www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology moderator please allow me a little room here.

JMJ

I would like to begin with this humble request of the moderators.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Tridentine Vs. the Novus Ordo forms of the Mass. The reason I am posting this on the Byzantine Catholic forum, is for the simple reason that there are several Latin Rite Catholics who feel pulled to the Eastern Liturgies because of a lack of certain things, awe and reverence come to mind, in most Novus Ordo Liturgies.

The Tridentine form of the Mass for the Latin Rite is the Traditional form of the Liturgy for that same Rite. If you are thinking of becoming Eastern Catholic due to a dissapointment found in the Novus Ordo Mass, I suggest that you go to a local Tridentine Mass. You might just find what your looking for.

If you live in South East Kansas, and are interested in starting a Tridentine Mission or have any questions about the Tridentine Mass, feel free to e-mail me:

joe_zollars@hotmail.com

Dominus Vobiscum,
Joe Zollars

Joe,

I have no idea if the moderator will cut you some slack but....

I think the Tridentine is simply superior to the Mass of the 1969/1970 Roman Missal. It's not the use of Latin in itself, although as a medieval historian, I must say I enjoy that very much. The old Mass simply has a built-in beauty and reverence that the new Mass does not. I think it is also clear that the new Mass is not as doctrinally clear as the old one, although I have never doubted the validity of the consecration as many so-called Latin Mass Traditionalists have. I think that there are many fascinating parallels between the old Mass and the Eastern liturgies. Perhaps the moderator will allow you to start a thread, or continue this thread, if you look into those parallels since most of the people on this list are, of course, very supportive of traditional liturgies. What I would like to know is what do devout Byzantines think of the new Roman Rite liturgy? And if I could be something of a snob for a moment I hope that those who were raised in the Byzantine and other Eastern Rites would also respond -- not just those who left the Roman Rite precisely because, or in part because, they found fault with the new Mass. Thanks.

Also Joe, the FSSP will supposedly have a second priest in Kansas City, KS this Fall. Our poor, benighted pastor misses France too much, and would like to return home in a year. I can't blame him! Either way there will be three FSSP priests in this diocese. Maybe some of that wealth will trickle down your way. And remember all those good things happening in Tulsa, OK!

Et Cum Spiritu tuo!

You raise a good point which I believe Eastern Catholics can agree with. I'm sure alot of fed-up Roman Catholics look to the East not to embrace its Tradition, but to find a refuge. In my time here I have learned that that is not a good reason to switch Churches. Most, if not all, Byzantine Catholics will tell you the same thing. If you are running away, turn around and run back. If you truly want to embrace the Eastern way, then by all means, do so.

Columcille

Vladimir,

I know anther traditionalist from an e-mail list I belong to, ctngreg, that also lives in Lawrance, KS. I was wondering if you are the same person?

Joe Zollars

Dear Forum,

On almost the same note (i.e.regarding the Novus Ordo and the Eastern Liturgy) I have a quick question for those on this thread.

I believe it is almost two years now but what do people think about the changes in the Slovak Byzantine Liturgy. The words of institution (for the consecration of the wine to the Blood of Our Lord) traditionally read

.....WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.

The word MANY has been changed to ALL (during a Divine Liturgy in Slovak or Old Slavonic).

I know some priests who have refused to listen to their bishop (Bishop Jan Hirka) and continue using the traditional form due to doctrinal reasons. Will this become a trend in other Byz. Catholic jurisdictions - i.e. changes in the words of institution?

Now this change can be found in the Novus Ordo as well. What do the Orthodox members of this forum think of this. Instead of pushing towards the Orthodox Church and her Liturgy, is this not really pulling away? (Note I also realize the doctrinal issues of the Epiklesis may play a role in the answer of an Orthodox forum member) I am also interested in the Orthodox response towards the New Mass vs. the Tridentine Mass. Can the Orthodox really live with the New Mass if Reunion with the Catholic Church would ever occur?


sincerely


Kristoff

There is Tridentine Mass in Wichita Kansas. They offer it every other Sundays (I believe 2nd and 4th Sundays of each month) at St. Anthony's Church.

