www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Give Roman Catholics the Eastern Option?

Carmen,

I'd have to say it's very untypical in my experience, but it happens. The power trip you mentioned can be a reality. I've spent close to 4 decades as an Eastern Catholic and, in that time (with all due respect to my brethren of the other Churches), I've consistently found the Ruthenians and Melkites to be the most open and welcoming to those of traditions other than their own. Tell your friend to go ahead and visit the parish, attend Divine Liturgy, and ignore this secretary's unwelcoming ways. She's certainly not the norm.

Many years,

Neil

Neil:

Thank you for the lovely response.

I too felt as you do. The Ruthenians have been especially wonderful, just as all the people at this forum are most warm and welcoming to non BC.

bless your heart,

Carmen

The Novus Ordo shares many details with Protestant services. The thing is, the Novus Ordo remains fundamentally different because of the Eucharist, the heart and soul of the Mass. Everything else --all the details it shares with Protestantism -- is minutiae.

I've never attended the Tridentine Mass, though I'd like to have the pleasure of attending one soon. I think there's an indult Tridentine Mass in my home state.

I have a question; I hope you do not take offense at it. Had you been alive when the Tridentine Mass was instituted, do you think you'd have been upset that the Tridentine Mass evolved from a more Eastern style liturgy? I've read that the Tridentine Mass was derived from a Gallican liturgy.

Beena Bobba,
In order to answer you question I had to do a little research. I used Michael Davies "A Short History of the Roman Mass". You can find it online if you wish.

The history of the Roman Rite is distinct from the Gallican Rite. Until about the eighth century, the Roman rite did not dominate the West, but as you point out the Gallican Rite did. The Gallican Rite is a grouping of different western liturgies all with common origins in the east, as you said. The Mozarabic Rite in Spain and the Ambrosian Rite in Italy are contemporary daughters of the Gallican Rite.

I don't have any problem with the Gallican Rite and its successors since they are derived from a genuine expression of the Catholic Faith, though it be an Eastern expression. In the last analysis the first Mass, Our Lord's Last Supper, was in the East. So the entire Church has Eastern origins.

I hope you will get a chance to attend a Tridentine Mass.

I didn't intend to detract from the Sacrifice and the Real Presence of Christ in the Novus Ordo. I am only unhappy with the external aspects the rite.

May God bless you always,
Usque

That's a fantastic claim, and one that I've never read from credible sources. Paul VI did not directly consult Protestants. Now there were five Protestant observers and a member of the Taize communnity present during the meetings of the Concilium (Concilium ad exsequendam Cosntitutionem de sacra liturgia, Council for the Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy), but they were only observers. In all the meetings held from 1964-1969, the Concilium only asked the observers only once for comment. The observers were asked to comment on the three year cycle of readings of the proposed lectionary. Yet the observers noted they could not comment on behalf of their ecclesial communities (cf, Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, pp 199-202).

What is the source of your comments? Since you state they are well documented, please provide.

Yes, you are correct. The Mass as celebrated according to the Roman Missal of Paul VI is completely different than a Protestant service, because Christ's real presence is manifested through the sacred liturgy of the Roman Rite, and that real and substantial presence is lacking in the celebrations of the Protestant ecclesial communities.

Personally I can understand Latins wanting to go East, but I'd be pretty surprised if an Easterner wanted to go Latin, UNLESS, they attended a Tridentine Mass or a very reverently celebrated English one.

To illustrate my point, this weekend was a perfect example. Saturday I went to DL at a Ukrainian Rite Church, while Sunday I attended Mass at a Latin Rite parish. What was the difference ? First off, I had never been to the Latin church, which was in a small town SW of Chicago, but I was anxious to see it, since it had been built in the 19th century. Well not too surprisingly, my biased Latin tastes found the Latin church to be the more beautiful of the two. However, after that it was all downhill for the RC Church. The Ukrainians did their socializing outside the church. The RC's did much of theirs inside. I saw no one at the Ukrainian church wearing inappropriate attire,while at the RC Church I noticed several. The RC priest was pretty obviously promoting a feminist agenda. The Ukrainian Rite priest was not. And finally, the elderly Ukrainian priest's homily was about May being the month of Mary, Fatima, the Rosary,devotion to the Blessed Mother and Our Saviour, mentioned Heaven and Hell and made me want to seek God's kingdom all the more. The RC priest's homily never mentioned Christ and was about not getting angry when you miss a flight,taxi cab or are stuck in traffic. It made me wish I had brought a walkman with.

