orthodox ability to accept face-saving formulations from Rome. That is, the Orthodox must be clever enough to know when they have won, and to be gracious about it, and not rub the Roman Church's face in it (despite the almost irresistable temptation). If the Orthodox looked around, they would see that the Catholic Church has moved more than halfway towards the Orthodox position on almost every point of doctrinal dispute--and in some cases, caved in entirely. But many Orthodox, probably out of ignorance of recent developments in Catholic theology, act as though we were still living in the age of Aquinas, or worse, Pius IX.

Dear inawe,
I don't want to speak for Rusnak but i would venture to guess that by the word "synthetically" he means not of apostolic origin. The novus ordo missae is not a development of the Traditional Roman Mass, it is a new beast all together. It does indeed contain elements of the trad roman mass but did not grow organically from it.

For a great statement on this topic i suggest reading the "Ottaviani Intervention". It may be found online at www.sonnet.co.uk/credo/ott.html [sonnet.co.uk]

"-Papal infallibility
-Purgatory
-The Filioque (although the Latins have basically conceded all important points to the Orthodox)
-Immaculate Conception (although Orthodoxy is really mute on this matter, it rejects the definition of the doctrine as a dogma)"

Papal Supremacy (also a Vatican I "dogma") will have to be addressed, and, probably,the status of the Latin views on original sin (ie, are they dogma or not?). And, while we're looking at the list, let's hope that the Latin Church doesn't pronounce more new Marian dogmas in the next 100 years.

"Any backsliding is seen as evidence of error, and therefore becomes intolerable."

Exactly, this is definitely the mindset of the most faithful Romans. The Orthodox corollary would be "any obvious innovation in dogma is seen as evidence of heresy, and therefore becomes intolerable".

"Brendan is thus correct in saying that the solution lies in the Orthodox ability to accept face-saving formulations from Rome. That is, the Orthodox must be clever enough to know when they have won, and to be gracious about it, and not rub the Roman Church's face in it (despite the almost irresistable temptation). If the Orthodox looked around, they would see that the Catholic Church has moved more than halfway towards the Orthodox position on almost every point of doctrinal dispute--and in some cases, caved in entirely. But many Orthodox, probably out of ignorance of recent developments in Catholic theology, act as though we were still living in the age of Aquinas, or worse, Pius IX."

Fair enough, but as a practical matter, in order to avoid another Florence-Ferrara (and not just with the Athonites, either), whatever is formulated must also appear to be fully Orthodox to the average Orthodox Christian and the average Orthodox cleric (ie, not an obvious dogmatical innovation, as I note above). It would be easier, as a practical matter, if Orthodoxy delegated this kind of authority to the Bishops, but after Florence and its aftermath it's fairly clear that anything done in this area will get strict scrutiny within Orthodoxy, and so whoever is discussing and formulating will have to be very clever (difficult, but possible) because it will have to be both (1) apparently not a backslide by the Catholics but also (2) not a proclamation of something "new" to Orthodoxy. It is a delicate matter indeed.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 01-12-2001).]

Rusnak,

Dah...dah on the nyet...nyet, ochi..ochi! Oye-ki troy-ki?

Dear inawe,
I don't want to speak for Rusnak but i would venture to guess that by the word "synthetically" he means not of apostolic origin. The novus ordo missae is not a development of the Traditional Roman Mass, it is a new beast all together. It does indeed contain elements of the trad roman mass but did not grow organically from it.

Thanks, Khaled. That�s pretty much what I was trying to say.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-12-2001).]

If that is all this is about, crass "face-saving formulations", then frankly I hope the Eastern Orthodox remain firm and the talks fall flat until such a time as they can proceed in a more truthful manner. If we are not trying to come together in charity as brother Christians, lovers and followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with orthodoxy of the Gospel in mind then let's drop this now. These kind of comments are not only insulting, antagonizing, and patronizing, but give some creedence to the radicals on both sides who denounce ecumenism as nothing more then relativism and indifferentism in different form.

