www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Comparative Liturgics

Following on Steve's recommendation made several times on more than one thread, here is a place-holder for further messages relating to the topics that have been the subject of recent discussion on two separate threads relating to comparative issues between various liturgical usages.

Brendan

“I do think, though that it is inappropriate to inject the Latin Liturgy into threads which are about different topics. If the problems with the Latin Liturgy are an interest of posters here; let them begin a thread on that topic.”

Done.

“This assumes that there is a serious lack of commonality between the Latin Liturgy vis a vis the rites of other apostolic churches. We Catholics don't see it that way. We do not see the massive gap in commonality of which you speak.”

Certainly, Steve, even you have to admit that not all Catholics agree with this viewpoint. Therefore, wouldn't it be more accurate, and therefore more fair, particularly to those who come here to learn about things with which they may not be familiar, to qualify your statement in some way to reflect the actual diversity of opinion that exists in the present Catholic communion – or, at least, within the present Latin Church – regarding this matter?

“This, it seems to me is a perception that is peculiar to lay Orthodox Christians who are converts from Catholicism.”

That's not true, there are many Roman Catholics who share that opinion – as you well know. There is a diversity of opinion within present day Roman Catholicism regarding the present liturgical use of the Latin Church, and there are many who share the concerns elucidated by Serge and others here.

“But, if you want to talk with respect and with love, perhaps we can help you to understand that we dont have to fix what ain't broken.”

I suspect not, as I don't see agreement forming between us on that conclusion in the near or medium term.

Brendan

The Catholic Church does see it that way. In a way this is reverse uniatism (only no corresponding episcopal authority is involved). Sister churches should relate to sister churches. Reaching from one communion to a disgruntled element within another communion is not appropriate and not ecumencial.

K.

"But Orthodoxy, as represented in the finest Orthodox theologians of today, don't, I don't think, share these views about the Novus Ordo."

I think that this is a sleeping dog at this point because, as I have noted elsewhere, there are more important things to discuss at the moment and by the time it's worth discussing this the Latin Church may very well have a different liturgy.

"Again, I think our Orthodox friends would serve everyone better by commenting on the issues that their theologians (and those returning to the Orthodox Church after years of communism) are raising about the hyper-ritualism of the Orthodox Liturgy (as one instance) and other problems."

I agree with the critiques offered by Fr. A. Schmemann on this, to a significant degree -- but these are mostly about an attitude and understanding, not about ritual itself. Fr. Schmemann himself was a "high ritualist", and he didn't decry that. What he decried -- rightly -- was the performance of rituals for their own sake if we don't understand what they mean. There are two approaches possible in such a situation: get rid of the rituals that you don't understand, or roll up your sleeves and research the liturgy to try to understand the meaning of the rituals.

By the way, I'm not offended by that comment. I have found it rather disturbing, by contrast, that you seem to have perceived this as a tit-for-tat thing -- ie, let's raise some issues now about the Byzantine rite. I may remind you that before this forum crashed, I initiated just such a thread regarding reforming the Byzantine rite -- and it received less than enthusiastic reception from most of the forum participants. I've tried to initiate discussions on that issue, Alex, and so I have nothing to hide on that score.

"Is the Gospel read and preached in a meaningful way?"

Should be in vernacular, in my opinion. That's a worthwhile critique, in my opinion.

"Is their fuller participation of the people?"

In my opinion, there should be a balance between choirs and congretional singing -- the choir should lead the people, not dominate the people -- but the people also need to be led in singing.

"Is a feeling of community engendered?"

I don't agree with this critique.

"Finally, do all the Russians who join the Latin Rite Catholic Church in Russia do so because of missionary pressures alone?"

I have no idea, but I assume that a part of it must be that the Masses are offered in the vernacular and that the religious culture is moving, in some ways, in a direction analogous to the secular culture -- ie, westernization.

Brendan

I've spoken with Russian people who joined the latin catholic church.
Some Orthodox hierarchs in Russia are angry with the Latin church because of its missionary activity among Russian Orthodox people, but this view is not absolutely correct. Most of the new catholics in Russia were not orthodox and were not baptized because they came from atheist or non christian families. The few latin "converts" I know think that the services in the latin churches are vibrant and wonderful and they dislike the solemnity of the orthodox services. They like what we don't like, it's curious.

Well, I think that it's clear that the main point of being a Christian is to be a follower of the Gospel, and to be a self-motivated (through prayer and the graces of the Holy Spirit) practitioner of that Gospel in one's everyday life.

The Church is a human institution (although with Divine Inspiration) that exists solely to encourage the baptized in their efforts to live the Gospel.

