|
0 members (),
589
guests, and
45
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,419
Posts416,918
Members6,049
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
I note that a Wiki user, unidentified except by IP, has deleted all but the first sentence of the quoted wikipedia text with the notation "(Deleted unsupported, inflammatory remarks on the revised divine liturgy.)" I find it rather coincidental that this paragraph was deleted after it was posted here. I agree with Fr Anthony that the wikipedia articles can often lack a degree of accuracy. However, I believe this particular statement, (which has been deleted), is fairly accurate: With this promulgation Metropolitan Basil (Schott) has the distinction of being the first Catholic bishop to win Vatican approval for the use of so-called "inclusive language" in liturgical texts (better known as gender neutral language).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 648
Orthodox domilsean Member
|
|
Orthodox domilsean Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 648 |
Good Wikipedia articles exist, and they are often heavily annotated. The RDL could be criticized for sure on Wikipedia, but you should have to substantiate your claim with references. You know, "Scholarship", something most people these days seem to have a bit of trouble with. As if Opinion matters: you know what they say about opinions, they're like.... well, you know what they say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
I saw an article that said at least concerning science articles, Wikipedia is more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The information was added by an Oregonian and removed by a Montanan. Considering the emotionally charged wording of the commentary, I would suspect it wasn't the Wikipedia editorial staff who removed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
it is "for us and for our salvation," that Christ died on the Cross, and that we "commemorate" or "remember" this salvation in our worship. I think a false conclusion has been drawn from the Cardinal's meditation, that "Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful." If this is true, the Liturgy is useless for both God and "men." John's approach would lead to a false obscurantism, in which the prayers designed to aid us to remember God's transcendent love for us are muffled. Of course, the Liturgy is meant for the faithful, so that the non-baptized and non-communicants were dismissed before the mystery. Oh please...drop words from the Liturgy and Creed and complain about false conclusions false obscurantism and prayers being muffled. Let's look at the real facts! The jury is still on who is making the false claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,732 Likes: 24
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,732 Likes: 24 |
Pace Cardinal Ratzinger, the Liturgy is not for the salvation of God, who has no need of our sacrifices, it is "for us and for our salvation," that Christ died on the Cross, and that we "commemorate" or "remember" this salvation in our worship. I think a false conclusion has been drawn from the Cardinal's meditation, that "Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful." If this is true, the Liturgy is useless for both God and "men." John's approach would lead to a false obscurantism, in which the prayers designed to aid us to remember God's transcendent love for us are muffled. Of course, the Liturgy is meant for the faithful, so that the non-baptized and non-communicants were dismissed before the mystery. I thank Father David for his post, even as I disagree with what he has written. Regarding the content of his post that states �the Liturgy is not for the salvation of God� I can only ask him to explain his comments further if he wishes a response since I have never suggested that God is need of salvation. Father David makes a conclusion that I do not make and then calls it false. To quote my earlier post, it is very true that Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful, for their understanding and instruction. Byzantine Liturgy is about worship of God. Again, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hit it perfectly when he stated: Put in a different way, the Byzantine liturgy was not a way of teaching doctrine and was not intended to be. It was not a display of the Christian faith in a way acceptable or attractive to onlookers. What impressed onlookers about the liturgy was precisely its utter lack of an ulterior purpose, the fact that it was celebrated for God and not for spectators, that its sole intent was to be before God and for God "euarestos euprosdektos" (Romans 12:1; 15:16): pleasing and acceptable to God, as the sacrifice of Abel had been pleasing to God. Precisely this "disinterest" of standing before God and of looking toward Him was what caused a divine light to descend on what was happening and caused that divine light to be perceptible even to onlookers. (Eutopia Magazine, Catholic University of America, Vol. 3 No. 4: May/June 1999) What impressed the onlookers was that the Liturgy was not designed to teach �book knowledge� but was, rather, all about worshipping God. Yes, there is an element of �book knowledge� type of catechesis in the Liturgy. But the primary and most important catechesis comes from participation in the Divine Light. It is that sensing of the Divine Light descending upon the celebration that is attractive to both worshippers and onlookers. It is participation in