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

Dear Dan,

From one "Sergianist" to another, you are correct. Serge admitted that he has nothing against the NO provided it is done properly and without what many understand as abuses are left out.

Alex

Brother Alex,

It is good to be on the same side.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dan Lauffer

In the abstract, it is conceivable. In reality, the matter of lay Eucharistic Ministers in the Latin Church has now been authorized by the Holy Father for quite some time now, without a negative effect on Eastern Catholics (save Latin Catholics who attend eastern parishes for that reason and who might want to create a neagative effect that did not naturally emerge).

So we now have history on this with harmony among our churches.


As to women clergy, that consideration by the Church of the Latins has been limited to women in the diaconate. Based even on the evidence, eastern catholics seem to be open to theat same discussion rather than scandalized by it.

Kurt

P.s. I hoep we have no misunderstanding as to the term "abuses". Obviously, it should not be applied to Latin practices approved by the competent authority even if they are practices some one personally dislikes.

K

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Thanks, Dan and Alex.

In the abstract, it is conceivable. In reality, the matter of lay Eucharistic Ministers in the Latin Church has now been authorized by the Holy Father for quite some time now, without a negative effect on Eastern Catholics

What about the many young Ruthenians who leave Пеннсыльванская и Охайоская Русь for college and its not-really-Catholic "campus ministry'/Newman Center, or the suburban not-really-Catholic-anymore parish church in LA, Seattle or New Ulm, MN, with its platoons of needless EEMs, receive in the hand and self-commune from the chalice from these folks and think it's fine, owing to the influences both of American culture and the "Catholic is Catholic (kowtow to the Romans)' aspect of their own upbringings? I've seen it myself — dated it, in fact — and such may still consider themselves Byzantine Catholics. RCs including Amchurchers outnumber BCs by an incredible number in this country — social pressure does its thing.

Oh, and now the Ruthenians, with Fr David Petras, no less, are introducing and defending EEMs in their own churches! The damage is being done.

(save Latin Catholics who attend eastern parishes for that reason and who might want to create a neagative effect that did not naturally emerge).

Swipe. You're PO'd someone in your church has the cojones to point out the contradiction and so you do your damnedest to make them unwelcome: "you're not really one of us; you're just a “gr�cophile transritualist”', etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

So we now have history on this with harmony among our churches.

Bat guano. A Ruthenian priest I've met says EEMs will get into his church "over my dead body'. Good man.

P.s. I hoep we have no misunderstanding as to the term "abuses". Obviously, it should not be applied to Latin practices approved by the competent authority even if they are practices some one personally dislikes.

The "papist' caricature of Catholicism par excellence, used by liberals: "the NEXT Pope will give us what we want'. Popes and bishops can and do make mistakes in prudential judgement, compared against immemorial tradition, the consensus of practice of all the orthodox, apostolic Churches. Personal likes and dislikes are a red herring. I may not like Communion in the hand but would allow it � la mode anglicaine in the Roman Rite*. I may not like Communion under one kind only, fiddleback chasubles, silent Low Masses or operatic-aria music by Gounod, but they are longstanding parts of that rite that are not heretical abuses.

*Many other traditionalists wouldn't.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I like Pope John Paul.

Kurt

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

Serge writes: "What about the many young Ruthenians who leave Пеннсыльванская и Охайоская Русь for college and its not-really-Catholic "campus ministry'/Newman Center, or the suburban not-really-Catholic-anymore parish church in LA, Seattle or New Ulm, MN, with its platoons of needless EEMs, receive in the hand and self-commune from the chalice from these folks and think it's fine, owing to the influences both of American culture and the "Catholic is Catholic (kowtow to the Romans)' aspect of their own upbringings? I've seen it myself — dated it, in fact — and such may still consider themselves Byzantine Catholics. RCs including Amchurchers outnumber BCs by an incredible number in this country — social pressure does its thing."

Ouch.

It seems to me that the above post implies that any innovation is in itself "wrong". What frightens me, as a Gospelite, is the implication that the Holy Spirit has no role in our contemporary Christian lives. "Just keep everything the same as it was XXX hundred years ago, and we're OK." If we allow any innovations, we are in danger of falling into heresy.

