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

<condescending mockery from Steve ignored>

Dr J,

Actually a dead language's meanings are carved in stone and interpreted by experts in that language (like the crew of Latinists at the Vatican who translate the Pope's letters for posterity). A common argument for the use of Latin at all in the Roman Church is just that. Living languages' meanings change. Dead languages' meanings don't.

Just like the gram-based weights and metal one-meter-long bar kept in liquid nitrogen or whatever at the French institute that determines Syst�me Internationale and metric measurements, the Latin original of the liturgical texts insures that vernacular translations have an objective standard to fall back on, thus insuring authenticity (the translations won't stray and become corrupted). Now that ICEL has been dumped, perhaps now this can happen finally in English. (But the other vernacular versions are error-ridden too so the problem is bigger than ICEL.) When the living-language translations need updating, as they invariably will, guess where one can go to check one's retranslations? And note I didn't demand that Roman Catholics always worship in a dead language, as some traditionalists seem to demand. I accommodate and still get slagged according to your liberalism. You can't please everybody (so why the h*ll try?).

I can take or leave thous and thees &#8212; I know they are the intimate "tu/Du/&#1090;&#1099;' forms in English that died out in the modern language sometime around 1700.

You seem to want to take liturgy off an objective "gold standard'. That is not Cathodox. It sounds antiliturgical Protestant.

Your condescension toward Slavonic as well as Latin seems to say you really have gone off your Russian Catholic experience and now look down on it rather like a dear friend or relative who is a little retarded.

It seems your attachment to our rite is largely sentimental, based on your mother's ethnicity, and not based on principle. Which makes your "look at me, I'm an ethnic Greek' pose irritating at times. Dude, you were raised RC and were a Jesuit seminarian. I know people who are of Jewish heritage who rabbinically never were Jews. You never were Greek Orthodox &#8212; genes and church-visiting as a kid didn't make you "bichurchial', ha ha. I'm not an ethnic Russian but am what I say I am: Russian Orthodox.

And BTW, "bad' meaning "really good' (like much white American slang, copied at some point from black use &#8212; blacks don't copy white slang like "jerk off', interestingly) is from about 25-30 years ago, from jive-talkin' blaxploitation movies and "Soul Train', and like "groovy' is understandable slang but very dated. It never stopped meaning "evil' (as it did 40-50 years ago) the way "gay' no longer means "happy' except in the dictionary. (20 years ago the white middle-class slang spread by TV was Valley Girl talk, still the accent of white middle-class American teenage girls &#8212; white middle-class American teenage boys turn this into California dudespeak and also copy black rappers.)

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.

There are experts who can attest the Church was hierarchical from the get-go. No sale, Dr J.

While I'm a good Cathodox, and I very much appreciate the tradition, I can also see that there are 'circumstances'.

Economy.

For example, how's about a Roman ordinand receiving the host from the ordaining bishop, but the chalice from his Mom and Dad?

Awwww.... how's about... NO!

Such turns the Mass into a celebration of self and not a celebration by and for the Church. Those fuddy-duddy rubrics you look down on actually insure the celebration is by and for the whole community, not just Fr Sean and Mr and Mrs McGillicuddy.

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.

If we did the Host-chalice thing, deacons and men in minor orders would do it, as they should.

In extreme economy, like in Russia during Soviet times where believers at times functioned as a truly underground Church in cities right under everybody's noses, I would be honored if some saintly woman sneaked me the Sacrament. Such happened. But this is not normal. Extreme conditions also explain St Tarcisius, the boy carrying the Eucharist during Roman persecution and who died rather than give it to the pagans, or St Clare carrying the monstrance to protect her convent, sometimes wrongly interpreted as a mandate to have EEMs.

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!).

This isn't clericalism but your blowing-off of the apostolic ministry of holy orders sounds Protestant.

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.

Economy, just as above.

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.

Pssst... I already know. See above.

Free Greek,

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?

&#1044;&#1072;. I have seen it quoted in modern, post-Soviet Russian literature for religious references. It seems in pre-1917 Russian culture the Slavonic wordings for prayers were as deeply rooted in the culture as thou-and-thee early modern English is in the religious culture of the English-speaking world (even the ICEL-paraphrased Novus Ordo reverts to it for the Our Father).

But (with a tip of the skufia to Dr J)...

A Russian friend my age (30s) who of course grew up Soviet said she never knew the words of the &#1054;&#1090;&#1095;&#1077; &#1085;&#1072;&#1096;&#1098; (Our Father).

