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

Elsewhere I have suggested that the liturgical forms are the result of a lot of prayer and study.

There is no question that there there are a lot of different approaches to real liturgy. Let's face it: "rite" mean more than liturgical texts; it means the whole lifestyle of the community. And "they" (whoever they are) are going to do what is good for them. If it conflicts with what we think is good, then it's not our problem.

Blessings!

Thanks, Lance. I didn't invent that argument about the people in those old churches having their backs to the priest — first heard it from an ex-Cistercian monk who knew a lot about and liked traditional practices but disdained a lot of traditionalists. I thought I had read it elsewhere. Duly noted — I'll be more careful using it in future.

That some churches may have had Mass facing the people doesn't faze me. One can have it reverently that way. Like at my hypothetical prominent freestanding altar with the Laudian frontal and the celebrant's chair well behind and below it against the very back wall (or off to one side at 90� — the traditional position of sedilia and the bishop's throne with a shelf altar). As I have written, in theory one can celebrate the Tridentine Mass facing the congregation. But owing to immemorial custom it rarely is. What I oppose is the forcible imposition nearly everywhere in the RCC of versus populum, like Mother Angelica's ordinary forced on EWTN Masses. Uncalled for.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

OK - after the night I return[ this time lapse does make things difficult ]
<<< Do you wish and do you find fellow Roman Catholics wishing that the Eastern Catholics would just disappear? >>>
No Dan - I do not, but that you will understand is personal. I have a very deep respect for the Eastern Catholics that I have met here - and that goes for the Orthodox too. Your knowledge impresses me greatly - would that I had half as much.
By the way when I was in Lourdes last year I attended Mass in the Ukranian Church of the Mother of God there - as I posted. A wonderful experience and I was appalled, the next day, at the attitude and spoken comment of 2 English speaking visitors when they said openly "Oh it's ORTHODOX"[ and I heard the absolute horror in their voices] and since I was alone there I had to try and explain. Very difficult with my limited knowledge.

<<<Someone else came up with �Amchurch�........ Not all Roman Catholics in the US are like that, of course, which is why I did not say �American churches�>>>
Thanks for the explanation Serge - now I have some understanding - I will remember. And yes I do hope we can remain friends but Steve's commentof
<<<Can we use respectful and non belittling language when we discuss our Liturgies and our Churches, please. >>>
still applies.Discussions are interesting and, again speaking personally, teach me a lot. As I have said in the past there is virtually no Eastern presence here in Glasgow. I have learnt there is a Ukranian Catholic Church in Edinburgh - but I'm still trying to find out where

Angela

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Suggestion for constructive change in the Roman Rite, Tridentine and Novus Ordo recensions:

During part of the Tridentine solemn Mass, the subdeacon wears a humeral veil (like the priest at Benediction) and holds an empty paten, his hands covered by the ends of the veil. (Described irreverently as "holding the plate in his face'.) This ritual used to be functional, long, long ago: the deacon later would take some of the Eucharist to the sick unable to come to the community's celebration.

Why not both revive this practice and make it functional at Masses?

Real reform: I'm for it.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge,

"Both?"

You mean you are admitting that, when it comes to the Liturgy: "It's O.K. to say NO?"

Alex

&#1057;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072;,

A qualified &#1076;&#1072;! The NO is unfortunate (a mistake in prudential judgement), based on bad principles (modernity and the belief that a committee can and should write a new liturgy from scratch and impose it on a Church), riddled with deliberate mistranslations in all the vernacular versions I've read, and inferior in presenting Catholic content than older versions, but 1) I have no problem doctrinally with the Latin original (I have a copy) and 2) I acknowledge it exists and admire the movements like Adoremus working for practical reform, something that requires no indult and no episcopal permissions (one need not beg like one is forced to in order to use the 1962 Missal).

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Well, that's good hearing, Friend!

In this instance, you sort of remind me of Eutyches of Alexandria.

He would not admit to our Lord being consubstantial with us (Monophysism also named for him, Eutychianism), but, when pressed, would agree that He is consubstantial with His Mother.

I, for one, can live with what you have said.

And no biological terminology - now THERE'S real progress!

Alex

Dear Angela!

Just want to thank you for your support of the effort to expand the use of respectful and non-belittling speech and treatment among and between Christians and others here. We talk about many hard things. Discussion will be frank. It does not have to be mocking or belittling or misrepresentative of the truth.

To expand just a bit on Serge's information on the term AmChurch. He's right, as he is on most topics, that it has been attributed to Malachi Martin.

AmChurch is a mental construct, an academic tool, a learning tool, an analytical tool. Liberal and conservative are mental constructs, too, used in politics.

As a term, it is a perjorative in its use by most posters here; and I guess in most of its uses. Some people use it to lump together American Latin Catholics who may or may not share all of the characteristics supposedly peculiar to that group. The presence of women around the altar; the use of non-ordained Eucharistic Ministers most especially the use of women as Eucharistic Ministers; the lack of Gregorian chant as the ordinary form of church music; the position of the priest's body during the Liturgy; even poor taste and poor architecture are seen as abuses and are used to label a person or church or even the Latin Church in America AmChurch.

