www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A lurker who is leaving.

I too am a bit of a lurker here. I am also a Latin, which makes me a guest on the Byzantine Forum.

I have never taken offense to the criticisms raised about the new Roman Mass: but then, I would tend to agree with most of the criticisms. I see no reason why Byzantines cannot discuss the Roman Mass on a Byzantine forum, even when it involves the occasional joke.

Just my 2 cents.

peace,
Jason
http://www.d.umn.edu/~mich0212/

P.S. Serge, I love your website.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Kyrie Eleison ]

Jason,

Thanks for everything you wrote.

http://oldworldrus.com

To me, silly Christian that I am, the necessary element is love of God and love of neighbor.

The "rite" stuff is necessarily secondary. "Rite" is defined as 'community authorized practices'. Thus, when there is a problem with one or another realization of the "rite" then folks would object. So, some RCs go nuts about the apparent manifestations of the serices; others love and live it gladly. Same with us Byzantines: Do Slavonic or DIE! Do English nad make it gender-appropriate or DIE!

Such a nut house of a Church.

Unfortunately, some folks think that this is all cut and dried theology and eccclesiology. The fact remains that the baptized community is messy, disorganized and sometimes outside the realm of 'canonicity' depending on which canonicity one proposes.

Personally, I don't give a damn. My brothers and sisters in baptism are mine. I'd give my life for any one of them (and I KNOW that they'd do the same).

I get real nervous when someone tells me that the jurisdictional stuff is critical to one's salvation. I just don't buy that.

For me, as an Eastern Catholic, I love my patrimony; but I also love the Holy Father in Rome. JP2 has been the most loving and saintly man for the whole Church (East and West) and has tried to understand the realities of the non-Western Christians. And, it seems to me from my readings, that many Orthodox have a great respect and love for this wonderful man. (Just like for Mother Teresa.)

Good people, believers and Christ-followers, recognize those who are just fundamental, Gospel-believing and sacrificing people. We respect the history and customs of our baptized people, but we realize that there is a whole boatload of BS that is just carried along as baggage. And we've got to get rid of that stuff, because it just impedes our ability to be lovers of God and our neighbors. I (and YOU too!) have an absolute obligation to save our souls based upon what we do, day to day. Serve the poor, the homeless, the nutsy-cuckoo, the misinformed, and the 'heretics'. That's what Christ wants. The bonus points for salvation DON'T depend on some 'visa' from one Church or another. They come from service to the 'least of My brethren.'

Blessings, y'all! And lots of opportunities for service. Love y'a all.

Blessings!

To our 'lurker' sister Maria, there are a number of issues that are existing simultaneously.

First, as Byzantines, who are perforce of the Unia, find themselves part of the Roman community, we are kinda forced to deal with the problems of the Roman Church. Most of us don't want to; what happens in the Roman Community is the province of the Roman Community.

For most Byzantine Catholics, what is happening in the Roman Church is of interest, but is NOT a reality upon which we can comment. It is the Roman community; and they -- and they alone -- who must resolve any issues that arise.

Same for us Byzantines. We alone must determine what is to be done.

Some congenital conservatives are going to have an antipathy to ANY innovation in the liturgical worship -- whether Eastern or Western. And they are not likely to 'understand' what is going on in the RC communities.

For me,and for most of us 'cradle' Eastern folks: we love our Roman Catholic counterparts. And we 'suffer' at the stresses that can divide the community. (But, we don't want to be dragged into the argument!) And we both hope and pray that there can be some resolution.

So, don't think that we are antipathic to the sufferings of the Roman Church, nor are we automatically antipathic to the concerns of the Roman community. But we have our own problems and we are striving (sometimes in strife) about who we are, where we should be, and how we should live. And, because of our small numbers, we are very concerned about our very survival as a Church.

If the RCs make a 'mistake' and 5 million leave the Church, it is an extreme tragedy. If we make a mistake and 5 million leave, then we no longer exist. AT all. Period. Extinct.

So, I beg our "Big Dog" church brethren: if you are really concerned about our welfare as part of the Church, if you REALLY believe the two-lungs model proposed by the Holy Father and Vatican II, if you don't want to live with the reality of a strangled/suffocated Christian community caused by the Roman community, then please: give us a break. Leave us to our own devices. Let us have our own 'rite' (=whole lifestyle of belief) and let us sink or swim according to the graces of the Holy Spirit. We may offer some suggestions about how one should live the Christian life (including some comments on the vicissitudes of the current Roman rite liturgy), but it is NOT intended as a condemnation; just some familial comments. Just like an aunt or uncle can make some comments or suggestions about what you're doing.

My blessings to all. To my Constantinopolitan brethren and to my Roman cousins: peace, joy, happiness, long-life and tons of grace. OH yeah: and to our Oriental Orthodox brethren: Absolutely the best to you all!