this Divine Light that provides a catechesis that is exponentially beyond the elements of �book knowledge� that comes from hearing the texts and readings. The problem with the Pittsburgh reform (and all reform, East and West that is based upon the 1970s post-Vatican II Latin approach to Liturgy) is that it reorients the focus of the Liturgy from worshipping God to educating man (with the �book knowledge� type of education being emphasized at the expense of the type of catechesis that comes with participation in the Divine Light). Again, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hit it perfectly when he stated: In many circles of liturgists, this has led, in a truly excessive way, to making the instructive element in the liturgy, the effort to make it understandable even for outsiders, the primary criterion of the liturgical form. The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach. In this view, the liturgy is an instrument for the construction of a community, a method of "socialization" among Christians. Where this is so, perhaps God is still spoken of, but God in reality has no role; it is a matter only of meeting people and their needs halfway and of making them contented. But precisely this approach ensures that no faith is fostered, for the faith has to do with God, and only where His nearness is made present, only where human aims are set aside in favor of the reverential respect due to Him, only there is born that credibility which prepares the way for faith.� (Eutopia Magazine, Catholic University of America, Vol. 3 No. 4: May/June 1999) Another point arises here. It was not my intention to get into a litany of the specific problems of the present Pittsburgh reform, but the opportunity to tie things together can�t be passed up. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states that: �Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach. In this view, the liturgy is an instrument for the construction of a community, a method of "socialization" among Christians.�Let�s touch on the �weariness� spoken of by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as this �weariness� is already quite evident in the parishes that have followed the �Passaic Rubrics� for the past ten years, which mandates that parts of the Anaphora (and other prayers) be prayed aloud. I daresay that some priests pray these prayers in a way that precludes the descent of the Divine Light, either by rushing through them at a speed so fast to make them unintelligible or by taking them and making the priest�s style of praying them the focus of the gathered Church�s attention (rather than the offering itself) (both are forms of clericalism). Both clergy and people instinctively reject this change in focus with the new rubrics that makes the Anaphora more about man that about God. Many (even most) cannot put it into words but they certainly sense the shift from participation in the Divine Light; which is why they are overwhelmingly rejecting the Revised Liturgy. More quotes: Spirit of the Liturgy, (Ratziner), pages 174-175
�[P]articipation in the Liturgy of the Word (reading, singing) is to be distinguished from the sacramental celebration proper. We should be clearly aware that external actions are quite secondary here. Doing really must stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the oratio . It must be plainly evident that the oratio is the heart of the matter, but that is important precisely because it provides a space for the actio of God. Anyone who grasps this will easily see that it is not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together towards the Lord and going out to meet Him. The almost theatrical entrance of different players into the liturgy, which is so common today, especially during the Preparation of the Gifts, quite simply misses the point. If the various external actions (as a matter of fact, there are not many of them, though they are being artificially multiplied) become the essential in the liturgy, if the liturgy degenerates into general activity, then we have radically misunderstood the �theo-drama� of the liturgy and lapsed almost into parody. True liturgical education cannot consist in learning and experimenting with external activities. Instead one must be led toward the essential actio that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the power of God, who wants, through what happens in the liturgy, to transform us and the world.� If one applies the principle here, the mandate to pray prayers aloud that have fallen silent (especially the prayers of the Anaphora) reduces (greatly) the ability of the Liturgy �to transform us and the world�. It seems to me that the mandatory praying aloud of these prayers (an external action) in the attempt to teach people by their listening to them is a misunderstanding of the �theo-drama� of the liturgy. Making the hearing of the words to be more important than the actio of the priest detracts from participation in the Divine Light. Now, consider this: Spirit of the Liturgy, (Ratziner), pages 214-215:
�In 1978, to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud. After much consideration, I should like to repeat and underline the point here in the hope that, twenty years later, this thesis will be better understood. Meanwhile, in their efforts to reform the Missal, the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. Since the reform of the liturgy, an attempt has been made to meet the crisis by incessantly inventing new Eucharistic Prayers, and in the process we have sunk further and farther into banality. Multiplying words is no help � that is all too evident. The liturgists have suggested all kind of remedies, which certainly contain elements that are worthy of consideration. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.� The point here is that the Pittsburgh reform imitates the current Latin custom; a custom that the Latins have admitted that there are problems with; and that the Latins are now considering that perhaps the quiet praying of the Anaphora is best. Why do we need to mandate a Latin custom that the Latins admit to having problems with? It seems that the position I have argued from the beginning is the only logical one. Ditch the mandate to prayer these prayers out loud. Set the soil so that the Spirit might lead. He may lead the Church to this exact custom in His own time (and for the entire Byzantine Church). Or He may lead the Church somewhere else. This post is a bit longish � there is so much that can be said (and I have just touched on one of the problems as a key to understanding the problem with the 1970s Latin mentality of reform that has been used to create the RDL). For now I will again recommend that readers consider each of the changes mandated in the reform in light of what the Latin Church has done in experimentation; and how they are now seeing that that experimentation has not been successful and has only brought on a new set of problems. As a closing note I will speak to Father David�s charge of �false obscurantism�. Reorienting the Divine Liturgy so that it is less about participation in the Divine Light and more about educating man is the real opposition to the spread of knowledge. That is exactly what requiring the Anaphora to be prayed aloud does, and what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has spoken to so clearly. The real obscurantism here is this reform. It places the Liturgy firmly in the post-Vatican II 1970s, and that mindset is more about man and educating him (book knowledge) then it is about worshiping God and allowing the education to come from participation in the Divine Light. Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have seen the problems with 1970s liturgical principles of reform and have moved on. -- Let me restate what I have written concisely. Liturgy is not like being at school in a classroom. Liturgy is more like being at play in the Father�s house (and the slow to change structure of the Byzantine Liturgy gives this freedom to be at play). The catechesis that we experience at Liturgy (prayer is the highest form of catechesis) does not come from the instructive value of the texts of the Divine Liturgy. It comes from spending time in the house of the Father. A moment in His Divine Presence � a glimpse of that Divine Light � can teach us more then is contained in all the books in the world. This reform destroys this quality of the Byzantine Liturgy by making the Liturgy less about spending time with the Father and more about being instructed in a classroom. That is why it has already failed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, Dacre Press, London, 1960 (excerpted) 2 2 Eph. i. 6. Cited in "The Diaconate In The Orthodox Church" By Fr. Deacon Photios Touloumes The corporate eucharistic action as a whole (which includes communion) is regarded as the very essence of the life of the Church, and through that of the individual Christian soul. In this corporate action alone each Christian can fulfil the �appointed liturgy� of his order�his function�and so fulfil his redeemed being as a member of Christ.... Whereas in the pagan rites men attend �not to learn something but to experience something,� the Christian eucharist is the reverse of all this. The Christian comes to the eucharist not �to learn something�, for faith is presupposed, nor to seek a psychological thrill. He comes simply to do something, which he understands as an overwhelming personal duty. It is in the doing of the eucharistic service (his prayers and prosphoral offerings), that he expresses his intense belief that in the eucharistic action of the Body of Christ, as in no other way, he himself takes a part in that act of sacrificial obedience to the will of God which was consummated on Calvary and which had redeemed the world, including himself. What brings him is the conviction that there rests on each of the redeemed an absolute necessity to take his own part in the self-offering of Christ, a necessity more binding even than the instinct of self-preservation. Simply as members of Christ�s Body, the Church, all Christians must do this, and they can do it in no other way than that which was the last command of Jesus to His own. That rule of the absolute obligation to be present at Sunday liturgy was burned into the corporate mind of historic Christendom. It expresses as nothing else can the whole New Testament doctrine of redemption; of Jesus, God and Man, as the only Saviour of mankind, Who intends to draw all men unto Him by His sacrificial and atoning death; and of the Church as the communion of redeemed sinners, the Body of Christ, corporately invested with His own mission of salvation to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 28 |
I find it quite sad that our fathers worked so diligently to preserve the Faith, eventually finding sanctuary in the great land of "religious freedom", only to have secular values succeed where the greatest persecution could not.
-Uspenije.
|
|
|
|
|
