www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Ordinariate Disappointment

I'm not in judgment of anybody. These are just facts. Anyway, what you're saying boils down to, of the people who choose to attend the novus ordo, most of 'em don't mind it. It's not much to go on.

The facts are that the Novus Ordo is the approved ordinary form of the liturgy in widespread use in the western rite. The Bishop of Rome uses it on most occasions and so do most bishops of that rite. Bl.Mother Theresa of Calcutta rejoiced in it. The local Roman Catholic church in my town is nearly full at all Masses on Sunday with enthusiastic, actively participating worshipers. Arguably, the preeminent guardians of Gregorian chant in my country, the monks of St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, MA use it. Those are facts, and a lot to go on. The nostalgia of those who pine for the "good old days", they never experienced, will do nothing to change that.

Those good old days never existed. I was a teenager when Vatican II ended, so I remember well the before and after. The old Tridentine liturgy seriously needed reforming, which is exactly what the Council did. Many who long for those good old days were not there, and are in pursuit of an idealized, romanticized church that exists only in their imaginations. I would add that I have no quarrel with people who prefer worshipping in the old liturgy for any number of reasons. It is not, however, superior to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Church. With either liturgy, it may be a case of you get out of it in proportion to the effort you put into it.

Remember Alexandr's convert who left all the religions and created his own because none were "pure" enough to measure up to his standards? He ended up on a mountain top so remote he couldn't be contaminated by the other churches.

Let us break down this logically unsound post.


If we accept the widespread use of this rite as evidence of superiority or the necessary usefulness of the rite for more than the individuals who opt to attend it, or for the good of suppressing other rites, what will be left? Not the Eastern Rites.


This too is evidence of nothing. When Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, reigned, a number of the celebrations over which he presided included at the time elements he had recently or would soon condemn as abuses.

Raymond Lahey, the disgraced and defrocked ex-bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia was an enthusiastic supporter too. What does any of this have to do with the matter at hand?


And Padre Pio wept over it. So?



So is the cinema and the sports arena.


So does Cardinal Mahoney and his pro-abort dancing nuns. Again, evidence of what?



Those are facts. But offer almost nothing to go on.



This is a straw man. If people may not seek holiness and see it where they find it, half the members of this board would still be RC's and Protestants, and not Eastern Christians.

I'll not disagree that reform was necessary, and was even underway before Vatican II.

But this apples to elephants comparison is so incredibly and obviously useless that I can't believe people use it.

It uses the worst of the liturgy then and compares it to the best of the liturgy now.

Why not compare the celebration in an average parish church then with the celebration in an average parish church now.

Often I hear that in the 1960's and before in one or another ethnic group (Italians usually) the men came inside for communion and the consecration only and spent the rest of the Mass outside smoking on the steps of the church. This is held up as evidence of the non-participation of the faithful.

The people who say this seem oblivious to the fact that an even greater proportion of Catholic men don't even approach the steps of the church today.

If the first statement is evidence of anything, the second is too. If the second is not, the first isn't either.

The worst liturgies pre-Vatican II were cut, dried, and over with in 30 minutes. The priests prided themselves on their abilities to outdo each other with the shortest mass. Sermons were non-existent except for major holidays. Music was not what you would find at St. Patrick's, but the worst examples of dying Victorian schmaltz.

Granted, we had an exception, too. At the parish where I work now, and attended in the 1960s, things were and are different. The liturgies were reverent, never rushed, and the music was exceptional. That is the tradition I inherited as Director of Music, and have continued it as best I can. There are 5 NO masses and 1 EF mass each Sunday, with a Spanish mass on Saturday evening. The one mass which qualifies as more of a folk mass - a misnomer, since the music is 70s, not genuine folk - operates a bit more loosely, but is not silly. For us, the celebration in our parish church hasn't changed that much. Wish that were the case elsewhere in town.

Why is this discussion continuing on this forum? It has nothing to do with Eastern Christianity that I can see. The exchanges are becoming increasingly petty and personal. Please let it die or kill it.

As an Eastern Christian, who works for the Latins, I am interested in what they do. However, the Latin Church is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, and it has probably too much influence on our eastern Catholic churches. It's always good to know what is going on with them.

The average liturgy of the Tridentine era in this country was a silent Low Mass, which really was over (as byzanTN has said), in half an hour or less. The priest silently mumbled the prayers of the Mass, the acolyte mumbled the responses he was given, he rang his little bell at the appropriate moment, and in between, the people, on their knees, engrossed themselves in their private devotions--which had in fact become the center of their spiritual life, displacing the Mass from that position of honor. People went because they were told they had to go on pain of mortal sin. They went to receive the Eucharist, which they understood as one private channel of grace between themselves and Christ, rather than as the Sacrament that makes the Church and manifests its true nature. They knew to a nanosecond how late they could come in and how soon they could leave. Their participation was marked both by legalism and minimalism, their understanding of the mysteries best being described as "magical sacramentalism". It was convenient for priests to encourage this view; it was comforting for the people to accept it.