Dear Serge,

Posted by Serge:
"Steve, if you want to put your head up your bum and pretend everything is fine in the RCC in the US regarding liturgical practice, that's your problem. I won't stop telling the truth on this forum unless the administrator throws me off."

Sorry that you see it that way.

I'd certainly protest if someone suggested that you should be thrown off the forum. You have too much to share! Of course, it might be difficult to know since you suggest that strange position for my head! Wherever did you learn bout that approach to reality?

Say the truth that you see. I will say the truth that I see. I think that if you look, most of the time that you have something to say, I have nothing to say. I mean it when I say that I learn from You.

All that I have been saying is isn't it appropriate to say what we say with love and respect. Can't we reach that level of discourse about the Latin Liturgy? Everyone can observe, comment, do fraternal correction. All can and do state opinion and disagree. No one I know has suggested that that was inappropriate.

It's the disrespect, the mocking words, the put downs. It's the downright disregard that the NO is the Liturgy of the Latin Church. As such it deserves to be dealt with with respect. That is the issue.

You aren't the issue for me, Serge. So please don't make me the issue here.

Is it possible for us not to reduce this discussion to an ad hominem level, do you think?
When have I expressed any the notion that there are not abuses of the Latin Liturgy or that they should not be addressed? I've never said that. When have I said that people shouldn't say that they don't like our Liturgy. That is merely your perception.

It's how they're addressed here in words by posters that becomes problematic for me at times. Most of the posters here have never heard from me in a posting addressed to them in any form concerning this issue.

There's been lots of analysis, discussion and criticism of the Latin Liturgy that have not been addressed at all. It's opinion. It's addressed in a way that is not belittling to the Latin Liturgy or to fellow posters.

I'd like not to have to address it at all.

A good sleep to you!
Steve

Dear All,

Maybe I'm unwise coming back in at this stage - but I've had a night's sleep to reflect on what was on this thread up to my original post and now I've caught up again.

I'm not going to quote specific incidents - if you want to find them it's not difficult.

My problem is the attitude that seems to be coming out at the present time. I seem to be frequently left with my jaw on the ground after reading some posts. Posters are being attacked verbally and, to my mind ,often without sufficient grounds.

I frequently [ using a British expression ] will call a spade a spade, or if I am really cross a 'bloody digging implement' but I don't go as far as a 'mechanical digger'. I trust you get my meaning !. Language seems to have become very expressive and hurtful to some of us. Yes abuses of practices and liturgy happen in all our Churches - I am aware of it, and to many of us these abuses are exceedingly painful but do they really have to be dragged up all the time in very emotive language ? Is not the place for these to be addressed within that particular church [ meaning local] not here in public ?

I feel that I must also add that I have become very aware of Steve's increasing irritation in recent weeks - his posts when I first came to the Forum , to my mind, were masterpices of language, leaving us in no doubt as to what he felt , but they had been well thought out and were calm and reflective. Now he is frequently writing in sorrow and it shows.

I had been very tempted to reply to one post recently but drew back as I felt that the attitude would have been along the lines of' You're RC and have no business here.' I did not post and I repent of my cowardice. I should have supported my fellow poster - he had done nothing wrong in my eyes.

Please, please PLEASE could I ask for more thought about the way we all respond. Language is important and particularly where we cannot see each other in the flesh and observe the body language which accompanies the spoken word.

I still intend to stay - if you will have me.As I said I have learned a lot here and I know there is more to come !

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of us all, my Mistress, keep us in Her care and bring us all to Her Son .

Angela

and now I await the flak which will surely come my way

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

I have a question for those more familiar with Roman particulars than myself. Many complaints are heard here about the position of the altar and the celebrants in the "novus ordo." I have been taught that there is a major difference in ideologies in the two rites. In the Byzantine Rite, the priest faces east (the altar) and leads the people in prayer to the Father. His purpose is to preside at the liturgy through a leadership role in the sacrifice. Therefore, he and the congregation all turn to God together. In the Roman Rite, the priest also leads the people, but in this case, more as an actor, taking the role of Christ (in persona Christi) in reenacting the sacrifice of Calvary and the ritual of the Last Supper. In these terms, I can understand the difference in positions. I have heard it said here, that the idea of the priest leading the people in prayer and all together praying in the same direction was also the philosophy of the Tridentine Rite. I don't know if this is true or not.

Now, to explain what has been my understanding of altar positions: Is it not true that altars in major cathedrals and basilicas of the Roman Rite were always free standing? Did not the pope (and maybe other prelates) always celebrate mass facing the people, or did he face away from the people but merely use a free-standing altar? I thought that for at least the pope, the liturgy was somehow celebrated in the same position that it is today. If not, then why have the altars in St. Peter's and the other patriarchal basilicas always been free-standing? Thank you to whoever can answer my question.

