www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vatican II

Dear Logos Teen,

I've always felt that sensible Roman Catholics who don't like the Novus Ordo join the Eastern Catholic Churches . . .

The sensible ones, that is . . .

Alex

Well, we do pray for "those who travel by sea, AIR, and land." I cannot imagine that being the normal formulation back in the days of St. John...

Well, that is true. One of the beautiful things about Catholicism is that it comes in multiple flavors and really more people ought to sample them all ... wow, it's actually kinda, well, "catholic!" Not all the flavors are Roman.

I've been mystified by the stark difference in attitude when I attend a RC Mass as opposed to a Greek Orthodox service.
I don't know what to attribute it to. I thought maybe it was something that emerged from the Vatican II Council or was part of the Novus Ordo itself. Perhaps it is just a matter of the congregation being taught differently.
I haven't been to a Byzantine Catholic Mass but I am interested. Not so much for me but for my son. We recently baptized him in the RCC (my wife is Catholic) but since then I have had serious concerns.
The closest BC church to us that I know of is a Ukrainian church. Neither my wife nor I are Ukrainian. I don't know if it's better to bring my son into the Orthodox Church or to keep looking for a more "traditional" Catholic church, whether that means a Latin Rite RCC or a BCC.
If I'm overreacting please tell me. I look forward to other thoughts on this as well.
God bless.

Dear Paul:

I know you are Orthodox but have you attended Mass at St. John Cantius? If not, it might partly provide you and your family with an answer.

What this parish is all about, Mass schedules (Novus Ordo in Latin, in the vernacular, and TLM) and the directions are here:

http://www.cantius.org/HomePage.htm

I hope the Church is easily accessible from your home.

Amado

There have been a number of changes to the Divine Liturgy as well. There are interesting admixtures of the Liturgy as it was celebrated in a monastery and the Liturgy for the people -- resulting in duplications of portions of the Liturgy. Of course, over the years some of those duplications disappeared.

There was a loud discussion here over proposed changes to the Liturgy in the Ruthenian Church, and the Melkites have made changes as well. Yes, it will continue to evolve, but much more slowly as befits a Liturgy of such great age and beauty.

Well, it's an attempt to glue together what might have been. Parts of the ancient liturgies were restored, parts of the Tridentine Mass were kept, new stuff was added. So, in a sense it's "organic" in that most of what is there has ancient and valid roots. The composite, however, is an inventio.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Heya byzcath just passing through saw this lovely little thread and thought I'd say 'hi'

I've learnt a lot reading through the posts here and naturally I have opinions about a lot of them. Still, I'm going to follow the current tangent that this thread has taken and make my points on the subject of the Latin Church's liturgy.

It seems that many people have strong opinions on the Mass of the 1970 Missal, particularly whether or not it represents organic development? I think though that this debate is not entirely relevant to the current discussion. Dont get me wrong it interests me intensely, intensely enough to eat up every word Benedict XVI wrote in "Spirit of the Liturgy". However, I've been wondering lately if organic development is essential?

As we have been reminded Trent, seeking to ensure liturgical purity, outlawed all Western rites that were younger than 200 years old. This in turn led to the liturgy of the city of Rome becoming the rite of the occident. However, those younger rites that dissapeared were still legitimately part of the family of Roman rites together with the 'Tridentine' rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Sarum and so on and so forth.

I believe that, in some sense, the question of whether or not the Pauline Mass represents organic development with the Tridentine is redundant given that it is a legitimate member of the ritual family of Rome. Perhaps a mistaken desire for centralisation has obscured the fact that the Pauline Mass doesnt actually, technically, need to be organically developed from the ancient ritual of the Roman city?

Personally, I'd like to see a little more continuity between the Mass of the 1970 Missal and that of the 1962 Missal. Yet, if we want to call the Pauline Mass a 'new' rite and a 'new order' we would have to admit that its not the first time the occident has experienced the creation of new liturgies. Granted, its never been this widespread but its not without remote precedent. During the Carolingian era there was much rapid alteration in liturgical matters, for instance, and indeed the Tridentine era can also be used comparitively.

I'm not the biggest fan of the modernist cleric who decides to ad lib his way through the Mass od the current Missal. It depresses me. However, I must admit I like the new Mass when its done correctly. I'd love it to have a few tune ups in certain places but since I dont think thats likely I think we have to make do and try our best to celebrate it as reverently as possible e.g. versus eschatological east.

Myles,

Good to see you back. I hope you plan on staying a while .

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Myles,
Welcome back! You do write very nicely.
Pyrohy-who writes sometimes at a colonial accredited University Level

Dear Alex,

You said:

Let's make a distinction.

There are some who do as you say -- which is not good.

There are others whose preservation of tradition is not because they want to hang onto some kind of Roman imperialism over the East, nor because they do not want to engage the modern world, but because they want to balance that engagement with the modern world (engagement not as compromise, but as formation and conversion of it, using that from it which helps advance the Gospel), that brotherhood with the Christian East, while holding onto the goodly and ancient Roman traditions and working against the dissent and heresy that is rampant amongst some in the confines of the Roman Church.