Pax Christi,
John

"If that is all this is about, crass "face-saving formulations", then frankly I hope the Eastern Orthodox remain firm and the talks fall flat until such a time as they can proceed in a more truthful manner. If we are not trying to come together in charity as brother Christians, lovers and followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with orthodoxy of the Gospel in mind then let's drop this now. These kind of comments are not only insulting, antagonizing, and patronizing, but give some creedence to the radicals on both sides who denounce ecumenism as nothing more then relativism and indifferentism in different form."

A VERY WISE STATEMENT.

Dear Kaled and Rusnak,

Thank you for the postings about the Novus Ordo Liturgy in the Latin Church. I am still digesting the information.

Kaled, thank you for the link to the Ottaviani Intervention. I read it quickly to refresh my memory and I wanted to share my reaction to it.

I remember thinking, when I first heard about it, that it was a cry of pain and alarm from men who cared about the danger that a change in Liturgical form would cause in right teaching and right order in the Latin church. (The words back then were different for me, the meaning the same.) The Intervention was written by faith-filled, very conservative men, predominately, who were expert church politicians (one does not get to be a cardinal, it seems to me without some political skills and that's not necessarily a criticism). They were engaged in a struggle with other faith-filled, very liberal men, predominately, who were also expert church politicians. In the middle were the moderates ranging from conservative to liberal in outlook. All of these men were trying to do good for God's Church and I have to believe that the Spirit found a way to use their struggle for good. Out of that struggle came the Novus Ordo, much as a child comes from a mother's birthing pain.

As you may know, it was a real struggle even for those of us in the pews. Imagine telling a pre-Vatican II church member in the pew that an age old Liturgical form of worship was about to change. (For understanding purposes only, no injury intended, it was a bit harder than trying to change the Church Calendar in Orthodoxy.) From priest standing facing the Cross and tabernacle to show respect and otherness between people and God to priest standing among the church to honor God with the priest leading us as part of His people, God's representative still. In between transitional steps, facing people and back to the people at various times, etc. Language was all Latin, to half Latin and half English to All English. All of this was done in stages to help the people of God adjust (I swear this was the reason we were given).

In all of this, the concern of all the parties, liberal and conservative, and middle of the roaders was "not to throw the baby out with the water." I heard it from people at both extreems of the struggle. It was stressed that the Novus Ordo is not a revolution in terms of Liturgy. It was Liturgical reform. That's what it was called then, and as far as I know, still is by most Latin Catholics.

It is, as I understand it in Eastern terms, the the right order and right teaching of the Latin Church as expressed in right worship. Its form is the result of birth from its Mother Church. We believe Her to be one of God's Churches.

It is not the Liturgy of St. John or St. Basil. It is not the Traditine Liturgy of coming from Trent. It is different. It is Latin and not Eastern. That is certainly not meant meanly, just as a statement of fact. It is like the Eastern Liturgy in essentials and many other ways, yet different in still many other ways. It is one of the Liturgies through which I Give Thanks. Kaled, I know that you meant no disrespect to a Liturgy, but it is not a different kind of Beast. It seems that it is organic unless I misunderstand the term. It brought the old substance and many of the old forms to a new form. It was a very painful birth.

I just came from a Novus Ordo Liturgy. The Good News was proclaimed and explained; the sacrifice of Jesus was re-presented (the terminology of sacrifice was used); and His poor humble servants ate the Body of the Lord and drank His Blood. The church gathered there recited the same creed that Byzantines do, made joyful noises to the Lord, (not always on key); and were charged to be Church in the world as its members left.

The Intervention was a small piece of the larger struggle that took place back then. To a smaller degree it is still happening. I think that the role of the traditionalists still within the Latin Church was and is a positive one. They cause those at the other end of the religious spectrum in our Church who are in the majority to tread carefully and indeed to work with the Holy Spirit so that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. They must also be given the credit for the restoration of another Litrugy of the Latin church, the Tridentine.