However, the Roman Church has determined that it has to get out of the late 19th Century modality and trying to do "aggiornamento", "up to dat-ing'. If one is sure that the Roman Church has grace, then there can be no doubt that this process, instituted and approved by both the Council and the Holy Father, is what is right for the Roman Church.

There is NO question in my mind that there are abuses in the implementation of the 'aggiornamento'; I've seen lots of them. BUT, on the other hand, I've also been to a few liturgies using the revised Roman format, that have been extremely spiritual and uplifting.

Again, I reiterate my perspective: it's NOT a question of the liturgical texts, or their validity, but rather the execution. Some priests do a wonderful job in celebrating liturgy. Others are liturgical disasters (to use the kind words). And this applies both to Catholic (Romans), Catholics (Byzantines and Easterns), and Orthodoxes.

I think it is really unkind to condemn one or another group because of their some-time execution of liturgy. I've been to 'recited' Ukrainian Orthodox liturgies. Prayerful? Yes. (sorta). Enticing/transformational/uplifting? Like month-old Jello.

Once again, I'll go back to the 'basics'. "By their works shall you know them." It is what the liturgy does to a person's life that is the crucial element. A good priest is one who takes the liturgical elements and implements them into a tool for conversion and metanoia. He may be tone deaf, morbidly obese, have sinus problems and pimples, but if he can implement the Liturgy into a vehicle for evangelization, then the Liturgy will work to its intended purpose.

Let's not get involved in condemnations based upon 'practice'. That is purely secondary. It's the living of the Gospel that is key.

Blessings, y'all!

(Special note to Serge: I appreciate your affinity to Russian practice, but might I ask that you refrain from using Russian type fonts in your postings without letting us non-Russian folks know what you're posting. I say this not because I'm denigrating the Russians, but rather because I enjoy communication; and if I have no idea what you're posting, then I can't understand or respond adequately. I can read OCS, but not modern Russian. Of course, if you choose to use Greek, then it's a whole new ball game for me!)

Originally posted by Dr John:
Serge writes: "What about the many young Ruthenians who leave &#1055;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1089;&#1099;&#1083;&#1100;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1080; &#1054;&#1093;&#1072;&#1081;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100; .....<snip>

Dr: John (Special note to Serge: I appreciate your affinity to Russian practice, but might I ask that you refrain from using Russian type fonts in your postings without letting us non-Russian folks know what you're posting. I say this not because I'm denigrating the Russians, but rather because I enjoy communication; and if I have no idea what you're posting, then I can't understand or respond adequately. I can read OCS, but not modern Russian. Of course, if you choose to use Greek, then it's a whole new ball game for me!)

I must agree with Dr. John on the cyrillic issue. while my computer at work properly displays the cyrillic, making at least some sense to me. my computer at home shows:
??????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????
yep, a bunch of question marks which of course is harder to decipher than Greek, OCS, and Russian mixed together. I can read some modern russian as well as some OCS, but have a more difficult time with ???? ???? ???? ???????

Steve

Dr. John,

Could you help me see where Serge condemns "one or another group because of their some-time execution of liturgy"?

What he did say is that the Novus Ordo is legitimate the abuse attendant upon an often misue of EEM's, taking communion rather than receiving it, and faulty teachings by certain "Catholic" university programs are tempting many of our BC young people away.

I don't understand why you have misrepresented his point here, but perhaps you now understand his point a bit better.

To all of the posters:

Does Serge have a point or not?

Dan Lauffer

Thanks, Dan.

Yours is a voice of sanity from the pre-crash forum I liked so much.

Steve Petach,

Sorry. Perchance are you using a Mac? I never have read Cyrillic successfully on one.

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge and Dan, may I humbly ask for a little elucidation ?

