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

Edwin, the "Ruthenian is Roman Catholic with a different rite of Mass' mentality is dying hard.

http://oldworldrus.com

What is the factor within Protestant communities that have no concept of the priesthood as we do and therefore a ministry that would have have the features that lead us Catholic to reserve the priesthood to males, that still results in women in the ministry being totally unqualified for their role?

K.

What is the factor within Protestant communities that have no concept of the priesthood as we do and therefore a ministry that would have have the features that lead us Catholic to reserve the priesthood to males, that still results in women in the ministry being totally unqualified for their role?

This proves the ordain-women movement is not rooted in Cathodox belief about the priesthood at all but is nothing but a power thing. Its proponents in different denominations have similar motives.

http://oldworldrus.com

Might not Protestant Minister be compared to Cathodox priests?

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

"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."

Dear Steve,

This thread is certainly interesting, and long! I had to copy and paste it and then look at it offline...I don't know how else to do it without staying online too long!

My understanding of things is not according to your quote above from a few days ago. Those traditionalists who return to the Latin Church and use the Indult to pray with the pre-Vatican II Liturgy only have to accept the validity of the sacraments of the "NO" rite (NO...what a funny little abbreviation ), and not subscribe to the reality that the NO is the Latin Church's official liturgy. The reason, I would think, is based on something I once read (in the past year), but which I don't have a reference for. I did ask a question related to this topic of the Canonists at the EWTN forum, the answer to which I don't remember (even 20 year olds can have memory problems, Steve! ).

According to what I read, part of the problem (if this is a problem at all, depending on what take you take) is that the Latin Church doesn't officially differentiate between "rites". So, the post-Vatican II Liturgy is "the Roman Rite", and is the official liturgy of the Latin Church…but, the pre-Vatican II Liturgy is also equally (in the eyes of the Latin Church and/or the Roman Curia) "the Roman Rite", and is the official liturgy of the Latin Church.

For all intents and purposes, the Pauline Missal may well have been intended to replace the Pian Missal, and this has by and large happened. But (again, according to the article) the Roman Curial documents, the heads of the various congregations, dicasteries, etc., as well as canonists and others nowhere say that, legally, the post-Vatican II liturgy is "the Roman rite", and that the Tridentine usage is "not the Roman rite", or "not the Roman rite anymore". It might have been better, in my opinion, if the NO was called in the documents "the Roman Rite" (as my copy of the Office of Readings from the Daughters of Saint Paul says on the title page), and the Tridentine Liturgy was called "the Latin Rite" (I use Latin here solely because of the exclusive use of Latin in this rite, whereas the NO allows for vernacular celebration). This way, one could speak of the Roman Rite being the official liturgy of the Latin Church, and the Latin Rite as having had its number retired.

But this is not the case. Both "Latin Rite" and "Roman Rite" are used interchangeably for both Tridentine and NO Liturgies. And Rome herself makes no legal distinction between the pre-VII and post-VII liturgies...legally, both (although having notable differences, as anyone can plainly see) are one and the same. Hence the claim by traditionalists loyal to Rome as well as Grunerites, sedevacantists, and others that the Tridentine Liturgy was never outlawed, and is still the official liturgy of the Latin Church, and any priest can use it without the need for an indult from a bishop (similar to how "NO priests" can celebrate the NO in Latin without a bishop's permission).

So traditionalists only really have to affirm the validity of the Liturgies, Sacraments, etc. of the NO, and not necessarily that the NO is “the official liturgy” of the Latin Church. But the above situation leads me to ask:

If what I read in that article is true, then why is there the need for an indult for the "old liturgy"? Why not "just do it"? Or if it is not true, where can I find evidence to debunk what I read? And where is the harm in allowing the Tridentines to have a personal prelature or something like Opus Dei so that they can serve their people? I think it was here (or elsewhere) that I heard that the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, known for sticking to the Tridentine Rite and separated from the Latin Church, is close to coming back into full communion with Rome. If this ends up happening (please God), why not have the Bishop of Campos as head of a Tridentine personal prelature or some other ecclesiastical structure so that those who want to worship Tridentine-style can do so under that bishop's approval, kinda like an extra-territorial bishop and diocese (like the Military Archdiocese)?