You and I have repeatedly admitted that abuses or poor execution of practice exist in the Latin Church. Some of the Eastern Christians who post here have been kind enough to admit that they are not limited to our Church.

Some people, though, refuse to treat them as specific instances to be dealt with on the local level, as you suggest, by the local church. They have refused us the courtesy of allowing us to tend to our own house.

Instead, another learning tool, generalization is used to support the idea that the abuses are proof that what is a mental construct, AmChurch, actually is out there in reality.

Mental constructs are easy to use once you grasp their parameters. It tends to relieve the ones using them. If x, y and z are parameters for inclusion as A; and x, y, and z are present; voila you have A. Something may be missed doing this.

The vital components of the reality without which the reality is lost might be C D E and F. x, y, and z are not of the essence of the thing under discussion or analysis.

The use of constructs and terms like AmChurch might even be necessary for those who do not have extensive lived experience as memebers of the Latin Catholic Church in America. You and I know that our local church communities are, as Dr. John is fond of saying, messy. They defy easy explanation. But making themselves easy to understand and transforming themselves for that reason is not their main function.

Dr. John and Alex have suggested some of the real essence, the reason for being; Giving Thanks to God; preaching the Gospel; celebrating the Mysteries; Building the Body of Christ so that it in turn can serve Gods people in the world. That's what the Latin Church is about; it's what the Byzantine and Oriental Churches are about; it seems to me that all of God's Churches are about.

But I digress, LOL.

Angela, there is no AmChurch in reality anywhere in the United States that is in union with the Pope. Within parishes there may be some persons who may share characteristics determined by others to be AmChurch. They are members of the Latin Catholic Church.

There is no tradtional Church; there is no radical evangelical Catholic Church; there is no neo conservative Catholic Church; there is no liberal Catholic Church in union with the Pope. There is no AmChurch in union with the Pope. Those are mental constructs derived from a misuse of mental constructs designed to aid in learning, in my opinion.

There is one Universal Church. It is present where Christians join with their bishop and celebrate the Mysteries and Liturgies. It is seen by others in the loving work of its members in the world. It is made visible on the larger scale by bishops in union with each other. The first among them, the touchstone and servant of communion for Catholics is the Bishop of Rome.

The point here is that the mental constructs are not reality. They are simply tools to help us to learn and to understand. Is it good to talk about x, y, and z? Sure! The use of chant and the use of best practices in church architecture in all of Gods churches is food for thought and discussion.

So, yes, lets chat about the essentials and the non-essentials and use various tools to do so. But, lets not choose inappropriate tools or use them in inappropriate ways. Let's not confuse the tool for studying a reality with the reality.

Serge's site is really good! Have I said that before?

Thank you again for being here. I am so happy that you are!

Steve

JOY!

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your posting and for allowing us to bring in the holy air of your reflections.

I've posted a survey elsewhere to ask people whether the NO discussion should be continued on Serge's website, or whether it should remain here.

How do you vote?

Alex

Steve is an absolute saint.

The troll

Dear Kurt,

And you probably didn't have to "troll" for long to pick that up!!

None of us had to!

Alex

Dear Dan,

Just some thoughts on part of your interesting posting to Angela.

Angela,
"May I ask a question that may seem confrontational but is important? Do you wish and do you find fellow Roman Catholics wishing that the Eastern Catholics would just disappear? It would seem that we are in communion as long as we tow the Roman line, but are not if we challenge some very sloppy liturgical practices.

Dan L"

You have suggested that Latin Catholics expect Byzantine Catholics to tow the party line. If I may, I'd like to run with your use of the word tow. In my poor metaphor, and I mean that, the barges are the Churches; the lines their Liturgies and practices; their members, the crew.

I'd like begin by asserting that I think that, generally, we know and understand and like the reality of our own barge and our towing operation best. We understand the structures, the reasoning behind them, the way the lines work and the way we express things to eachother about all of this. We can pick out nuances and insights in the shape and structure of the ship, in the lines we use and even in the crew that are not easy for even friendly outsiders to see, or seeing, to understand, or understanding to use. We the crew on our barge can use all of this to help us best get to where we are going.

Each of us is together with others, the crew, on one or another of the barges on the river of Life. Some are large barges; some are medium sized barges: and some are tiny. We are under the direction of the same admiral and we have the same destination, same fleet, different barges and lines. There are other fleets.

We can move to another barge or study another barge and the lines it uses. We can study the the crew of other barges and their ways. We can talk about the barge or the lines or the crew.

But until someone has lived and worked on a barge for a reasonable period of time, and for somethings that may be for a lifetime, it seems unusual to me that a new crew member should assume that he has the same information base and skills as those crew members who have worked the barge for a lifetime. Even more unusual to me is a new crew member on a barge who assumes that he the same information base and skills as lifetime crew members on still a third barge on which he has never lived and worked.

(I don't intend that as a put down, just a statement of what happens as part of the normal change process.)

To illustrate that, I want to share with you a piece of information about change in one of my areas of expertise. There is research on the change process in schools.