I used to go there a lot, but I can't embrace the Latin Liturgy. I can read and speak Latin just fine and can follow Mass. But it still goes over my head.

I left the Church twice...because of my frustration in their Spirituality...since there was no Byzantine Church at the time. I go to the Orthodox Church here and still do. But now we have a Byzantine Catholic Mission here. Thank God! I AM HOME!!! That was the reason I went back to the Church.

I have nothing against Tridentine Mass, but it doesn't appeal to me. It's a polar opposite of Byzantine Church.

spdundas

(In Slovakia under Bishop Jan Hirka) The word MANY has been changed to ALL (during a Divine Liturgy in Slovak or Old Slavonic).

I�m very sorry to hear that.

Now this change can be found in the Novus Ordo as well. What do the Orthodox members of this forum think of this.

It�s bad. I won�t say that a priest who really believes in the Eucharistic sacrifice and Real Presence and who uses this wrong wording (out of obedience or ignorance) is praying in vain (no grace) but it is a very bad mistake.

Instead of pushing towards the Orthodox Church and her Liturgy, is this not really pulling away?

It sure is.

I am also interested in the Orthodox response towards the New Mass vs. the Tridentine Mass.

The epiklesis and the presence of a deacon now and then are supposed to make the New Mass more Orthodox-friendly, say the theologians, but I don�t buy it. The parallels between traditional Roman (including Tridentine) and Byzantine are obvious: the objective, Godward orientation. Plus the epiklesis-less Roman canon is ancient, perhaps even older than the Byzantine Eucharistic prayers.

Can the Orthodox really live with the New Mass if reunion with the Catholic Church would ever occur?

As it is, in practice, no.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 06-06-2001).]

Dear Friends,

My perspective is as one who was brought up mostly in the Ukrainian Church with catechism and Ukrainian classes, but attending Divine Liturgy in English most of the time. Sometimes, though, Mom (who was Polish) took us to the RC Church, where the mass was in Latin. I remember it being a total mystery. But the building was really cool -- all that marble and stained glass!!!

I thought that the best part of Vatican II was the adoption by the Church of the wisdon of St. Methodius (they are so sllooowwwww - only 1100 years behind the good Bishop) to have liturgy in the vernacular.

Of course, at the time, I had no idea who St. Methodius was, or of much of anything about Church History and development of liturgy. But, at least, I began to understand what Father was saying up there.

I tend to want to sing along in Church, so I appreciate all the English I can get and I think the Ukrainians should get with the legacy of St. Methodius and start singing in English.

I think the Novus Ordo is OK, I'm used to it, but of course it has to be conducted with dignity. And I like traditional three aisle churches for any type of liturgy. The worst Novus Ordo masses I have attended were in a seven aisle church in the half-round, when at the Sign of Peace, the enthusiastic young priest went up one aisle, down the next, up, down and around -- Running for Bishop???

We do need all the ethusiastic young priests we can get, but this was too much. This is where the Bishops should make some change, in the sequence of the Liturgy, as the Sign of Peace seems to me to interrupt the Eucharistic Liturgy too much.

Just a few opinions.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck
and Non-Theologian
and Non-Liturgist
and Non-Cantor
and Non-Seminarian

Once again, I return to my theme: the problem is not with the Roman Church's so-called "Novus Ordo", but rather with the ability of the celebrant to do a good job in prayerfully leading the congregation and in doing up the necessary 'theater' that underlies good liturgy. There are many good "novus ordo" liturgies; and a lot of liturgical disasters. (The same was true of the old "Tridentine" Masses. Trust me. As a kid and young seminarian, I was the acolyte and saw a lot of strange stuff. Valid? Yes. Licit? Yes. Prayerful? I've had better prayer taking a shower.)