Think of this way. It's similiar to Eastern Catholics who retain communion with Rome, but wish to rightly assert/re-assert their Eastern Christian heritage, customs, etc. in the face of the Latinizations of the past.

There are many of those who hold onto the Latin tradition who are doing the same, though not in the face of some equivalent to Latinizations, but in the face of ideologies, philosophies and theologies that neither the Latin nor the Eastern could ever accept.

The dissenters in the Latin church may say nothing now, but trust me, they will eventually want to persecute the East just as they do faithful Latin Catholics now (whether they sit in the pew of a Tridentine rite Mass or of a Pauline liturgy). They would glory in a similar revolution in the East, they only don't agitate for it now because it is not in their face, but eventually it may happen because they are ideologues, and ultimately ideologues know no borders and seek to dominate.

In that sense, what we might call "traditional" Catholics (I prefer to say faithful, or orthodox, Latin Catholics, because "traditional" is usually made synonymous with Tridentine, but faithful, genuinely traditional Catholics reside in both the Tridentine circles and the more mainstream Roman circles) are truly the allies of the Christian East. Why? Because the truly traditional, faithful Latin rite Catholics, Tridentine or Pauline, seek the genuine letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council; they accept its documents and decrees, they glory in the approach to the East and glory in the "multiple treasures of Catholicism" that this represents. These are people open to traditions, Tradition, legitimate liturgical and theological diversity rooted in the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

These are your allies. These are the people who, for example, may promote the classical Roman liturgy, and talk glowingly of the Christian East in doing so. I can guarantee you that if the dissenting project where attempted to be pushed on the Eastern Churches, these would be the people who would cry "foul" and who would stand beside you and for you.

Paul,

Come on over to the New Liturgical Movement weblog I host (http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com) where we have lots of discussion and resources listed about questions like these. I'd recommend you look at our reading list in the sidebar and focus on the books of Ratzinger.

Hi Myles,

There's a few angles by which we can take a look at this question (and I'm thinking just off the top of my head, so I haven't had a lot of time to mull over these myself, but I'll throw them out nonetheless)

1) Vatican II did call for an organic reform -- so there is the matter of following what a Council actually called for.

2) Is the reform organic? We know authorities as high as Ratzinger, and other, effectively say "no it wasn't" and declare that to be a problem and a break. To me that is a big deal.

3) Pastorally, we see the results of the non-organic reform, which caused many to abandon the practise of their Faith, feeling it was no longer their Faith, some adopted a spirit of anti-tradition and took this spirit to their approach even to basic matters of doctrine and morality, and finally, it sent others, including an archbishops with priests and seminarians into a schism that persists to this day. Is there a necessary link? Hard to say for certain, but certainly worth pondering.

4) There's the whole aspect of tradition, and its importance in both ecclesial life and psychologically to our human nature. Continuity, connectedness and grouding with not only the here and now, but also with the past, with something more timeless and absolute. Stability in short.

5) I think, whatever blips we might find in organic development, there seems to be an overriding principle of it being the rule in the Church.

6) There's also the practical problem of the danger of non-organic liturgy being something that becomes contrived, time-bound to particular sentiments or theories of the time or committee creating it. There are dangers associated with that from a fallen human nature perspective. Not suggesting this is a matter of necessity, but a danger at any rate.

7) It seems to contradict the Church's principle that we are not masters of the liturgy, but rather we receive it and take care of it and nurture it. The Church to an extent even declares this about herself (and not just individuals priests, people, etc.) in the catechism.

I'm not suggesting that non-organic reform is evil or sinful. But the question is one of first principles, one of pastoral and prudential considerations, and one of tradition at very least. In the case of the particular question of Vatican II, it also becomes a question of adherence to the Council and its mandate.

Shawn,
Thank you for the information. I have saved the website link as one of my "favorites" so I can refer to it more easily.

Amadeus,
Thank you too for the information! The church of St. John Cantius is not far from where we live and I will certainly check it out.

This morning I was fortunate enough to be out in the southwest suburbs and I visited the Annunciation Byzantine Catholic church in Homer Glen, IL. What a glorious church! Unfortunately it is a good hour plus drive from my home but it appears to incorporate the best of East and West.

I hope I'm not being too particular but does anyone know of a church in Chicago that celebrates a traditional Mass in Spanish?

Dear Shawn,

Certainly, there are traditional Latin Catholics today who are our allies.

But, historically, the traditional Latins have tended to see not only their Church, but their Rite, as the only really legitimate (or "true") one and the Eastern Churches (or "Rites" rather) as a close approximation etc.

We know our traditional Latin Church friends from the past.

They denied us our traditions and made every effort to Latinize us into behaving like "true Catholics."

You'd have to walk a few weeks in our Byzantine shoes to appreciate any of this, however . . .

Alex

Alex, that mindset has a name, which is praestantia ritus Latini, and that was denounced by Leo XIII and several of his successors, most notably, repeatedly, and loudly by the late Holy Father JPII.