Serge -1) Earlier you said <<< I may not like Communion in the hand but would allow it � la mode anglicainein the Roman Rite >>

Now I will admit my memories of Reception of Communion go back -- oooh 20+years[ grey hair time again !!] but my memories are of a line of kneeling Communicants at the altar rail [ maybe 20 or more depending on the Church] and the Rector/Vicar going along the line giving Communion in the hand, and if you were lucky one word said over/to you , and if he had a Curate, said Curate was maybe 2 paces behind giving Communion from the Chalice. Did you really mean this system ? I will freely admit we did not touch the Chalice. There was always someone behind you and because of this you could neither genuflect before or after Reception . It all seemed to be a rush - which even then I did not like .

Dan - you referred to the taking and receiving of Communion - I'm not really sure what you mean here.

Thinking of the way we are taught to help with the distribution of the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord, we are taught that we should not be hasty, should look the communicant in the eye as we say the words, using their name if we know it, and the Host or Chalice should be held so the communicant sees It before we give It to them. If there is any doubt in our mind as to the recipient [ age, infirmity etc] then we retain hold of the Chalice and do not physically give It to them . This seems to me to be a most respectful way of assistance - it is quiet, not rushed and the communicant is able to genuflect before[ some of our Parish do] or bow without feeling there is a long queue - there often is but it is not noticeable. And as you both probably realise I have received in a Ukranian Catholic Church and I found it very, very moving experience - to my surprise I found that I had a very strong urge to kneel for Reception - but I did not.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Angela,

I would feel much at home in your parish. Your description is beautiful.

Dan - you referred to the taking and receiving of Communion - I'm not really sure what you mean here.

I wish all the experiences of viewing persons during Eucharist were as beautiful as you describe. Sadly, they are not. One cannot judge motives but it is hard to stomach people grabbing the wafer.

Dan Lauffer

Dan wrote: "What he did say is that the Novus Ordo is legitimate the abuse attendant upon an often misue of EEM's, taking communion rather than receiving it, and faulty teachings by certain "Catholic" university programs are tempting many of our BC young people away.

I don't understand why you have misrepresented his point here, but perhaps you now understand his point a bit better."

Dan, my comments were directed to the whole posting community, not at Serge specifically. I have concerns about a lot of posters who have specific perspectives; and, as a teacher, I am always trying to 'stir the pot' and ask questions that will intice people to think. (I.e., please answer the question -- not me.)

In terms of the issues you present, my only concern, as noted above, is that the liturgies themselves have value; the bad execution of them is a problem for all liturgical churches. (E.g. the example of recited Ukrainian liturgy).

What I find very uncomfortable is the notion that the use of EEMs is oftentimes misuse (perhaps it can be, but the practice itself in not an abuse). To designate it as an abuse based upon the notion that only the clergy are allowed to distribute communion, is just wrong. Others than bishops, priests and deacons have traditionally distributed the Eucharist in different situations, (e.g., nuns in their own monasteries). And getting away from the Medieval notion that only the clergy are worthy of 'touching' the Eucharist is not an abuse, just a re-thinking. In the post-Apostolic era, many of the brethren would take the Eucharist home for reception during the week and for family members who were not able to be present for the Eucharistic celebration. An abuse? Not for them.

And 'taking' communion rather than receiving it I'm not sure what that means? We have traditionally used both verbs, i.e., can you take communion tomorrow or can you receive communion tomorrow). If a communicant 'accepts' the wafer that is proferred, or reaches into the laver to 'take' the host doesn't seem to me to be a big distinction. It's the 'recognizing' of the presence of the Lord in the bread and wine that is the critical element.

And "faulty teachings by certain "Catholic" university programs". What does this mean? I know that there are all kinds of schools of theology; some are very open and permissive of free and wide-ranging inquisition. Others are very catechetical: e.g. 'THIS' is what St. Thomas Aquinas taught; learn it.

This was a significant component of what and the way I was taught in the early years of seminary formation. And we did the whole thing in Latin. I can still recite: "the ego of man is something substantial; the human essence is made up of two elements, namely potency and act." And then it went on and on and on and on........ And we were obligated to 'prove' each of these theorems and to integrate them one with the others. It is called the 'Summa Theologica', and as the name implies there was NO possibility of thinking outside the box. And there was an oral (and written) comprehensive examination which you had to pass in order to be a candidate for ordination. AND, it was in Latin.