I converted to Catholicism (i.e., the Roman Rite) in April of 1988, and I truly love the Western liturgical tradition, but it was only after I began attending the Divine Liturgy that I found my true home. I greatly love the spiritual, theological, and liturgical tradition of the Byzantine Church; and I was overjoyed when my request to change rites was approved in March of this year, for the Byzantine Liturgy is truly heaven upon earth.

God bless,
Todd

Deacon John Montalvo,
It is not a fantastic claim. The very aim of the New Mass was to appease Protestants. Compare the Tridentine Mass, with the Novus Ordo, and the Anglican service!
Read Chapter 12 of Michael Davies Pope Paul's New Mass . Michael Davies was a very credible and thorough scholar.

With that said, I should point out that Pope Paul VI had every right to do what he did, and that the New Mass is valid, and a true Sacrifice. It fulfills Sunday Obligation, etc. etc. etc. I am not trying to say the New Mass is displeasing to God.

As a final comment, I feel like a sitting duck in this forum. I am Roman, and whenever I post, I am afraid that Easterners are going to get mad that I am talking about Western issues. Be it known, that I just wanted to answer, out of respect, Deacon's question. I don't intend to start a whole conversation. In fact, as of today, I am making an effort to get away from these issues!

Your impoverished servant,

Usque.

Someone is appealing to your fears by handing you a line of crap.

Crap in - crap out.

Spend less time on sensational books authored by people who want to sell books - and more time reading the documents of Vatican I and II.

Contrary to popluar rumor - the Bride of Christ is not dead.

-ray

As I have said many times before, if you want to know anything about the Mass of Vatican II, see the 1965 missal. The Council had nothing to do with the Novus Ordo of 1969. I am not finding fault with the Novus Ordo, just don't blame it on the Council. The Council ended several years before the creation of the Novus Ordo of Paul VI.

Dear Ray,
I am making an effort to reply to your post in a charitable manner (I have failed in charity in past posts), as well as keep away from Western issues.
Michael Davies, who wrote "Paul VI's New Mass" actually met Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) a number of times. Moreover, upon his death, Cardinal Ratzinger sent an open message on his death praising him. Do you need me to find it for you or can you take my word for it?

I should also remind you of what Saint Pius X said, I am paraphrasing here; "in previous times the enemy was without the Church, in present times, the enemy is within." He was referring to Modernism.

I would also like to remind you of the words of Our Lady of Fatima, who referred to the current crises in the Church and said "The dogma of the faith will be preserved in Portugal, etc.", hinting that it would not be preserved elsewhere.

Should I remind you of the numerous prophetic warnings of Saints, East and West about modern times? And how the Catholic Church would suffer troubles inwardly and outwardly? The Lord Himself indicated that the Church would suffer inwardly.

I have in fact read the entirety of Vatican I council documents, and have also read much of Vatican II documents.

I agree, the Church of Christ is still alive indeed.

Usque.

If anyone else has a problem with what I have said, please private message me. We need to start keeping these boards clean of Latin domination, and I confess I have been a big culprit for it. I think I am gonna have to stop posting altogether!

Usque.

Deacon Administrator's Reminder:
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002164

You have succeeded in replying in a charitable way. I thank you for that.

Sorry for the slight vulgarity. After 30 years in the construction trades - that seems pretty mild to me.

It was not directed at you personally but at authors of what seems to be the endless streams of books who claim conspiracy within the Latin church or complicacy which dilutes the church. Which it seemed to me that author you mentioned was implying.

I see nothing wrong if they keep Protestant sensitivities in mind when they adjusted the form of the Mass to better carry the message of the mass to modern people. Protestants are our Christian brothers and it is right to pay some attention to that brotherhood. Perhaps the East does not see it that way - I do not know.

The Modernism he is talking about has nothing to do with how the Mass is said. It has to do with the modern substitution of Darwin and physics and other secular theories - replacing so much of traditional faith in society. The time of Christendom is ending )social agreement with the church) but it is not an end to the church or to Christianity.

No, no need to remind me. I have read or heard most of them. The church has always suffered inwardly and outwardly - thought out periods of history. There is no reason for anxiety - God wills it to be so for our greater good. If there were no cross to pick up - how would we gain virtue?? There must always be a cross.

I am reminded of a saying from the desert fathers - the devil is like a dog on a chain - his weapon is fear (his bark) without that (our fear of him) he has no bite. (paraphrased).

I had not noticed the Administrators Reminder� thanks for pointing it out. I understand his point - this is home for the Byzantines. I too will have to curtail my posts.

-ray

Dear Ray,
No apologies necessary. I wasn't offended, your post wasn't vulgar. I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't get in trouble.
I understand your concerns, and I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. I didn't intend to.
Pax Domini,
Usque.