While the concilliar document may indicate that the Gregorian Chant is the norm for Roman celebrations, I don't think it was ever thought that it would be used always and everywhere. I don't believe that it was utilized at the average mass in the average parish before Vatican II, was it? Did every church have a solemn, sung mass every Sunday? If they did, the majority of faithful did not attend it. Instead, low masses were popular, maybe with the use of popular hymns which, while maybe not the same style as some of the liturgical music today, could still not be considered in the category of chant. We've come a long way since the "folk masses" of the 60s and 70s, which did however, right or wrong, reflect the style of the day. Today, there is some beautiful liturgical music being composed that is both classical and singable. It surely is a long cry from the monotone, mumbled low masses of pre-concilliar days in which the faithful did not participate but read private prayers or prayed the rosary because they could not concentrate on or understand what was going on at the "high altar."

The number of eucharistic ministers may exceed that originally envisioned by the Vatican, but other things have changed, such as communion under both species, using multiple cups that need to be administered. I do think that it is against the spirit of the indult for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, to use lay ministers when there are extra priests available, sitting in the rectory or socializing. I know this happens and think that those priests should come into the mass to give communion, as it once was. Other than that, both the ministers and the manner of distribution of communion are perfectly licit in the Roman Rite presently and, while we naturally cannot fathom this style of the liturgy of holy communion in our church at all, it is not up to us Byzantines to judge its acceptability in the Latin Church. For us, the manner and consistency of communion do not normally warrant the use of extraordinary ministers or multiple cups without the species of bread.

In regards to the "throne room" look that a modern Roman church is said to resemble, I know some of us don't like it but: the bishop's throne or presider's chair was an integral part of the sanctuary in Hagia Sophia and other golden age churches. The first thing the bishop did upon entering the church was to go to the chair, which was located behind the altar, in the apse, and greet the assembly with the peace, "Peace be with you." Then they sat and the readings began, from the bema. In our liturgy today, we still maintain two places for the bishop to sit, on the amvon, because he is not supposed to be present until the little entrance and at the high place, the original presider's chair. I think we all know this.

Angela, I don't see any flak bait in what you wrote.

Joe, let's move this Q&A to the thread "Comparative Liturgics', dedicated to the Roman Rite and comparing it to the Byzantine and other Eastern rites.

Serge
A fighter but one who will obey the Marquess of Queensbury rules

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Sorry I got off on a tangent above.

Apropos the liturgical celebration, the earliest agape meals were around a table or reclining. When the congregations got a bit larger, the Eucharist was celebrated at a table by standing clergy with the people around it. Subsequent developments involved putting a railing around the altar area to prevent the people from crusing in on the celebrants. (There is a model of this in the Byzantine museum in Athens.) This appears to have been the main practice (at least in the East) from the late first century up to about 500 or so. The altar was then moved and raised into a position closer to the end of the building; the railing remained and was surmounted with icons.

This became our iconostasis. The railing survived, sans icons in the West and became the sanctuary railing or 'communion rail'. (Interestingly, the communion rail of the West became the 'rood screen' still seen in Anglo churches.) It supports an image of the crucifixion in the English tradition; for us it has the Last Supper, but surmounted only with a cross not with Mary and John.

The question then arise: should the priest face the people or face the altar with the people? The answer is: yes. It depends on what you choose to do in your theology.

It is not a choice of 'good' or 'bad', but rather a question of preference -- vanilla or chocolate.

While there are clear elements of 'good liturgy' or 'bad liturgy', it's not a question of East or West; it's just a question of doing good liturgy -- planning for it, preparing (not winging it), training acolytes and singers, getting good flowers and plants as decoration, setting up good lighting, etc.

I think that because the Latin ritual has a certain amount of leeway in "real-izing" the liturgical texts, there is bound to be more potential for problems. In the East, we're very staid; and we have all kinds of 'rules' on how to hold the Gospel book, when to bow, when to cross one's self, who is permitted to stand where, and all sorts of paraphernalia that needs to be carried, exalted and venerated (cross, kadilo, etc.)

This is not to say that we don't have liturgical schlemiels in the East. Oh, indeed we do. And so does the West. (Why, oh why, don't we really train our priests in music and the arts so that the congregation does not end up with K-Mart liturgy!!!)

So, I would hope that in all charity, we should understand that any of our historical Christian liturgies are wonderful in themselves and can lead people to God through the graces of the services. (Even the Anglican and Lutherans!!)

We may have our own individual preferences -- high Church or low church; lots of lay involvement or no lay involvement; lots of congregational music (with or without guitars or pipe organ) or choirs, incense by the pound or just a little, brocaded vestments or plain white albs and cinctures, commissioned extraordinary eucharistic ministers or priest/deacon only, etc.