To my eyes and ears, Slavonic is about as close to Russian as Chaucerian Middle English is to this, but translation of the services into modern Russian to accommodate post-Soviet people is entirely possible. In fact, before the Communist takeover the Holy Synod of the Russian Church was considering it. Right now the Russian Orthodox Church isn't very receptive to the idea but it remains possible.

http://oldworldrus.com

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

Dear Mor Ephrem,

Thanks for your posting. I read it with great interest and appreciate the effort and time that it took for you to build it. What love for the beauty of God's Churches your work exhibits!

I've reflected on what you've said. Here is some of that reflection. In all of this, remember that I am not an expert on the Sacred Liturgy or its history. I have done significant reading and study on these issues and have much lived experience with them. Remember that those lived experiences and what I've learned by reading and study are however conditoned by memory. We've already talked about that!

Steve said in a previous posting:
"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."

Mor Ephrem:
"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."

Steve:
Of course, you are correct! There are and have been many Liturgies used in the Latin Church. The Tridentine Liturgy and the Liturgy most call the Novus Ordo are two. For a period of time there was no authorized use of the Tridentine Liturgy approved by those responsible for deciding such things. Even now its use is restricted.

I know that that is true because, even now, it now requires an Indult for its use and because that is how it played out in my experience. The bishop of each diocese decides whether or not to apply the indult in his diocese.

Mor Ephrem:
"(even 20 year olds can have memory problems, Steve!)."

Steve:
Ahh! Thank you for that! You are as usual kind to a fault!

Mor Ephrem:
"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&#8230;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."

Steve:
I agree. There's confusion abounding in terminology. It's led to some interesting discussions here.

The word official can mean a Rite appropriate for use by memebers of the Latin Church in the sense that it does what the Chruch teaches that Liturgy does. Official can also be used to mean, I think, that a liturgy is the Rite which the Church asks that local churches use exclusively in worship.

In my lifetime, both meanings have been used in reference to the Tridentine Liturgy. For a period of time, the use of the Tridentine liturgy has been restricted to varying degrees.

The use of the Pauline Missal was promulgated. The renewed Liturgy was the official liturgy of the Latin Church in the second sense, the local churches were instructed to use it exclusively. That bishops can issue the Indult to allow its use is a relaxing of that restriction.

The very necessity of needing an indult leads me to think of the renewed Liturgy (Pauline Missal) as official. Of course, the indult makes the Triditine an official liturgy in the sense that it's ok to use it in this circumstance but not for general use. Perhaps, some time in the future, perhaps as you describe below, it will be in a more unrestricted use.

Mor Ephrem:
"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."

Steve:
I think that your suggestions are great! I'm not sure that the Latin Rite as you identify it is retired though. Its use is restricted though. Your suggested terminology might help in discussing the situation.

Mor Ephrem:
"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."

Steve:
Confusion over terminology is a problem!

Mor Ephrem:
"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)."

Steve:
They are correct in the sense that the fact that the Tridentine Liturgy does what Liturgy is supposed to do have never been denied. Its use was restricted though. Part of the problem with some of these groups is that they do not accept the Pauline Missal as constituting a real liturgy or rite of any kind. Most of those have separated themselves from communion with the rest of our Church. It is a great sorrow.

Mor Ephrem:
"So traditionalists only really have to affirm the validity of the Liturgies, Sacraments, etc. of the NO, and not necessarily that the NO is &#8220;the official liturgy&#8221; of the Latin Church."

Steve:
They dont have to agree that the renewed Liturgy is the only official liturgy. That's true, it seems to me. Then the Indult for use of the Tridentine Liturgy is granted in their particular case.

Mor Ephrem:
"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?"

Steve:
It may come in time, Phil. At this time, its requires an indult.

At base the answer to why not is because our bishops and the Pope have said it should be that way. I suspect it's so because it gives and has given us as a Church time to deal with the changes in practice and development in insights into things that were the result of the working of the Spirit in the Second Vatican Council.

Personally, I think that with great numbers of people looking backward our problems, and problems we have indeed, would have been exponentially greater and more comples. Rather than having to deal with what the Hierarchy was teaching and askin us to do, our Church would be struggling with greater divisions than those that are beong worked out now.

Mor Ephrem:
"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)? "

Steve:
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure that there will be discussions along those lines at some point. Maybe we are glimpsing the birthing of new forms of Church structures. Birthing is hard, growing up is hard, living is hard,...