The Church recognized the problem, and set about to fix it, just as it had recognized a problem in 1565 and set about to fix it. I've often said (paraphrasing David Suskind) that every problem began as a solution. The Tridentine Mass arose from the problem of liturgical abuses in the 16th century. The Novus Ordo arose in response to liturgical abuses in the mid-20th century. We now deal with the problems created by the Novus Ordo. Because of the law of unintended consequences, it is usually best to try to patch problems as they occur, rather than to attempt wide-ranging systemic reform. But there are times when you do have to clean out the Augean Stable, and that's what Sacrosanctum concilium tried to do.

Stuart, I appreciate your peeling of history regarding the Roman liturgy, appreciated thanks.

I only have more elder folk who were able to tell of the old days, pre-Vatican II; and the use of Latin, throughout. Growing up in the 90s, and 2000s I've seen only the evolution of the more solemn cantor-led masses, to the more fellowship-style, concert-like masses.

Your continuing discussion of what was really past, motivates me greatly to figure out what happened along history's path, as to why the Roman rite changed the way it did (one example would be the change in the sign of the cross).

I opined about the comparison of speaking Latin and use of an iconostasis - I'm still curious to hear if any Byzantine Christians agree and if I'm missing something.

Insofar as it touches on this (odd, to me) comparison or the merits of liturgy in the vernacular in general (which is an Eastern norm) I think the discussion makes sense.

But there are indeed other venues for the NO/Tridentine thing.

I hear 10x more about the Tridentine Mass from former Roman Catholics in Eastern churches than I do current RCs, including the one I married.

Not to be morbid, but once the current generation of V2 refugees have reposed, I don't think it'll be as hot of a topic anymore.

Very few Orthodox or Greek Catholics would see the iconostasis as a barrier preventing either their participation in the Liturgy or interfering with their understanding of what is being said. On the other hand, most would probably say that exclusive reliance on the traditional Liturgical languages of Greek, Slavonic and Arabic would. Even in Greece and Russia, liturgical Greek and Old Slavonic are largely incomprehensible to the average Greek or Russian, which is why there is so much pressure on those Churches to transition to the vernacular. Liturgical Arabic is comprehensible to most Arab-speakers, but then, the switch from Greek to Arabic was considered to be vernacularism.

The problem in the Latin Church is neither Latinism or vernacularism, but exclusivism of their respective partisans.

As regards styles of iconostasis, different strokes for different folks. Throughout Europe you will find very different forms, from low and rather open, to the full,, multi-story, floor to ceiling type favored by the Russians. And you will find this diversity in churches built hundreds of years ago, as well as those built today.

[quote=StuartK]Very few Orthodox or Greek Catholics would see the iconostasis as a barrier preventing either their participation in the Liturgy or interfering with their understanding of what is being said. On the other hand, most would probably say that exclusive reliance on the traditional Liturgical languages of Greek, Slavonic and Arabic would. Even in Greece and Russia, liturgical Greek and Old Slavonic are largely incomprehensible to the average Greek or Russian, which is why there is so much pressure on those Churches to transition to the vernacular. Liturgical Arabic is comprehensible to most Arab-speakers, but then, the switch from Greek to Arabic was considered to be vernacularism.

The problem in the Latin Church is neither Latinism or vernacularism, but exclusivism of their respective partisans.

As regards styles of iconostasis, different strokes for different folks. Throughout Europe you will find very different forms, from low and rather open, to the full,, multi-story, floor to ceiling type favored by the Russians. And you will find this diversity in churches built hundreds of years ago, as well as those built today.[/quote]

Do you mind on elaborating on what is meant by the exclusivism of their respective partisans? Thanks, in advance.

I think the EWTN Masses do a good combination of English/Latin. They use Latin for the older Traditional prayers, and ones that are poorly translated into English - that the faithful can easily learn - Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc. But use English the majority of the time.

In Eastern Churches, it is not unusual to celebrate the liturgy in several languages during one service. The people go back and forth among them quite easily. This is an "inclusivist" approach to vernacularism.

In the Latin Church, however, partisans of vernacularism want all use of Latin banned, the accursed language expelled into the outer darkness. On the other side, Latin traditionalists seem to believe that all of the problems facing the Church could be cured if only the Church would celebrate the Mass, in Latin (just as St. Peter did in Rome). That's an exclusivist position--"my way or the highway"--with little middle ground on which the two sides can agree.