I am sorry if I am relating to you what you already know. But it might help those of us who have always been Eastern to understand that many of us who today worship using the Novus Ordo Liturgy in the Latin Church were part of the birthing process, although admittedly for most of us, a small part. I think those among us who have been part of the birthing process and are proud of the progeny tend to be concerned about how others see the offspring.

At any rate, the Latin Church still Gives Thanks and grows.

I am not a liturgist nor am I a church historian, although I have read and studied in both disciplines a bit. As I have pointed out on occasion, my bulb sometimes burns less brightly that others on the circut do. Given all of the above, again, how is the Novus Ordo not organic? It is quite possible that I am not catching the meaning of organic, maybe because I do not have an Eastern Phronema. If that is true, please help my lack of understanding.

I also do not understand the use of Apostolic in relationship to the Liturgy. Is there a basic liturgical outline generated by the Apostles in their time and followed when Liturgies are developed that entitles them to be calle Apostolic? Is the term being used to mean that a Liturgy was born and nurtured to its current form in an Apostolic Church?

If either of these is the case, I don't know why the Tridentine Liturgy, or St. Basil's are Apostolic while the Novus Ordo, though younger, is not? Surely age is not the criterion. If there is some other explanation that is not apparent to me, please let me know what it is.

Again, I appreciate the information and insights that you share.

Please excuse the length of my postings.
I write at length to be sure that I make clear what I mean (I try to edit well, too, but...). Sometimes the words get in the way, though.

Please don't let the expression impede the meaning.

Joy!

Dear inawe,
Greetings. This topic you bring up is one very close to my heart, but first i must tell you that like you i belong to the latin church(don't let my arab name fool you).
As a result of being brought up with the novus ordo missae and seeing first hand what i consider great deficencies in it my wife and i have chosen not to attend the novus ordo except when there is no trad roman mass or eastern liturgy available.

I totally acccecpt the novus ordo as a valid mass yet i consider it to be both liturgically and theologically inferior to the trad roman mass. Unlike the trad roman mass the novus ordo is open to all kinds of experimentation, manipulation and abuse.

As to the point of the novus ordo not being organic we say this because it was NOT a reform, revision, or modification of the roman mass. Instead the roman mass was trashed and a completely novel liturgy was written. Completely new according to those who were it's authors. We know from testimony of witnesses that the novus ordo was intended to bring catholic worship closer to that of protestant worship. Michael davies explains this well in many of his works. The fact that it was written from top to bottom in the late 1960's it cannot be of apostolic origin (remember i am speaking of the liturgy only not the sacrament and sacrifice which are confected therein).
In my opinion the novus ordo missae has had a devastating impact on the latin church. Vocations, low mass attendence, lack of belief in the real presence of Christ in the holy eucharist and lack of belief/understanding of the sacrificial nature of the mass. I believe that Cardinal Ottaviani was more than a kind of counter balance, as his warning was prophetic. All the dangers he warned paul VI about have indeed come to pass. I could go on and on and on, but i'll leave it there for now. please tell me if i have not been clear in my statement.
Oh, one last thing. I know that many Orthodox consider the novus ordo missae to be a stumbling block to union as they recognize the novelty of it. I thank our Holy Lord that he has inspired soo many young people with a great love and devotion to the Traditional Roman Mass and a very othodox faith. I beleive as a result of the movement of traditional catholics and it being largely a youth movement, that we will see the end of the heresy of modernism in the next twenty years.

"You have shown Yourself to me, O Christ, face to face. I meet You in your Sacraments."
St. Ambrose

[This message has been edited by Khaled (edited 01-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Khaled (edited 01-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Khaled (edited 01-14-2001).]

Dear Khaled,

Thank you for stating your position. I recognize it as a strong one and one that I respect. I know that you recognize that the Novus Ordo is a real liturgy and that you will Give Thanks in that form if no other is available. I am glad that that freedom is open to me and you since I Give thanks using other rites, although for different reasons.

