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

Dear Fr. Diakon,

Yes, you are right!

But that didn't prevent the spirit of that nonsense from continuing - even among some of our Basilians . . .

FYI, I did the akathist rule over the weekend - it was very nice . . . thank you!

Alex

Paul,

Did you have a chance to visit St. John Cantius yet? Apparently it's awesome; they have tons of other services such as novenas, benediction, vespers and matins - that goes along with the new and old Mass.

Logos Teen

Fr. Deacon Ed,

I respect what you said about this forum being perhaps not the proper venue.

The subject of Vatican II and the changes emanating there from are enormous particularly to many forum members here, many of whom attend a RC church.

Perhaps, you should hand the ball off to East & West, if you feel this subject is technically inappropriate for your forum?

It is the most important subject in my opinion in the church today. I am 65y/o and lived through it. I suspect many here did not know what the church was like at the time of the council because they are much younger that this old man. Briefly it was wonderful, respectful and all good things. People actually went to church, supported their pastor, attended Mass, went to confession on Saturdays, didn�t get divorced. That is actually the way it was when I was a child, circa 1940 1965. Then literally all hell broke loose.

For my spirityal surval and my family's,I just had to be an EC because I knew a revolution was going on with the Devil in charge of the revolution. It was the natural outlet to escape schism and sacrilege. Very few RC's took opportunity of the Eastern Rite.

And the EC, Latin Church and Orthodox and perhaps even the Anglo Catholic have a say someplace on this Byzantine Forum.

I feel a lot of regular posters want to stay from this awful subject and focus on more less controvercial matters.

I would like to hear from you, Fr. Deacon Ed, some of the liturgical changes that you referred to that were contemplated long before Vatican II. Please educate me.

What about �Quo Primum�?

RC's should think and pray hard and long about the efficacy of the sacraments they are receiving. This is why the subject of Vatican II is important. I could not attend this liturgy in good conscience.

Jim

IMHO, the greatest recruiting tool for the Orthodox Churches in the US is the Novus Ordo Mass. Number one reason for conversions to the OC. Heck the OC didn't even create it!!!! I am 41 and feel fortunate to attend the TLM. I consider it my first and primary spiritual home. The Ukie DL is, if you will, a different and close second.

NO word from Rome on normalizing relations with SSPX or other traditionalists.

Many of us already do attend the
Eastern Churches..........


antonius

and I'm one of them..........

antonius

Have you not ever head of Ecclesia Dei by the late Holy Father John Paul II? He created two separate religious orders which celebrate only the 1962 Roman Mass in parishes, the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of St. Peter. And there are several monastic communities which offer the Traditional Latim Mass daily.

There are over 30 dioceses in North America now where the Traditional Latin Mass is offered in a canonically regular situation within those dioceses, either by indult with a diocesan priest or by one of the TLM religious orders.

In Kansas City, MO Bishop Robert Finn recently announced not only was he inviting in the Institute of Christ the King but was giving the Latin Mass communuty their own church for a full-time TLM parish.

Have you written your bishop requesting the TLM? Have others?

And about your statement that the NO being a"recruiting tool" for the Orthodox- at no, repeat none, official joint theological dialogue between the Roman and Orthodox Churches has the question about the validity or use of the NO come up as an impediment.

Good, because the topic has long since departed from any question that has a direct bearing on the Byzantine Churches.

While it may be "popular" it deals with the Latin Church and not the Byzantine Churches.

That's a good suggestion. Perhaps those who wish to continue this thread would be so kind as to take it there.

I, too, grew up un the pre-Vatican II Church. You have also fallen into the philosophical error of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" -- that is, because B happened after A then A must have caused B. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problems we see in the United States were already in place in Europe and is part of the reason Pope John XXIII called the council in the first place. And, no, things were not always rosy. I remember serving low Masses that took 15 minutes. I remember being at Masses later on Sunday mornings where only the priest and altar servers went to communion. No, things were not "better" -- there was a veneer of religiousity that did not permeate into the soul. The fact that it was a veneer is evidenced by the turmoil that followed Vatican II.