Hopefully some of this has been pertinent to the thread, and not just a lot of useless typing that has deviated from it...good day!

Dear Catholicos,

You raise a good point and perhaps this has to do with Roman ecclesiology, something which causes problems for Eastern and Oriental Christians as well.

In addition, no matter how the Roman liturgy is adapted culturally, whether recited in the lotus position as it is in India, or using buck-skin and an eagle feather in the First Nations recension, or with the specifics of a Hawaiian Mass, they are all "Roman Liturgies."

The Eastern traditions would have started another Rite to keep things simpler.

But we must all be sensitive to Steve and to our Latin Catholic friends here on this subject.

The NO Liturgy, whether we call it that or whatever, is the Liturgy of the Roman Church, period.

Even Serge has agreed, with certain, specific and multi-listed qualifications, to the motto:

"It's O.K. to say NO."

How's everything, Catholicos?

Alex

Yes, I wrote earlier on the thread that while the creation of the NO was a mistake I acknowledge the Latin original is error-free and that restoration in the Roman Rite using it — including as a template for authentic translations — is possible.

It's true the Pian and Pauline missals are not separate rites but rather are uses of the Roman Rite.

I am cool with inculturation of the Roman Rite or (better idea) the evolution of new rites in African and Asian new missions, and missions of newly Christianized First Nations tribes, that want them, as long as they have all the content and equivalent practices as the traditional rites.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Serge notes above: "Yes, I wrote earlier on the thread that while the creation of the NO was a mistake I acknowledge the Latin original is error-free and that restoration in the Roman Rite using it — including as a template for authentic translations — is possible."

Hmmm. Major problem. Linguistic, in fact. Since there are no 'native speakers' of Latin, the determination of what words and 'phrases' (a technical term) "mean" is really problematic. We contemporary linguists examine public speech, both oral and written, examine the context (i.e., the other words in the utterances), and then devise definitions that are put in the dictionary. But dictionaries are constantly in need of update, because language evolves. 25 years ago, "bad" meant 'evil'. 10 years ago, among young people "bad" meant 'good -- in a cool way'. Now, that usage has diminished, though not disappeared. 50 years ago "gay" meant solely "joyful"; now it has an additional meaning that has essentially eclipsed the original meaning. People giggle when we sing: "Don we now our gay apparel..." at Christmas.

My point is: dead languages are REALLY problematic. To suggest that a dead language provides the 'template' for our contemporary translation is just not in the cards. (Just look at the various translations/renditions of scripture in English!) Some folks seem to require the use of "thee" or "thou" and the "say-est" forms to make it sound "churchy". It is ALWAYS a question of preferences, and not really of "truth" since translation-theory has more variants than Baskin-Robbins. (I remember my seminary classmates rolling in the aisles at the new Gospel rendition of the woman tearing up her house in "search of her lost dime." DIME? Is this woman nuts!?!?! Oh yeah, and drachma made a heck of a lot of sense, too. Maybe, gold coin. But dime? Oy!)

So, if one wants to be 'antiquarian' or "primary source" about language, fine. But it cannot be the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy. Real language is just too mushy. Same for Old Slavonic or liturgical Greek. Fun for historical linguists, but real mushy.

Blessings!

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Ooops. Sorry for double-posting, but I just re-read some stuff from above.

Dan noted: "BTW I and others have brought up the point of laity distributing the elements to priests and bishops. Why is it allowed? It seems not only personally offensive but grossly inappropriate."

Yes, I can see the perspective. But, I think it comes from the idea of hierarchical structuring of the Church community. While I'm a good Cathodox, and I very much appreciate the tradition, I can also see that there are 'circumstances'. For example, how's about a Roman ordinand receiving the host from the ordaining bishop, but the chalice from his Mom and Dad? In our parish, there is an elder lady who, during the 'mission' period, had all the church implements and icons in her station wagon. She was ALWAYS there. She laundered linens, did mailings, drove the 'stuff' to the auditorium of the Middle School where liturgy was held. Picked up the priest, drove him to Liturgy, fed him and helped in every way possible. If we did the host-chalice thing, I would be honored to receive Eucharist from this hyper-generous woman.