So, for us Catholics today, if we are going to be 'traditional' about the whole thing, then you'd darned well better be proficient in Latin and Greek, and, if a Byzantine, also proficient in your own liturgical language, whether OCS, Greek, Arabic, Ukrainian, etc. Otherwise: take a hike. This was the canon law right up until the late 1960s. Any number of my classmates had to delay their vocations for a year in order to take highly intensive classes in Latin and Greek PRIOR to any consideration of being admitted to seminary.

So, in a nutshell, I don't care what anybody FEELS about one or the other issue, but I am very concerned that one should discuss issues, and debate them in a scholarly (and -- pardon the term: 'gentlemanly') way. To be dismissive of EEMs, and the style of reception of communion in the Western Church without bothering to acknowledge the historical realities, is just not fair play, but rather judgementalism.

Blessings!

Thank you Dan for those kind words. I remember someone[you?] who made a comment about priests receiving from laity. That did happen to me - we had had a Mass of Healing celebrated by an Irish priest and our own clergy decided that they were in as much need of healing as we were and therefore they would attend as members of the Parish and not as priests. It was a very curious feeling as my Parish Priest approached me -- I was not comfortable about that at all and indeed said so afterwards and was reminded that though he was a priest he was also a human with needs similar to mine. Not what I had expected. It would have been nice if I had been forewarned.

I do take your point about people grabbing the Host and with our 'system' it would not be possible. We do have one member of the Parish who can only receive from the Chalice which is why, with us, Communion has always been given under both kinds, and it is left to individual parishoners to decide in which way they actually receive Our Lord.

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of us all, bring us to Her Son.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

It seems that in the thread entitled "Orthodox Hail New Ecumenical Officer", we've seen the resurrection of past issues, where the revised Latin Liturgy is being criticised by some, and defended by others. Therefore, I intend to do some resurrecting of my own and bring this thread back to the top of the list, since it seems inappropriate to make the abovementioned thread anymore off topic than it already seems to be by what I have to say.

Certainly, the Latin Liturgy currently in use by the Church of Rome is legitimate, valid, etc. And it is also beautiful, as I've seen many times. For me personally, not having any first hand experience with the old rite, this is "the Latin rite" that I know and that I greatly appreciate for all the spiritual benefits it has afforded me.

With that said, and in all fairness to Reader Serge, I think we may be jumping the gun, especially since, unless I read something wrong, I don't think he ever made much criticism of the Latin Liturgy in the abovementioned thread but, in my opinion, such criticism was read into his thoughts.

If the Latin Church and her hierarchs decided that their Liturgy needed to be revised, refreshed, updated, whatever, that's their decision, and no one, I think, is going to stop them from making it. And they haven't. I think what those of us who share views similar to Reader Serge feel is that the reform which the council fathers intended hasn't been carried out the way it should have been, at least in the United States.

I live (back home, anyway) in the territory of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, and I often go to Mass in their churches. And because of my familiarity with the NO liturgy, I feel pretty confident saying that, in the places where I have attended Mass, with the occasional liturgical abuse creeping in, unintentionally I trust, the Liturgy has been celebrated reverently and faithfully. I go, and I'm able to pray in a way that I can only pray during Liturgy. And that's great. I probably wouldn't understand Latin (the same way I don't understand Syriac), and silent canons and the whole nine, so I don't know about the traditional Latin Mass...I suspect I'd feel the same way, though, because the Liturgy is the Liturgy. In that sense, I've seen the reform undertaken by Vatican II succeed in its mission (I've read the council documents, and personally don't see a precedent therein for as much reform and revision as has been undertaken with regard to the Liturgy, but would be willing to see where the precedent is in those documents if shown to me, or, barring that, would be willing to concede that the fathers of Vatican II, after writing the document, decided to go with its recommendations, and build upon those after the fact, in a way they thought wise...I'll accept that).

Travel a little up north, my friends, and you end up in the Diocese of Albany, where I go to school, and you get a different picture of the reform.

I've been to churches where traditional statuary, iconography, architecture, etc. have been cast out in favour of new stuff which I highly suspect doesn't really lift anyone's spirits to God, but just accomodates to "the latest liturgical fad" and makes us feel better about ourselves.