Thus, there are going to be a lot of questions about community, ritual, lifestyle, 'authority' and jurisdiction, etc. While some may benefit from the 'high-church' ritual, others are much more needy in the 'social community' realm. Ideally, the church community should be warm, welcoming and supportive to all the members no matter their situation; ideally, the liturgy should be able to speak its message to all those present, no matter their situation. Of course, some love the symphony/mass choir and candles and incense accoutrements; others prefer the less formal style of liturgical ritual where the priest can gather the kids on the steps of the ambon for an interactive homily/sermon.

From my perspective, as a fully educated/graduated seminarian, the priest must try to understand the composition of the congregational community and attempt to serve their needs. It is on this premise that I can see the (supposedly) sloppy liturgics in some RC parishes and the hyper-formal ("Don't do a THING that isn't in the Typikon") liturgies as valuable in certain given circumstances. What makes me VERY uncomfortable is the notion that there has to be ONE specific approach to the worship and 'Christian lifestyle' of the community.

Actually, I appreciate (on a very rare basis) the liturgical celebration at the local ROCOR parish, as well as at the Greek Orthodox one -- and even the services at the OCA Cathedral. And sometimes, I even gird up my loins and go "Ukrainian", knowing full well that as a non-Ukrainian, I'm going to be ignored - royally. But then again, I think that visiting our other Christian brethren gives us all a forced understanding of how our other baptized brethren live. It makes one more 'tolerant' because of the experience of praying with others.

My main point is: liturgy is there for the sole purpose of enhancing the individual believer's pilgrimage to the Father. If it doesn't do that, then stay away or find another community. If the guitar Mass drives Romans nuts, then find another Roman Mass that is more 'traditional'. If doing everything in the "old language" isn't working for one's own spirituality, then go elsewhere. And keep praying and stay involved with a spiritual father/mother and/or practicing believers who can call you to task for individual failings and encourage your good efforts. And remember: the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS present because Christ promised Him to us, the baptized. And Christ does not lie. Thus, us Eastern folks can move freely across jurisdictional boundaries because we have them available to us. The Romans can move East because we ECs are available to them (at least juridically).

Blessings!

Dear Brendan,

Sorry I was disturbing to you!

I and others here do find the criticism of the NO as a personal attack, just as you took my comment personally and said you were disturbed by it.

Your point on why some Russians turn to Catholicism as part of an overall viewing of RCism and secularism is an intelligent sociological comment - but wrong, I think, in this context.

I personally know Ukrainian and Russian Roman Catholics living "over there" who have told me they find a sense of community and "immediacy" in their encounter with Christ in the NO liturgy.

Their Catholic faith isn't something they follow to be "with it" or Western.

But I haven't done a sociological study with stats and so I only know this on the basis of limited observations.

And you can't really be saying, as you seem to be saying, "I like Catholics but I don't like their NO Rite."

If you feel that way, fine. But it is offensive and, yes, disturbing.

If we don't respond to your entreaties to participate in a debate on the liturgical problems within Orthodoxy, it is because we aren't really familiar with them and you need to educate us about them.

Very few individual Orthodox, in our experience, engage in critical dialogues about their Church.

And when former Catholics do this, it sounds like they are grinding their own "axios" related to the reasons why the left the Church. These issues do NOT appear to be high on the priority list of Orthodox theologians perhaps because they, in fact, don't see a problem where Orthodox converts do.

These are my observations, disturbing or not. But if you are disturbed, so are many of us here who know the NO and the Latin Church.

A further thing is that much criticism of the NO emanating from some Orthodox quarters seems to be whining about less incense etc. and not about core liturgical issues such as the proclamation of the Word of God in community etc. and the other points Dr. John mentioned.

Sorry, but you don't have to talk to me if I disturb you. But the Church comes first and you are a close second!

Alex

I think Alex offers a very helpful post here. Liturgical worship and sacramental life is experienced through symbols and tradition. While a very small and limited group of particularly well-educated scholars (hopefully also acting as an authorized ecumenical ministry of their respective communions) might offer some 'compare and contrast' thoughts, outside that narrow, academic element, it would certainly be true that few can authenically and fully relate or appreciate sacramental and litugical signs outside their patrimony and inculturation.

Therefore, extreme caution should be used when so commenting, a certain humility should always be evident, and, if the comments are not positive, they should usually not be stated.

K.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Kurt,

Thank you for your vote of confidence. A compliment from you is a compliment indeed!

I do sound rather emotional, at times, (O.K. most of the time), but religion is like that for me.

My Slavic background or something.

God bless!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your posting. As usual it is clear and focused! I agree with what you are saying. Offensive and derogatory statements can't be disguised by cloaking them in the context of ecumenical discussion. They are offensive and derogatory or mocking if the words are offensive and derogatory or mocking or misrepesentative of the truth. It matters neither what thread to which they are posted nor how they are contextualized. A rose by any other name....