One part of that research addresses the process of acceptance and implementation of new texts by teachers. The findings of that long term study suggest that from the time that a teacher knows that a new text is coming, through the time when he or she understands it and practices it, to the time that he or she is comfortable enough to adapt it to his or her own way of doing things to better instruct the students IS FIVE YEARS. This is the process of change in learning about using textbooks as described in research.

This process involves something that to most of us looks like a simple process. Take that book and use it to teach the kids!

If that process is so complex, how much more complex is the process of becoming a crew member on one of our barges? Can you see the reason for my statement that some behaviors of some new crew members might appear unusual. It is not a put down, simply a statement of wonder!

Frankly, you're on one of the barges that, together, make up our fleet. I don't see the line that you're being asked to tow from the one that I'm on. All that members of our crew are asking of you is understanding and respect. When you describe our barge do so accuately. When you point out the our lines, do so respectfully remembering that it is possible that you do not know the nuaces or the structure of our barge as well as we do. It's part of our job to do routine maintainance and repair. In a case where you have questions and concerns, feel free to ask them.

Respectful commentary is always welcome! Open questions are always welcome! Disrespect and loaded questions are not welcome!

So, my brother in Christ, WELCOME TO THE FLEET!
Be patient as you learn about our barge. Its shape and structure may seem strange. Its lines may appear crooked and circuitous from the vantage of the fleet you've left and the barge you've joined as a crew member. But it is part of the fleet and for better or worse, we're what we got!

I guess that the crooked and circuitous lines are ok though. From our ship sometimes the lines there look that way too. I guess we'll just have to take the time to learn about why they look like they do and how they work.

But we believe that the admiral who connects us all is working for our mutual benefit on this trip of ours. Even more importantly, the Master who owns all the fleets knows how to write straight with crooked lines!

I hope that you will understand from what I've said that this Latin Catholic means you no harm and is very happy that you've found the barge where the Master wants you to be part of the crew!

Let's take care of our barges and learn bout the other barges in the fleet. Then we can join the other major fleet we're most like to bring the light of the Gospel to the blind; feed Him to those who are hungry; and travel together till we reach the Master.

I am sorry that you and Serge have had experiences with some of my fellow crew members in your current Churches that have been hurtful and unjust. I believe that they are isolated instances and simply reflect ignorance. I certainly hope so. Forgive them, they know not what they do!

In the name of the Master Who Owns All of the Fleets!

Steve
JOY!

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

Why do you write such long posts? Just curious. I guess I'm trying to understand your barge.

Anyway, I guess as long as the Roman Church can dictate who are bishops are and when we can and cannot have married clergy I guess we can ask questions from time to time about your liturgy. Do you consider that disrespectful?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Serge,

NOw that's language that disagrees and yet shows respect and doesn't mock! (DA! Don't have a Cyrillic lettering program - best I could do!)

I disagree with your assessment on the principles behind the NO. I think that those can be found in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. I agree that there is need for continued renewal of the vernacular (so does the curia or so it seems). Of course I see what you call the NO as a clearer presentation of Catholic beliefs.

Agiornimento was the phrase that Blessed Pope John XXIII used to describe the renewal that we need. I don't think he meant it to be a one shot thing. While I don't think we will significantly alter the Liturgy as we now celebrate it and I don't agree with all that adoremus says, I recognize that at least they are working constructively within the Latin Church to shape the liturgy as they believe it should be. (At least I think they are.) That sounds like organic growth to me!

Of course, I always regretted the total cessation of the celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy personally. I spent half of my life worshipping by participating in that Liturgy. There was much pain endured because of it. But, perhaps those charged with the implementation phase of the renewal thought that in the long run it would cause less dissention in the Church and less pain to implement it gradually as they did with the transitional forms of liturgy that were done without constantly looking back. At least that was what I heard and was taught during those times of intense change.

I sincerely hope that our future discussions will not regress to the level of the past few days.

Thank you!

Steve

&#1057;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072;,
A qualified &#1076;&#1072;! The NO is unfortunate (a mistake in prudential judgement), based on bad principles (modernity and the belief that a committee can and should write a new liturgy from scratch and impose it on a Church), riddled with deliberate mistranslations in all the vernacular versions I've read, and inferior in presenting Catholic content than older versions, but 1) I have no problem doctrinally with the Latin original (I have a copy) and 2) I acknowledge it exists and admire the movements like Adoremus working for practical reform, something that requires no indult and no episcopal permissions (one need not beg like one is forced to in order to use the 1962 Missal).

Dan,

Welcome to the Byzantine Catholic Church. Contrary to what some may have told you, "Rome" does not dictate who our bishops are. Our bishops come forward not in a public selection that you might find normative from Protestant denominations or our American civil tradition. For reasons too complex to explore here, we Catholics do not use the Protestant method.

It is however, a broad, consultative process which includes laity, priests and bishops. The formal roles are for the bishops of the Metropolia and the Universal Pastor. Other important roles go to others. I myself have been part of this process in a past selection. having been part of this process, I can say a solid case can be made for its merits, without disputing those who would concurrently make a case for the Protestant method.

Kurt

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]