I do not agree that the Novus Ordo is inferior to the Tridentine Mass theologically. A strong case can and has been made for it being aesthetically less valuable and perhaps a case can be made on other grounds also. I lived through the years of the Council and followed the events including plans, some would say plots, as carefully as I could. Based upon what I experienced and remember, I can honestly say that the vast majority of layity, clergy, and observers who were my acquaintances came away certain that no attempt was made to change the liturgy or Church order just SO THAT THE CHURCH COULD BE MORE PROTESTANT.

I find it hard to believe that Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II would have remained silent if that were the case. Perhaps there were individuals with such intent, but again such it seems to me that they were an extreme. I respectfully disagree with the notion that the renewal created something entirely new. Having lived throught the transition, I know that some think that. I cannot understand their explanations.

I know that you believe that the Novus Ordo will be eliminated. I don't agree, but I do not have the gift of foreknowledge. I would be surprised if that were to be the case. In any event, I am happy that you and I are brothers in the Latin Church. Like you, I am glad that there is a movement of young people to the Churches. Together with them, given the gift of longevity, may we all worship for many years in peace.

Unfortunately, the weeds and the wheat do grow together. With the passing of years, I think that the inappropriate alterations made in the Novus Ordo without reason will grow fewer and hopefully cease. I think though that someone pointed out in a different context that even within the Byzantine Churches, the music sometimes varies from one parish to the next. If I understood that posting, this fact was cited as a strentgh.

I find that to be a strength because it means that the people adapted to what made sense in that time as long as the liturgy was still liturgy. The point I'm trying to make is that that kind of ecclesiastical behavior is part of incarnating the Church, I think. I think that discussions like ours about change in liturgical form are part and parcel of the history of all of our Churches. None the the current rites in any of the Churches, that I know about, came fully developed. Neither did the Novus Ordo.

I'm still not sure about organic development or its lack or about apostolic status or lack of in connection with the Novus Ordo. I know you're explaining it, I just am not getting it.

Khaled, please excuse the error in the spelling of you name in the last post. It was an unintended error that my editing failed to pick up.

Please do let not errors in written expression impede the meaning.

Joy!

Dear inawe,
Don't worry about spelling i'm one of the worst offenders. There was an interview with the man who was Paul VI best friend (a layman), in the interview he said paul VI had told him that they intended the novus ordo to look as much as possible like a presberterian service. I'll look in my book collection and find the name and the exact quote. We know that the main architect of the novus ordo was annibale bugnini a well know freemason which should give us all pause. This was the reason six protestant ministers were called in to collaborate on the make up of the novus ordo.

If you like to read on the subject like i do i would suggest the following books

1.The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber.
2.Liturgical Shipwreck- 25 years of the new mass by Michael Davies.
3.The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger.
4.Theological and Historical Aspects of the ROMAN MISSAL by the fifth international colloquium of CIEL.
5.The Roman Rite Destroyed by michael davies.
6.The Eternal Sacrifice by michael Davies.
7.The New Mass by Michael Davies.
8.Mass facing the people by michael davies.

I forgot to mention a quote of Pius XII the relates well to the topic.Speaking of Fatima the pontiff says "This persistence of Mary about the danger which menaces the church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in it's liturgy, it's theology and it's soul"

[This message has been edited by Khaled (edited 01-14-2001).]

Here is a link I found about the Novus Ordo. The author, Michael Davies, of "Liturgical Shipwreck---25 Years of the New Mass" presents his grievances.
http://www.sonnet.co.uk/credo/25.html

Robert,

Again, salaam! Many thanks for the article by Mr Davies, whom I already liked. It is now a link on the Faith page of http://oldworldrus.com � love the Titanic illustration.

I think sometimes these critiques of the N.O. go too far.

Yes, the N.O. is routinely screwed up in many American parishes. But, at the same time, I have seen many a reverent N.O. served in Europe, and even in some more traditional RC parishes here in America. It all has to do with the attitude one takes toward it (which, admittedly, is one of the problems with the N.O.).