For me, it's NOT the 'ordained' situation, but rather an individual's role as servant of the servants of God (the Pope's official title -- or at least, one of them!).

I know a deacon who is always there; and he brings Eucharist to those who are in need. But his wife does a lot of the work too, even though not 'ordained' to this deaconal ministry. So, if SHE rather than he, were to show up to give me communion were I sick, -- hey, no problem. We are and must be a COMMUNITY/FAMILY. And we jump in to do what ever needs to be done. And we sacrifice and go the extra-mile to serve our people.

And let me let you in on a secret: it's this sense of family/belonging that has allowed our churches to survive when we've been persecuted by the Ottomans, the Communists, the Fascists, and anybody else who came against us. When faced with REAL problems (not canonical ones), we just ignore the BS and do whatever is necessary for our people. Survivors.

So, when people come into the Byzantine (and other Eastern Churches), one must be prepared to deal with the fact that we aren't just "canonically established" parishes; we're family -- just like the Mafia. An offense against one calls for response from ALL. And it's our faith that brings us together in love, kindness and -- yes -- solidarity.

Blessings!

When you are exposed to a language for most of your life, even though it is archaic, it still moves your soul.
In the case of liturgical Greek, it can and does become one's second Greek dialect; the dialect of the liturgy and worship and that special language we reserve for the intimate adoration of God; and that special language reserved by daughters and sons for that intimate time shared with a Loving Father. I am truly moved by it and I know and live with Greeks who are moved to mystical ecstasy by it, day by day. It is a mystical language and the language of Greek mysticism and Greek mystics, and what Christian faith is more mystical than Orthodoxy? So liturgical Greek even has a pragmatic element to it that is useful to the Greek Orthodox Christian.

Liturgical Greek still moves millions. It truly is a living language of worship and praise.

I wonder if Slavic Christians feel the same for Old Church Slavonic?

But thanks for your interesting posts.

FG

Hey Alex, remember...this Syrian isn't the one with the problem with the NO...it's all the rest of you. :p Just kidding...and all is well with me, thanks!

Dear Catholicos,

Absolutely!

And it is good to hear that all is well!

Alex

Dear Serge,

Thank you for your response. Just a few reflections about it.

Serge Quotes Steve:
"Of course I see what you call the NO as a clearer presentation of Catholic beliefs."

Part of Serge's Response:
"Unless one had his or her formation with the Tridentine Mass and can read that meaning into the NO, one can go to the NO as practiced by Amchurch (important qualifier — not a swipe at the NO's content per se) all one's life and learn very little about the Catholic faith. After all, that Gallup poll showed only 30% even knew what Catholicism says the Eucharist is.""

Reflection:
I do want to thank you for not taking a swipe at the content of our current Liturgy.

I think that Kurt and others have pointed out the technical difficulties in the survey study. Those difficulties make reaching and publishing conclusive results extremely difficult or impossible based on the methodology of the survey. Unfortunately those findings do make for headlines that sell papers!

In another current thread Kurt reports the findings of another study. They present a different picture, but, not having read the study, I hesitate to make conclusions or generalizations based on what it says.

All of this does not deny the need for the members of our Church to better educate our young or to re educate some of the rest of us. I like to think that we all need continuing education!

What is the situation in this regard in your Church? (Just a statement of interest not a leading question!)

Serge quotes Steve:
"Aggiornamento was the phrase that Blessed Pope John XXIII used to describe the renewal that we need.

Part of Serge's Response:
"Which in practice turned into a cave-in to modernity — Modernism."

Reflection:
Serge, you have a right to your opinion, which is obviously what this is.

