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

Oh well, at least I tried anyway.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

May the love of Christ reign in our hearts,
Bill

That says a lot for the Papal Masses that have been broadcast all over the world!!!

The only ones pushing this the Orthodox are upset with the NO are tredentists. What Latins get upto in the privacy of their own churches is of no concern to me a a Byzantine.

Be careful Pavel...foreign ideas and practices find a way to migrate...there are many examples within the forum threads.

james

Rather than migrate, it's sometimes a case of "monkey see, monkey do."

You are pretty much correct ByzanTN...now lets get our books and sing the gathering hymn #101 Kumbaya...

james

It is truly amazing how many here remain fundamentally adverse to the idea that current practices in the Latin rite might pose concerns to Orthodox in any reunion scenario.

Now I do readily conceded that the original article posted did contain a bit of dissembling (the Latin rite traditionalists all of a sudden overcome with concern for ecumenism). It is beyond doubt that the Latin integrists have their own agenda in which the pursuing of ecumenical concerns in this matter is but an ill-clever faint. I would also say that the Novus Ordo is of secondary (or perhaps tertiary) importance indeed to other theological issues. But, nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth present in the original article. Orthodox should rightly be concerned when viewing the attitude towards Tradition which is manifest in many of the liturgical reforms and the manifold abuses that ensued therefrom. The spirit of profound rationalism which emanates from the idea that present institutional church can conduct some re-engineering of the liturgy to meet the needs of modern man. The aforesaid spirit is clearly that of revolution. The sacred liturgy while always susceptible to organic development, should not be a play-thing to be tweaked and experimented with. The liturgy is the representation of the heavenly worship and as such belongs not only to us the church militant and earthly but to the whole communion of saints who are greater than we.

Equally dismaying to me as an Orthodox Christian is the attitude of some Byzantine catholics here who maintain that whatever the latins do in their churches is no concern to them. From an Orthodox point of view, I would be hard pressed to remain in communion with those who permit liturgical abuses.

As an Eastern Catholic it is a huge concern to me what the Western Catholics �get upto [sic] in the privacy of their own churches.� To quote Mark, as a Byzantine, �I would be hard pressed (and increasingly am) to remain in communion with those who permit liturgical abuses.�


~Isaac

The Latin Rite has it's own proper processes to deal with problems in terms of their liturgy ands everything else they have going. The Latin Rite seems to function quiet well in most parts of the world. If you are a Byz. Rite Catholic then you must be used to liturgical abuses in our own camp. Thats why we are de-latinising etc. So you dont need to look beyond your own Church fence.

In your response I see evident the typical notion that we, as Eastern Catholics, are some sort of junior partner who should be silent and never dare question or be critical of the actions of the Latin �big brother.� The origin of the violence done to our own liturgy is, as your very words indicate, largely due to Latin influence - why else the need for �de-latinization.� I look west and in the NO I see the 8.5-minute Mass, the Clown Mass, the Bishop of Hawaii literally dancing around the Altar at �Youth Mass� (and contrary to what he may believe, he�s no King David), etc. For better or worse, we are in communion with the Latins and the liturgical innovations - local, regional, or worldwide - of one church within the Catholic Church is cause for concern for all Catholics, east or west. Historically, sooner or later, Latin practice has influenced us (sadly, I�ve yet to see the opposite to be true in any significant degree). We not only have a need, but a responsibility to protect our liturgy - both internally AND externally - and one means of doing so is by keeping a wary eye on �what Latins get upto in the privacy of their own churches.�

~Isaac

Dear Isaac,

You raise a very important topic.

It is true that our Liturgy has indeed been influenced by the Latin Church, both the Tridentine and the NO periods.

The removal of antiphons and ektenias from our Liturgy was done by our bishops who saw in the NO a "shortening" of the Latin Mass and so, since we are Catholics too, we must also shorten our Liturgy to get "with it."

The reason for this also is our lack of strong Eastern identity. This is one reason why our former pastor advocated that we call ourselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" or "Orthodox Catholics." (As do many here, including the esteemed Administrator who has said so on many occasions).