Thank you again for your steadfast statement of the truth as you see it with out offense intended from what I can see, though it seems to have been taken. Your obvious love of all of the rooms in God's temple is reflected in your sensitivity toward the deep feelings and strongly held beliefs of others who post here. I appreciate that especially in this discussion.

Steve

Dear Kurt,

Again, thank you. I seem to be saying that a lot to you. I am grateful for your insight and clear statement of what you know to be true.

Quote Steve:
“This assumes that there is a serious lack of commonality between the Latin Liturgy vis a vis the rites of other apostolic churches. We Catholics don't see it that way. We do not see the massive gap in commonality of which you speak.”

Quote Brendan:
"Certainly, Steve, even you have to admit that not all Catholics agree with this viewpoint. "

Quote Kurt:

"The Catholic Church does see it that way. "

The NO is the official liturgy of the Catholic Church; nothing but the action of our Hierarchy and the people of our Church can or will change that.

Based on its promoulgation by our Hierarchy and acceptance by the People whom God has called to Him in the Latin Church, there is no general or significant perception by members of the Latin Church that there is the massive gap in commonality of which Brendan speaks.

Quote Kurt:
"In a way this is reverse uniatism (only no corresponding episcopal authority is involved). Sister churches should relate to sister churches. Reaching from one communion to a disgruntled element within another communion is not appropriate and not ecumencial."

Your comments on reverse uniatism seem appropos to me. Because a disgruntled group disagrees with some teaching of the Church does not make its disagreement representative of Catholics.

To reach to that disgruntled group and highlight its opinion as a viable option within the Catholic Communion is counter productive to the cause of Church unity, I believe. Even those returning traditionalist Catholics who have the indult to worship using the Tridentine Liturgy, must subscribe to the reality that the NO is the official liturgy of the Latin Church, if I understand correctly.

I agree that the fact that it is being done in this forum by persons from outside the Catholic communion appears to be counter productive from the point of view of ecumenicism.

Gratefully,
Steve

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Steve,

I would say, "you're welcome," but this issue is close to home for me as well!

Funny you should mention the "rooms in God's temple."

I once had a dream in my youth that was like a vision where all of the Particular Churches were connected to one another and one could walk from one into another, or as Dr. John described it "a multi-liturgical edifice."

You can leave it to Dr. John to come up with something that just zaps the heck out of you, in a nice way, of course.

Kurt is great, don't you think? He is rather spunky, but then, again, I'd rather have him as an ally than otherwise.

Brendan, to be fair, is a deeply spiritual person whom God is drawing powerfully to Himself to fulfill His Will in him, as I believe He is doing with us all.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Some reflections, some comments and some questions that arose as I read what you and others have written here and in other threads.

Quote Brendan:

Comparative Liturgics

I am glad to see the title of this thread. I hope to learn much from those posters who will come here to share information and insight on comparitive liturgics. The fact that you posted it and that you know much about various Liturgies from study and lived experience ensures a rich discussion. Hearing Alex, Serge, Anastasios, Dr. John, Edwin and the many other posters on this topic should really be intersting.

That being said, there does seem to be some ongoing miscommunication or misunderstanding between us.

"Following on Steve's recommendation made several times on more than one thread, here is a place-holder for further messages relating to the topics that have been the subject of recent discussion on two separate threads relating to comparative issues between various liturgical usages."

Brendan, you deserve the credit for this topic and beginning this thread. I can take no credit for it.

The place holder title that I suggested addressed what I, and it appears be some other posters, see as inappropriate behavior. They and I see some posters simply inject the Latin Liturgy into threads where it does not belong distracting from the topic already under discussion there. They misrepresent its meaning or content or value. Some of their language is belittling or mocking It has become a whipping boy. Specifically, I said,

“I do think, though that it is inappropriate to inject the Latin Liturgy into threads which are about different topics. If the problems with the Latin Liturgy are an interest of posters here; let them begin a thread on that topic.”

I stand by that suggestion.

To translate that suggestion into a continuing thread on comparative liturgics certainly is an interesting idea. It is a different topic and suggests a much wider focus.

Personally, I like your title and topic better.* It does allow persons who feel compelled to inject a discussion of Latin Liturgical problems into threads on unrelated topics to bring them here. Their concerns should not be ignored.

There is something attendant on my suggestion that I believe has some bearing on this new thread. It was and is my concern with bashing/baiting, the use of mocking or belittling language, or misrepresentation of the facts concerning any of God's Churches or its liturgies and practices. In the threads to which you refer in your first posting as well as in others, the situation involved the Latin church and the Latin Liturgy.

I am sure that your intent in beginning this thread is not to provide a safe haven for inappropriate behavior, for statements and language that are derogatory, mocking, or untruthful, or misrepresentative. Whether it is included in postings from Orthodox to Catholic about Catholicism, or from Catholic to Orthodox about Orthodoxy, or Christian to Moslem, such words and writing and ideas have no place on a board hosted by Christians.