All take time. Unfortunately some people don't want to allow us to work out our problems in the time we need. Guess we'll have to take the time to do it our way, anyhow. (Not you of course!)

But Alex's point is of course pertinent. The liturgy called the Novus Ordo is the liturgy of the Latin Church. Its use is unrestricted.

I love all of the liturgies of my Church. I am glad to have the opportunity to worship again using the Tridentine Liturgy of my youth and young adulthool. I am grateful that I have lived in the time where the renewed Liturgy is celebrated freely and as the ordinary Liturgy of my adult life (and ecroaching more mature years).

There is richness and beauty in each. I join with my bishops and fellow believers in celebrating in the Liturgy in either case*. I believe, though, that the Pauline Missal and the renewed liturgy celebrated in parish Churches has done what the fathers of the Council intended in the Constitution on the Liturgy. They trusted their brother bishops in the future to do what needed to be done to make it so. So do I.

Mor Ephrem:
Hopefully some of this has been pertinent to the thread, and not just a lot of useless

Steve:
I think that it has been most pertinent.

Discussion of Liturgies is most proper I think. The only thing that I have asked is that when we talk about andy of God's Churches or its liturgies or paractices, we do so with respect and without belittling them in our words.

Your postings indicate that you are filled with love for all of them.

I love to learn of your heritage. Thank you for sharing that with us.

I hope I have not clouded the discussion or your understanding.

Thanks again, Phil!

Steve
JOY!

I've not got time for a whole lot of editing right now. I apologize for that. I'll try to do it in a bit.

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love. Thanks for your understanding!

Serge,

From my heart to yours:

There was no condescending intended. If the beam in my own eye keeps me from seeing it, please accept my apology.

I submit my heart as I am sure you do yours to the Healer of Hearts.

Steve.


Serge at the beginning of a posting to another poster:
<condescending mockery from Steve ignored>

Guilty, as well.

While this is far from a perfect or full description of me, my principles are the universal truths of the Catholic Church lead by the Universal Pastor.

My attachment to my patrimony is not that I believe it to be superior to any other or that it, cotnains any point of relgious principle apart from the Catholic faith. It comes from the spirit rather than the mind.

Again, not the best description, but not inaccurate.

To the latest post-er: I agree your real tie to the rite is largely sentiment.

It is obvious, however, that I do not wish to speak to you. Go to some thread where I am not active, or leave the forum.

http://oldworldrus.com

I'll never know unless I ask, but do you believe that most Byzantine Catholics agree with your position?

Sincerely,

FG.

Free Greek,

I like Brendan's recent writing that said the universal Church isn't an abstraction that exists apart from the local Churches and their patrimony (-ies).

The older Latin-oriented BCs think like their Roman contemporaries, identifying Romanness as universality (hence its patriarch is "the Universal Pastor'*) and their rite as an ethnic window dressing for that universal Romanness. (Those BCs in America who vehemently disagreed in the 1890s and 1930s left for the Orthodox.)

The Orthodox-oriented BCs (and conservative Romans in the know) wouldn't say that.

By attachment to a rite on principle I mean attachment to the universal (Catholic) principles the rite embodies and teaches. Embracing secular humanism/relativism while claiming to be BC/Orthodox/Roman is to reduce one's attachment to a traditional rite to mere sentimentality. (Believe it or not, I once made that mistake.)

*The key to fixing the Schism is making clear papal primacy doesn't mean Roman primacy.

http://oldworldrus.com

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

Dear Free Greek,

I agree with Serge, even though I would not refer to BC's as "Orthodox oriented" but as being true to their proper Particular Identity whereas the "Latins" are not.

When I was with the Basilian Fathers (six years) they often referred to our Rite as "external things and rituals" that can be "dispensed with" as long as the Catholic faith is maintained.

The Rite is part and parcel of our experience and expression of our Faith.

Sentimentality is a term that I find rather meaningless in this context.

I think all Christians of Particular Churches have great feeling for the amalgam of religious and cultural traditions that constitute their Churches' inner life.

But they are the way in which we live our faith and so are integral to our experience of it.

Even though Serge is wondering about my health, I think I've understood this point correctly. Haven't I? If not, I'll take two aspirin and have a vacation from the Forum as Serge suggests.

Alex

I agree with Serge, even though I would not refer to BC's as "Orthodox oriented" but as being true to their proper Particular Identity whereas the "Latins" are not.