It is the manner of the celebration that is to be examined and critiqued. This is OK; but let us be aware that in critiquing the manner of celebration of liturgy, we are not denigrating the "text" or the "form" of the liturgy. Nor the Church of the West nor the Church of the East. Just bad liturgical form and practice.

Indeed the "Ordo Missae" is celebrated by the Pope, but he has small armies of assistentia, singers, and sacristans to make the liturgy more artistic and celebratory. But most parishes are lucky if they have enough servers available and non-tone-deaf cantors. But we all have to do (and live with) the resources that are available. We just have to keep on trying. (I recall the small parish in Oberstdorf whose pipe-organ died on Christmas Eve. The choirmaster composed a hymn and it was sung to guitar accompaniment. Silent Night.) The Holy Spirit is still around!

Blessings! Evlogitai! Benedictiones! (Sorry, forgot the Slavonic.)

Surely the majority of you have experienced "uncultured" posters on other forums. There will always be some poor soul who lashes out verbal abuses like a child throwing himself on the floor in a tantrum. It seems that this forum too is not immune to these posters either.

Personally I take it all in as untasteful attempts at humour and/or attention. And yes, I have to admit there are a few posts that I simply skip over.

Saying all that, there are far more interesting posts here from the majority of people. Most of you are insightful and educated. To those people I would like to say I appreciate your thoughts and expressions.

Loretta

To Joe's post above: "While the concilliar document may indicate that the Gregorian Chant is the norm for Roman celebrations, I don't think it was ever thought that it would be used always and everywhere. I don't believe that it was utilized at the average mass in the average parish before Vatican II, was it? Did every church have a solemn, sung mass every Sunday? If they did, the majority of faithful did not attend it. Instead, low masses were popular, maybe with the use of popular hymns which, while maybe not the same style as some of the liturgical music today, could still not be considered in the category of chant."

Actually, yes, every parish was required to have a High Mass on Sunday morning. (And oftentimes Vespers on Sunday evening). Gregorian chant WAS the standard music for the High Mass. Other hymns were interspersed (at communion), especially at 'low Masses'. In France and Germany, 'vernacular' hymns mirroring the liturgical texts were sung (to organ accompaniment) while the acolyte recited the appropriate Latin response. In Germany, the mirror hymns varied from diocese/region to region. "Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet.." (God be praised and blessed = Gloria in excelsis Deo). There is absolutely no question: the Roman rite of the past centuries was very strictly controlled and regulated. And Gregorian chant was a crucial element in the formation of children in Catholic schools. In Boston, there was a yearly, grade-appropriate examination on the chant that each kid HAD to pass. They's show you the shape of the notes and you had to name them: punctum, podatus, scandicus, scandicus-declensinus, etc. And you had to be able to sing from the 4 bar staff. I know: I got sent to Catholic school to save me from the public system which was incredibly underfunded. My first public school was dedicated on the same day as Lincoln's inaugural. It still had the gas-light fixtures in the classrooms. (And they still worked!!! And no, I'm not that old.)

So yes, the Catholic educational system (including Sunday Schools) required Gregorian chant, liturgics, catechism, and church history. To this day, I can still chant the commons of the Mass in tone 8 "de Angelis". In Latin, of course.

Blessings!

Thanks for your reminiscences, Dr John. In theory, yes, you're right, that's how it was supposed to be (solemn Mass with chant as the Roman norm everywhere, every week). I have tried to move this discussion to the thread set up to discuss the Roman Rite, "Comparative Liturgics'. My commentary on Joe's remarks is there.

Like me or hate me, Loretta has a point. If you don't like a post, post-er and/or thread, don't read them!

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dan writes:


Dan, your understanding is mistaken, which is why Byzantines should be extremely careful in their criticism. Individuals who have made it clear that they do not accept the Church's policy on EEM have picked up on the English word "extraordinary' and attached that definition to it. It has no other basis. If you look at its use elsewhere in Church life, it includes all sorts of other 'commonplace' practices. Auxilary bishops are 'extraordinary' as a bishop is properly the leader of a local church. Altar boys who are not real acolytes are 'extraordinary'. Reception of the Eucharist only in the form of bread is 'extraordinary'. In fact, the practice of charging tuition at Catholic colleges is 'extraordinary'.

The list goes on. So be very careful at taking the reactionaries and their political agenda at face value.

K.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Kurt,
Thank you for picking up on what I had so obviously missed.
Here in this rather chilly very wet place, today
we are no longer referred to as Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers because, I presume, of the difficulty in remembering what an Ordinary Minister is. We now just have the title of "Eucharistic Minister" as I was reminded when the notification came in for the training evening - the first of 3 for this year. Maybe the title is just a UK 'thing' ?
Angela

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]