As, I guess, the first "Moderator" to enter this thread, I'll say that I personnally would allow it go on until it runs its course. However, I do have a concern.

As a Byzantine Forum, I think it is incumbent upon all of us who post here to make sure that the posts are relevant to the Byzantine (or other Eastern) Church. Discussions of internal problems or dissentions within the Roman community aren't really germane to this forum. Nor are discussions of politics and other political issues like abortion unless they are germane both to the survival and expansion of our Byzantine Church.

Blessings!

John (Two Lungs),

Just one quick point...

Latin was, at one time, as much of a living vernacular language as much as Cyril and Methodius' Slavonic!! Things changed, but isn't the situation similar to the use of Old Church Slavonic?

Kristoff, Serge, and Friends:

I had heard rumors of this, but never had confirmation from someone living in the Presov Eparchy. However this is the only place I had heard of this occuring. It certainly does not occur here in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. However, the priests that are "disobeying" Bishop Jan are only following the approved liturgical books. There is no way Bishop Jan got this obvious parroting of Latin practice approved by Rome. For goodness sake, our Metropolia's requested liturgical changes that aren't anywhere near as drastic as this have been sitting in Rome for years.

Bishop Jan of Presov seems to represent the worst of the Byzantine Church and will probably end up ranked with Archbishop Nicholas Elko as one of the hierarchs most ignorant of his own tradition. I have heard it said that Kosice Exarchy was created so Bishop Milan could have a refuge from the insanity of Bishop Jan till he reached mandatory retirement age.

I don't think any other Byzantine Church has or will follow suit. The Latin Church will soon be getting rid of this transaltion as well. It is dictated by the new liturgical directive.

As far as the Novus Ordo vs Tridentine rites as viewed by the Orthodox: The majority of the Orthodox commentators I have read consider both to be equally un-Apostolic and unsuitable. They claim the Tridentine rite is full of Scholastic errors and the Novus Ordo is full of Modernist errors. I am sure this comes as a shock to those Tridentine attendees among us. The Orthodox are not against Western liturgies, but they feel they should reflect the use and diversity of the preschism Western Church. This would entail a critical examination of pre-Tridentine, pre-Scholastic Roman liturgy and a resurrection of the defunct Gallican and almost defunct Mozarabic liturgies. The notable exceptions to this attitude are the Antiochian Orthodox, as witnessed by the Western Rite Vicariate which uses a slightly modified Tridentine (Liturgy of St. Gregory) and corrected Anglican liturgy (Liturgy of St. Tikhon), and the Russian Orthodox who organized the French Orthodox Church, (last under the Romanian Patriarch?) who use a reconstructed Byzantinized Gallican rite (Liturgy of St Germain).

As for an epiclesis in the old Roman Canon:
It is ceratinly an ancient canon, however it does contain an epiclesis as St. Nicholas Cabasilas and most modern liturgical scholars agree. It is technically termed an implicit, ascending epiclesis as opposed to the expicit, descending epiclesis of Eastern Litrugies. It consists in the following prayer:
"Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to Your altar above; before the face of Your divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the most sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."
Clearly, the only one that can affect these petitions is the Holy Spirit. Therefore the added epiclesis in the liturgies of the Western Rite Orthodox are unnecessary and show poor liturgical understanding on the part of the hierarchs who required their insertion.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I thought that the best part of Vatican II was the adoption by the Church of the wisdon of St. Methodius (they are so sllooowwwww - only 1100 years behind the good Bishop) to have liturgy in the vernacular.

Seems like 20/20 hindsight, since before the 1960s next to nobody was asking for the vernacular (amazing as it seems to us now) but I agree the vernacular is here to stay and, in itself, that�s not a bad thing. The Anglo-Catholics already translated the Tridentine Mass into Elizabethan-style English back in the 1930s or even earlier, and many Roman Catholic hand missals had serviceable, accurate English translations too. A vernacular Tridentine Mass would be a good option to pursue, because all the essentials of liturgy would be preserved and promoted, the rank-and-file Roman Catholics would be happy because it�s in the vernacular and it would knock the wind out of the liberals� dismissal of traditionalism as �those cranks who want to speak Latin�. It�s not about Latin.