You're right, they are being true, but it's an uphill battle, and always has been, because the Roman-oriented seem to be a majority (including current Ruthenian bishops) and for a long time had (and in some instances, like banning clerical marriage, still have) Vatican backing.

When I was with the Basilian Fathers (six years) they often referred to our Rite as "external things and rituals" that can be "dispensed with" as long as the Catholic faith is maintained.

Yucko. Such is an Achilles' heel of the Roman way that in part is responsible for the NO.

The Rite is part and parcel of our experience and expression of our Faith.

The Orthodox and medieval Latin way of looking at things.

Sentimentality is a term that I find rather meaningless in this context.

For some Ruthenians I've seen online and in person it fits.

I think all Christians of Particular Churches have great feeling for the amalgam of religious and cultural traditions that constitute their Churches' inner life. But they are the way in which we live our faith and so are integral to our experience of it.

So I'd think. But except for stalwarts like (preschism, for all the Catholics reading) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Una Voce, not a whole lot of Latins put up a fight when the Amchurchers (and their opposite numbers in Britain and elsewhere) strode into town. A lot of people quit going to church, though, which makes sense in a way: why go to a half-a*sed copy of secular humanism in church when the secular world itself does it so much better? Even the art and music are better outside.

http://oldworldrus.com

Free Greek,

As I stated in my first post, the phrasology is lacking. With that mind, your question would be do most Byzantine American Catholic accept this IN SOME WAY. The answer certainly would be yes, and I dare say those you would deny that ANY interpetation of that is incompatable to them are not sincere Catholics. Trying to understand unviersal truths outside of the expressionof one's patrimony is a tall order. Nevertheless, these truths exists above and beyond our patrimony.

Some stand outside the Catholic Church yet seek to use aspects of our patrimony to divide Catholic aganist Catholic for their ideological purposes. In our own times, such persons have been almost wholely unsuccessful with those singularly of our patrimony, though they may have some appeal to those who developed an interest in our patrimony seperate from receiving the gift of faith.

K.

"When I was with the Basilian Fathers (six years) they often referred to our Rite as "external things and rituals" that can be "dispensed with" as long as the Catholic faith is maintained."

This attitude explains why some Byzantine Catholics seem to easily integrate themselves into the Roman-rite Church.

I once read that the Byzantine Catholics in America have actually lost more of their faithful to the Roman-rite Catholic Church than to Orthodoxy. I believe it. I mean, if the externals are just so much packaging that can be changed like the seasons why not change if the packaging loses its popularity? From the Orthodox perspective, this is a great, great tragedy.


Our Orthodox hierarchs know what must be done to protect the Orthodox faithful from being the victims of a similar tragedy.

Thanks be to God.

FG

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Some stand outside the Catholic Church yet seek to use aspects of our patrimony to divide Catholic aganist Catholic for their ideological purposes. In our own times, such persons have been almost wholely unsuccessful with those singularly of our patrimony, though they may have some appeal to those who developed an interest in our patrimony seperate from receiving the gift of faith.

Sanctimonious horse crap and another swipe at non-cradle Byzantines. One side of the so-called "Catholic against Catholic' struggle isn't really Catholic anymore but secular humanist with Christian trappings, just like mainline Protestantism. Some people, like Internet trolls, are PO'd that some non-cradle Byzantines have the cojones to point out the Byzantine tradition is dead against the tripe being passed off as Catholicism today in America. For the second time today, go away.

http://oldworldrus.com

"When I was with the Basilian Fathers (six years) they often referred to our Rite as "external things and rituals" that can be "dispensed with" as long as the Catholic faith is maintained."

This attitude explains why some Byzantine Catholics seem to easily integrate themselves into the Roman-rite Church.

I once read that the Byzantine Catholics in America have actually lost more of their faithful to the Roman-rite Catholic Church than to Orthodoxy. I believe it. I mean, if the externals are just so much packaging that can be changed like the seasons why not change if the packaging loses its popularity? From the Orthodox perspective, this is a great, great tragedy.

Yeppers.

http://oldworldrus.com

yes. A provable fact, and almost exclusively the case today. More Ruthenians become Methodist than Orthodox.


Our particular skin color and universal humanity would be an imperfect but better comparision.


Thank you for your concern. Historically, the Orthodox have been less ecumencial than you. They have shown no interest in us or our patrimony. Vendors of Byzantine Church supplies have even been told not to sell to BCs. Seeing Orthodox interest in our common patrimony is encouraging.

kurt

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

I still have a good memory.

FG