And most Easterners are fortunate because many RCs came over and immediately started demanding that the Eastern Catholics do Benediction, have Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, public recitation of the rosary, Novenas to Our Lady of Perpetual Help and more. I'm glad you are being fed, but I hope you are respecting the tradtion of the parish you joined, that you are supporting that parish with time, talent and treasure. That you are conforming your life to the Eastern way of life, including the fasts.

As long as what they are discussing relates to the Byzantine tradtion.

Since the topic deals with the internal workings of the Latin Church they really should restrain themselves here. On the other hand, as a warning to the Byzantine Church about what could happen, some discussion is appropriate.

Wewll, let's see, the use of the vernacular had been discussed as early as the evangelization of China (they actually had permission to translate the Mass into Chinese in the 16th century), the use of a dialog Mass (which was introduced in the late 50s), the elimination of redundancies (going from three to one confetior, for example), the restoration of the offertory procession (which had been truncated to the altar servings bringing a cruet of wine and a cruet of water to the priest). This is neither the time nor the place to go into great detail.

What about it? It's a disciplinary document that has been obviated by the release of the Mass of Paul VI.

Fine, that's a personal conviction. It has nothing to do with the Byzantine Church or this forum.

Fr. Deacon Edward

I have read several books and magazine articles written during the late '50's and early '60's about the then-upcoming reform to the Latin Rite Liturgy. Interestingly enough, almost all of those pushing for the reform wanted the revised Liturgy to be closer in style and language to the Byzantine Liturgy!

Obviously that didn't quite work out - but perhaps after another generation or so, when passions have cooled and inflamed rhetoric has ceased, the TRUE reform so many Catholics prayed for will finally come about. Not in our lifetime, probably, but in our children's or grandchildren's.

Actually, as one who has been actively involved (and sometimes less actively, but still aware nonetheless) in the classical Roman liturgy movement (aka Tridentine rite) I am only too painfully aware of the attitude you are talking about.

It still exists, only now those attitudes have shifted away from the East and onto the traditional West. Of course, the Holy See doesn't desire this, but many bishops take this approach, and certainly a great number of parish priests, religious and professional laity who work in the parishes. Their irrational spite and hatred for it can only be called self-hatred of Catholicism.

In the day you are speaking of, there really wasn't the same distinction of "traditional Latins", rather it would be just "Latins" generally. Nowadays you have Latins who are traditional, Tridentine rite or modern rite, or Anglican Use, etc., who find themselves pitted against those who would make the liturgy into some kind of side-show and make optional Catholic doctrine and morality. i.e. Dissenters.

That's ultimately my point. You'll find your allies in what I defining above as "traditional Latins" and not in the dissenters who currently have shifted their attention to the traditional Western rites and traditions -- let alone the universal deposit of Faith.

Dear Shawn,

The allies you talk about are definitely there.

They've become our allies because they too have become a persecuted minority!

I think we better pay fine attention to Fr. Deacon Ed . . .

He sounds a bit put off, and I can't imagine him like that.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Put off? No, not at all. Just concerned that this thread is getting dangerously close to bashing the Latin Church -- something that our dear Adminsitrator has told us is prohibited. Further, discussion of Latin liturgical praxis is not of direct concern to the theme of this board. As I said, in regard to us in the reform of our own Liturgies there is a definite caution here that should be considered. Beyond that, however, it does not seem to address issues that are of concern to the Byzantine Churches.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

Thank you for reminding us all that we should not bash the Latin Church!

And thank you for also reminding us that there still IS liturgical praxis in that Church too . . .

O.K., back to work . . .

Way too much time on my hands today . . .

Alex

To all concerned,
I have a great respect and admiration for the Roman Catholic Church and wouldn't dream of starting a thread to bash it. I just had some "why" questions that I was hoping to get answered quickly and concisely.
Please forgive me if I was out of line on this.

Paul,

You might have missed my question before; but did you ever get a chance to attend any services at St. John Cantius?

Logos Teen