To keep calling ourselves "Catholics" only or "Catholics of the Eastern Rite" brings us into too close a proximity to the Latin Catholics that has led ultimately to an imitation of their liturgical praxis (as opposed to following that of the Orthodox).

(And yes, I remember when in Western Canada there were Ukrainian parishes who actually turned their altars around in imitation of the NO liturgies. When I assisted one of our priests to serve Divine Liturgy at our university RC chapel, to expose them to the Byzantine Catholic Church, we arrived only to find that they had not "turned the altar around" - but the priest thought nothing of serving the Divine Liturgy FACING the people. He said, "They all got a good look at what goes on!")

Ultimately, I do think that we need to have a strong sense of what really is our ORTHODOX identity as Eastern Catholics.

By "Orthodox" I mean the spiritual culture of Eastern Orthodoxy, including the theological, moral and canonical traditions.

Without that sense of Orthdox identity, we will indeed be tempted to adopt what goes on in the West liturgically and otherwise (ie. fasting rules that we have watered down because the Latin Catholics have etc.).

So, my own view is that it matters not what the Latins do liturgically. Either way, unless we have a determination to be who we are, Orthodox in communion with Rome, we will continue to allow ourselves to be shaped by even the worse in terms of Latin liturgical abuses and also by the spirit of the "with it" modern world.

Fr. Serge Keleher, and I'm going back a few years, used to tell people who spoke of being "modern" that "The Romans, in their day, believed themselves to be modern - and where are they today?"

I always found that to be a powerful statement that summarized things in a nutshell in this respect, and I still repeat it to my students, even in sociology class.


Alex

Isaac,

There is also the issue of charity. If one believes that one is a memeber of the same One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not there a duty to fraternally correct errant brothers and support and encourage those who are scandalized and victimized by being exposed to liturgical abuses?

The liturgy is nothing less the the Church's raison d'etre. We must always keep this in mind.

Dear Mark of Ephesus,

Excellent point - the problem is that one person's "charity" can easily be interpreted by another who prefers what we consider liturgical abuses as "imposing one's overly conservative views" etc.

Others may say that EC's, because they serve Divine Liturgy with their "backs to the people," want the Tridentine liturgy back etc. We really have no need to butt into the Latin Church's affairs - the Orthodox theologians engaged in dialogue with it stand a better and more credible chance in this respect.

And also, at what point do we draw the line with the respect to "liturgical abuses?"

There are those who feel the entire NO is an abuse etc.

Ultimately, I agree with Pavel's point and see the reasoning behind that of Isaac.

The debate on liturgy is a lively one within the Latin Church, they acknowledge the problem of liturgical abuses and I believe they will address them in time.

If EC concern over abuses stems from our (well-grounded) fear of their impact on our Churches, then the only way this can happen relates to what we see our relation to Latin liturgical praxis to actually be.

If we are true to our calling as "Orthodox in communion with Rome," then the only answer to this will be, "No relation at all."

Alex

I have to agree with you. There's a spirit in the west that says, "if it ain't broke, mess with it anyway." The west has had a problem respecting tradition for centuries, even as far back as "filioque." I prefer the eastern approach that some things are timeless and too sacred to tamper with.

We will all have made great personal progress when we can begin to think in terms of NOT leaving communion for any reason, rather strengthening one another, forbearing the tares, glorying in the harvest and working to keep the Kingdom, as manifest on earth, intact.

It has become all too easy to cut and run.

If all that was left was a Clown mass and I believed, based on other elements of orthodox sacramental theology that might be still in place, that the real presence was to be found there, I would be there.

It is all too easy to cut and run or turn and shun.

Eli

Originally posted by Eli

You argument is identical to that put forth by many moderate and conservative Episcopalians in response to the liturgical and theological nonsense taking place in their church.

The day, God forbid, that the Latin NO liturgical abuse reaches my Eastern Catholic Church, I would/will - to protect the spiritual health of my soul on its journey to theosis - not hesitate to �cut and run� (as you term it) to the �other lung� of the church.


~Isaac