www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Novus Ordo Liturgy Seen As An Obstacle To Ecumenism With Eastern Orthodoxy

Originally posted by Miller:
Speaking as an Orthodox Christian and layman, I may find the discussion interesting. However, this is an internal Catholic matter and nothing to do with ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
When official dialogue takes place, the discussion deals with theology not liturgy. Individual Orthodox priests or lay people may comment; however, these comments have nothing to do with the official ecumenical theological dialogue. To put the shoe on the other foot: we Orthodox would not be concerned about Catholic comments regarding our internal liturgal matters.

but not one I'm willing to argue as an Orthodox - there are meaningful issues to address as noted above.

Originally posted by Rilian:
I agree that this is not something we should argue as it is not an issue we can influence or that affects us. I would actually say this is as meaningful as any other issue though. Ecumenism, if meant in the context or some sort of reconciliation and restoration of ecclesial relations between East and West, has probably at least two dimensions. One of course is structural and theological, and that of course is being carried out by the hierarchies of both bodies.

There is the dimension of the �ground� or grass roots level though. Both sides have to be willing and interested in participating in the liturgical life of the other body to some extent. Were either side to feel alienated, bewildered or disturbed what is going on in the other � real reconciliation would not happen, even if the hierarchies came to some formal agreement. It would not be a real reconciliation, and would probably come undone as easily as the union brought about by the pseudo council of Florence.

So my opinion is this is extremely meaningful, and something I can relate to in my own experience.

Andrew

Were either side to feel alienated, bewildered or disturbed what is going on in the other � real reconciliation would not happen, even if the hierarchies came to some formal agreement. It would not be a real reconciliation, and would probably come undone as easily as the union brought about by the pseudo council of Florence.

Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
Another thing which I think should be mentioned is that the so-called "Tridentine Mass" actually pre-dates Trent. What was promulgated by Pius V was a freezing of the Western Liturgy as it was in contemporary Roman usage. It was also to replace a lot of other local usages in the West.
That form of the Liturgy has it's authorship attributed to St. Gregory the Great (Dialogos), and, in terms of it's antiquity, is comparable to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is my understanding that the Sarum usage, for example, is quite close to what was frozen by Pius V. The "reform of the reform" that is being discussed today, should, in my opinion, be one of taking that ancient Gregorian Liturgy, and translating it into venacular languages, in conjunction with restoration of authentic sacred music.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Originally posted by Teen Of The Incarnate Logos:
Memo,

I think those Traditionalists are not so much concerned about ecumenism as they are about pointing out how hypocritical it is for those who champion the New Mass are also oftentimes the ones who push for ecumenism (ostensibly), all the while ignoring the fact that it pushes us further away from that other Christian Church with which we are most similar. It seems a truly ecumenical move would be to restore traditional liturgy, not a "fabricated liturgy, a "banal on-the-spot product," as our Holy Father puts it.

I do think it sometimes highlights who the real enemies of true ecumenism are.

Logos Teen

Originally posted by LatinCat:
The problem is that the "champions of the new mass" are more concerned with the feelings of protestants than they are with bringing our eastern orthodox brethren home to the Church. Its seems quite silly to me.

Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
Another thing which I think should be mentioned is that the so-called "Tridentine Mass" actually pre-dates Trent. What was promulgated by Pius V was a freezing of the Western Liturgy as it was in contemporary Roman usage. It was also to replace a lot of other local usages in the West.
That form of the Liturgy has it's authorship attributed to St. Gregory the Great (Dialogos), and, in terms of it's antiquity, is comparable to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

IMO (no H) those self-styled "Traditionalists" who reject Vatican II and Papal authority are committing the same mistake as those who simply ignore the church's teachings and directives: they are failing to observe Holy Obedience. They may think they are diametrically opposed, but they have the same motto: "I will not serve

Originally posted by Mark of Ephesus:
Is "Holy Obedience" in Roman Catholicism therefore accorded more weight than Holy Tradition? If the answer is yes, than there are indeed Ecumenical considerations in the way that Roman authority effectively overturned a 1500 year old liturgical tradition and the Orthodox East should indeed approach any re-union with caution. [/QB]