I think it safe to say that Catholics see what happened as the Spirit shaping us so that He can use us better in the modern world. I think I'll take the word of the Pope and our bishops for that.

Part of Serge's Response:
"Authentic reforms liturgically are things like making the minor orders real in the parishes again (men from the community in real ministry, not just a formalism for seminarians) and making the subdeacon holding the paten a functional ritual again — give him the Eucharist and send him out to commune people!"

Steve's Reflection:
Again, you have the right to see this as the authentic reforms needed in the Liturgy of our Church. I'm sure that there is a liturgical commission erected by our Church on the national and international levels to receive such suggestions. They would probably be very happy to know of your concern. I'm certain that they would appreciate both your suggestion and knowing of the depth of interest in our Liturgy by one outside our Church. They must receive many such suggestions from those within our Church.

I leave those determinations to be made by the processes instituted by our Bishops, Bishops' Conferences, and the Pope.

Serge Quotes Steve:
"I recognize that at least they are working constructively within the Latin Church to shape the liturgy as they believe it should be

Part of Serge's Response:
"You're willing to patronize them because they seem willing to play by your rules."

Reflection:
Serge, thank you. But, I think that you overestimate my role in my Church. I don't make any rules. I just am glad that the people who publish adoremus have put forward their suggestions within the context of the Latin Church.

Serge Quotes Steve"
"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."

Part of Serge's Response:
"Next to nobody demanded its abolition so Roman Catholics couldn't have been in so much "pain'. Even the LM simply wanted to make the most of it, not get rid of it."

Reflection:
I have not clearly expressed what I meant. Let me restate the last sentence above.

There was much pain endured because of the sudden cessation of the celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy. Part of the pain was mine.

Serge Quotes Steve:
"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."

Conclusion of Serge's Response:
"If you put a frog in a pot and gradually turn up the heat..."

Reflection:
I should have said in gradual stages of implementation of the changes as they were being organized over a period, while impeding the use of the Tridentine Liturgy.

Even when applying Systems Thinking ideas, remember that we're not talking about frogs.

We're talking about the reality of God working in and with and through His Church to bring about His ends. Systems thinking is another mental construct dealing with developing a Thinking Organization. Using that mental construct can be useful as long as we remember that it is simply a way to understand reality.

Thanks again for the courteous discourse.

Steve
JOY!

Dear Alex and Kurt and Mor Ephrem and Angela and All of the Others in this thread!

I want to speak personally for a moment, if I may.

I try to remember, as I posted elsewhere, that;

This place is the Byzantine Forum. I really think that the focus should be on the Christianity of the East and Orient. It's a place for sharing among you and between you. It's one of the few places where we Latins can come to learn without in general being constantly bashed or belittled because we're heterodox.

This Forum is a GEM! It needs to be cared for!

From that perspective, I think that you might be able to understand my reaction when behavior like that happens here as it seems to have in several threads here.

I am so appreciative of your many kindnesses to me, a stranger in a strange (different), though not foreign place. You have shared your knowledge of the Latin Church with the other posters. You have stressed the need for respect for the Latin Litugy and our Particular Church. I believe that that same respect is due to all of the institutions and beliefs of posters here.

It has been said that error has no rights, but believers do. They have the right to expect that even disagreement with their institutions or beliefs will be expressed in words which do not belittle the institutions or beliefs or the believers.

I am grateful that the Byzantine Church hosts this site. I am happy that members of the Latin Church and members of other Churches in our Communion are welcome here. I learn so much from you about all of your liturgies and Churches.

I am extremely happy that Orthodox posters come here and share, too! I've learned things here from believers in the Orthodox Communion that I think I would have never learned in any other way.

The presence of persons who hold non-Christian beliefs or who have no religious beliefs at all enriches our discussion. We share a common Father.

Thank you !

Steve
JOY!

Dear Steve,

You bless all of us with the warm and aromatic spiritual breath of your posts and your words!

I like the Orthodox posters here too as I am also ecumenical.

Besides, I like to think if they hang around here long enough, they might want to join us . . .

Kidding, kidding . . .

Alex