BTW, I know Latin and like it a lot, and agree with the actual text of Vatican II that it is still a useful lingua franca to unite the many peoples who use the Roman Rite. In international centers of pilgrimage like Rome itself, or Lourdes or F�tima, it makes sense to use Latin for polyglot congregations of pilgrims as it is both everybody�s and nobody�s particular language all at the same time. (But one may argue that English is now the world language the way Latin once was for the Western world, so perhaps English could be used instead at international gatherings.)

As for the desire of some Orthodox to alter or drop postschism traditional Roman liturgy and dig up or manufacture some preschism Western rite, I think that�s wrongheaded, hateful and kind of silly. The Roman Rite, including its Tridentine form, is the liturgy of the Western Church. Insisting on some fanciful ideal preschism thing says God has been mute in the West for 1,000 years, only guiding those on the eastern side of the Adriatic or the Carpathians. Is God really that small?

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Joe,

The Moderator is one of the most spiritual persons I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

If he will cut me slack (time and again), he'll cut anyone slack.

God bless,

Alex

Kristoff said:
>>I believe it is almost two years now but what do people think about the changes in the Slovak Byzantine Liturgy. The words of institution (for the consecration of the wine to the Blood of Our Lord) traditionally read
.....WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.
The word MANY has been changed to ALL (during a Divine Liturgy in Slovak or Old Slavonic).<<

>>I know some priests who have refused to listen to their bishop (Bishop Jan Hirka) and continue using the traditional form due to doctrinal reasons. Will this become a trend in other Byz. Catholic jurisdictions - i.e. changes in the words of institution?<<

Hmmm. This can be a problem. There are arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether or not �many� or �all� should be used here. It seems to me that one can make a good argument that �all� is perfectly acceptable in theology. However, since many has been used so long the prudence of changing the wording is certainly open to question.

>>Now this change can be found in the Novus Ordo as well.<<

Uh, yes and no. Please remember that every Mass that is celebrated in any language other than Latin is done in translation. Strictly speaking, �multis� is the term used in the Latin Church�s Mass. What we get is a translation of the term.

Incidentally, I am expecting that this too will be changed back to �many� when Liturgiam Authenicam is implemented.

Dear Friends,

Our Liturgy has "Many" rather than "All," and this is in keeping with the original.

The point is whether this is a question of translation pure and simple, or whether there is some sort of doctrinal perspective being introduced.

Someone once suggested that "All" is a kind of blanket assurance of salvation for all, a kind of "apocatastatis" as Origen said.

Is this true?

Or is it to underline that Christ died for all?

It could very well be that "all" is the linguistic intention of "many."

But it is better to stick to the original in any translation as closely as possible.

The early Church Fathers of the Desert even kept the Canon of the Mass in Greek, even though the other parts were in Coptic or Syriac.

Our bishops are wonderful people, really.

But sometimes, with all due respect, they come up with things that do no real good for anyone.

In Canada, for example, our bishops ruled that certain parts of our Liturgy could be "left out" such as the Second Antiphon, the Litany for the Catechumens etc.

The problem is that now that "could be" has turned into a "mandatory."

Our Liturgy has two Antiphons now, the First and the Third - so why call the second one the "Third?"

We all seem to be in such a hurry to "get through" the Liturgy, I remember one priest inviting people to come up to venerate the Gospel after the reading, and others in Church angrily looked at their watches.

If they have somewhere else to go, then they should go, I say!

Anyway, I think our BIshops would do well to reflect on moves such as this.

For those of us who care, the only alternative is to educate people at the local parish level and then, with their support, ask their parish priests to keep to the "tried and true" rubrics, in the spirit of Vatican II I might add.

Alex