But this kind of critique offered by Davies is typical of some of the more ascerbic criticisms of the N.O. -- namely, it fails to distinguish between those reforms ofthe Mass that were good and beneficial, and those which were ill-considered. In doing so, it both deligitimizes its own critique and succumbs to the ideology of those whom it would seek to criticize. The result is a far less than convincing critique, really. There are several ways in which the critique offered by Davies seems overbroad:

1. "Responses such as "When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus until You come in glory" hardly states the Catholic belief that transubstantiation (that the substance of the bread and wine have literally been replaced by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself) has just taken place!" This seems a shortsighted comment. The quote is substantially from Paul, and also comes up in the Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil. There is nothing wrong with it, and it reflects what, in fact, at least according to Paul, what we are doing when we are at the Eucharist. It doesn't deny "transsubstantiation" (affirmed in many other places, even in the N.O.), and simply puts the Eucharist in its Pauline context. While there may be other culprits in the N.O. vis-a-vis the "real presence" issue, this surely is *not* one of them.

2. "the response of the mystery of faith turns away from the miracle of the consecration towards the belief in the second coming of our Lord. Although this is a very important belief, it is hardly appropriate at that time in the Mass." Again, this seems like a strange criticism. In the Orthodox liturgy, we are remembering the second coming right *before* the epiclesis -- and it doesn't detract from that at all. The Eucharist is fundamentally eschatological, as Fr. A. Schmemann has pointed out, and it is fully appropriate to see the Eucharistic sacrifice in the eschatological frame. This critique seems informed by a theology that seeks to isolate the Eucharist from everything else -- again, pretty roundly criticized in Schmemann's Eucharistic theology. This change seems to be a *good* one, not a bad one.

3. "The beauty and the unchanging nature of Latin (used as a liturgical language) has been discarded in favour of the ordinariness and ambiguities of the vernacular." The alternative of having liturgies in dead languages seems worse than the proposed cure here. Yes, it makes translation an issue, but that's the work of the Church, frankly -- and when the Church serves up poor translations like the ICEL translations, she deserves the round criticism she has received for doing so. You hear the same argument from the devotees of OCS and liturgical Greek in Orthodoxy and it's silly, really -- the liturgy should be in understandable language --hieratic, perhaps, but understandable.

4. "The power of the words of the consecration are simply too awesome to be heard, only silence can convey the power and instil a reverent atmosphere to reflect the events taking place." Again, Orthodox used to think this way too (learned it from the old Roman Church), but this kind of thought only serves to separate the eucharistic prayer -- offered by everyone and not just the priest -- from those who are offering. That seems silly in light of the fact that we are all offering the sacrifice. But then again, it's reflected in the following criticism to the effect that "The words are a means an end, hearing them somewhat diminishes this concept." Actually, the words are a beautiful prayer that remind us what is happening and allow us to participate in that offering. But the supreme irony of this type of statement is that reducing the words to the level of "a means to an end" is *exactly* the ideology that informed the radical trimming of the Mass to begin with -- after all, it was only a "means to an end", and therefore we could change the forms and the words without changing the substance. Once you give up that argument and admit that the words are just an expedient means to an end, you've agreed, in ideological terms, with the architects of the N.O. and simply disagree with them on *aesthetics* -- which is a much weaker argument. Ironic, really, but revealing as well, of broader commonalities of thought between the N.O. and anti-N.O. camps.

5. "having the Blood of Christ practically always presented to the people further increases the confusion between the Mass and a commemorative meal." Again, a critique that oversteps. Presenting both 'species' is not the problem. The problem is in the how's and the setting. But, in zeal to critique the N.O., everything is called into question -- even reforms, like this one, that were good ones.

In reality, the N.O. is a mixed bag -- some good things and some ill-considered things. Critiques are in order -- but critiques like this one are ridiculously overbroad and actually undermine themselves.

Brendan