I believe that you agree with that. I certainly would be surprised if the facts were otherwise. I hope that you will join me and other posters in working to address such inappropriate behavior.

I do have a concern, though. Comparative Liturgics are a topic which deserves discussion. That discussion already takes place in many threads in many postings. I hope that those kinds of conversations will also continue without someone thinking that he or she must post those discussions to this one thread.

Quote Steve:
"I do think, though that it is inappropriate to inject the Latin Liturgy into threads which are about different topics. If the problems with the Latin Liturgy are an interest of posters here; let them begin a thread on that topic.”

Quote Brendan:

"Done."

Not exactly, see above.

Quote Steve:
“This assumes that there is a serious lack of commonality between the Latin Liturgy vis a vis the rites of other apostolic churches. We Catholics don't see it that way. We do not see the massive gap in commonality of which you speak.”

Quote Brendan:
"Certainly, Steve, even you have to admit that not all Catholics agree with this viewpoint. Therefore, wouldn't it be more accurate, and therefore more fair, particularly to those who come here to learn about things with which they may not be familiar, to qualify your statement in some way to reflect the actual diversity of opinion that exists in the present Catholic communion – or, at least, within the present Latin Church – regarding this matter?"

No, I don't think that it would be more accurate, Brendan. The NO is the official liturgy of the Catholic Church; nothing but the action of our Hierarchy and the people of our Church can or will change that. Based on its promoulgation by our Hierarchy and acceptance by the People whom God has called to Him in the Latin Church, there is no general or significant perception by members of the Latin Church that there is the massive gap in commonality of which you speak.

I stand by my understanding.


Quote Steve:
“This, it seems to me is a perception that is peculiar to lay Orthodox Christians who are converts from Catholicism.”

Quote Alex:
"But Orthodoxy, as represented in the finest Orthodox theologians of today, don't, I don't think, share these views about the Novus Ordo."

Quote Brendan:
"I think that this is a sleeping dog at this point because, as I have noted elsewhere, there are more important things to discuss at the moment and by the time it's worth discussing this the Latin Church may very well have a different liturgy."


Based upon the above, on Alex's comments, and your comments in response to Alex, I respectfully stand by the observation in my quoted words.

I have a further comment and subsequent question though. There is no heresy involved in any of the Latin Liturgies, including the NO. No dogma is involved in issues surrounding the Latin Liturgy. You have said that elsewhere.

Brendan, it appears that you are trying to wake sleeping dogs guarding orthodoxy in both Communions. You postulate that there may be a new form of Liturgy in the Latin Church. (I don't foresee that, but I'm not the Holy Spirit.) So are you trying to wake sleeping dogs?

If so, why?

Why are you telling Latin Catholics what our Church is, believes, and what is appropriate in our Liturgy?

I am puzzled by this. You have no responsibility to restore the Latin Catholic Church. You now belong to another Church. Surely you can share the beauty that drew you there and that keeps you there. Share your knowledge about its treasures with those of us and if you choose the problems that you see who do not live in your Church. You have shared some of the difficulties present within the Orthodox Communion. We in turn will share the beauty we see in our Churches.

I think that is the point of Alex's posting to you. I share his estimation of your behavior toward the NO and the Latin Church. It is disturbing.

Quote Steve:
But, if you want to talk with respect and with love, perhaps we can help you to understand that we dont have to fix what ain't broken.”

Quote Brendan:
I suspect not, as I don't see agreement forming between us on that conclusion in the near or medium term.

I assume that you mean that we won't be be able to help you understand that we dont have to fix what ain't broken. 's ok. I believe that we will speak with respect and love.

Brendan, I hope that you understand that this posting involves no disrespect or mocking of what you say and what you believe. I cannot change your perception of what I say, anymore than Alex can about what he said and what you heard. I am simply asking for some understanding that a real human, a human who is Catholic is behind the fingers typing this. Please accept my assurance that Love motivates their movement!

Please treat those things that I hold close to my heart with the respect that they deserve.

From what I know of you, I think that is a request that you can meet without violating what you hold close to your heart.

Steve

* One of the reasons that I hope that this thread works is that it will hopefully make it less necessary than it has been to defend what does not and should not need defending!

Then I can concentrate on learning from people like you!

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your heart-felt posting and you said what I meant better than I.

Alex

A friend of mine who is a Dominican Sister worked in a social relief project in Novosibirsk and also assisted Bishop Joseph Werth S.J. with some translation work in 1996.

She related to me that marriage between Russians and the decendents of the "deported" Polish and Germans in Siberia account for a number of converts to Roman Catholicism as well as some for the reasons Brenden mentions above.

Stefan