I've been to churches where people march right up to the "eucharistic table" and chit-chat with others there, as if it was some meeting hall, and this shouldn't be. Common RC parlance refers to the "eucharistic table" as an altar, emphasising its sacrificial nature. But this terminology has been abandoned regretfully, leading to a de-emphasis on the Eucharist as sacrifice, and more as "banquet". Mind you, it is a banquet, but it is also a sacrifice...both should be emphasised in proper measure, and not one to the detriment of the other. This same change in terminology is making its way steadily, leading to priests being called "presbyters". Your average Joe (not Father Joe ) doesn't know what the heck a presbyter is, but they have a better idea of what a priest is as opposed to a minister. But by trying to bring back a word used a long time ago and replacing a common word like priest, one blurs the distinction, and soon Father Smith isn't any more special than Brother Bob of Grace and Peace Ministries (fictional enterprise).

I've been to churches where the priest omits large portions of the Liturgy. The Penitential rite is omitted...I guess we're not all that bad after all. And the Gloria too. I don't hear this great doxology of praise anymore up here...but I do hear fabulous, "me"-praising hymns. What about the Creed? Do we even believe that stuff anymore up here? In addition, other things are added to make up for what was ditched...and none of these are legitimate, from my knowledge of the GIRM, which I've read front to back twice, with due recognition of the stuff allowed in America.

And other "little" things too. Violet vestments for the penitential seasons of Lent and Advent, with the theme of penance for sin they imply, are tossed out in favour of blue. What the heck does blue mean? It's not even allowed! At least use white vestments with the proper coloured stole, which is an acceptable arrangement, to my knowledge. But blue? And incense...let's incense the Advent wreath, which is swinging and spinning (literally, I am not kidding) from a small wire attached to the ceiling, raised and lowered before and after processions (yes, like a disco ball)...and let's incense the people...but forget the altar, or the Gospel, or even the crucifix...wait, what crucifix?

These and other things have I witnessed up here, and others. I've smelled the sacramental wine used up here for the Mass once, while I was in a front pew, and Eucharistic ministers were administering the chalice. I'm a college student, I kinda know a thing or two about alcohol (mind you, I'm not an alcoholic ), and I know that was too strange smelling to be any sort of wine...to be honest, it smelled more like a chalice full of scotch. When I asked a Latin canonist about this, he told me that in such a situation, the bishop should be notified. The bishop up here, according to one sister who taught me and who works with him regularly, is in favour of women's ordination, and believes in such, but won't come out in public with it. All the priests believe it too...posters and other ads are often put inside and outside the churches, urging one and all to "pray for the ordaining of women". One priest up here decided he was really meant to be a woman, so with the diocese's help and the bishop's blessing, he went out and did just that. Now, for all the liberal priests and people here, this was even too much, and they wondered about it...but what else do you want with the doctrinal laxity going on up here? And for all their puzzlement regarding how the bishop could possibly allow this, I don't remember hearing of anyone doing anything constructive about it.

It's enough to get me questioning the validity of the priests' orders up here...and enough to motivate me to travel six hours in total per weekend on an annoying bus (and pay a considerable chunk of cash) to go home so I can go to church, because when I go to church here, I leave "Eucharist" wishing I never bothered to come, and that's a bad feeling indeed. I'm lucky that my mom is able to afford that, and understanding enough to let me do it, and not bored of me to tell me to stay put.

It's too much to over-emphasise the little things in the faith, like incense, vestments, etc. But we should emphasise them in proper measure. The Liturgy is our main teacher...everyone here, when advising a newcomer on how to best learn Byzantine theology, says without exception to participate in the Liturgy. That means, to me anyway, that when you play around with the Liturgy, you had better play in such a way that the integrity of the faith isn't watered down, or else you're facing disaster. Lex orandi, lex credendi, anyone?

I'm not saying that the NO Liturgy is watered down, nor am I saying that it has messed around with the integrity of the faith. I recognise it as orthodox, and I like it.

But what I am saying is that in a lot of places in this country (and I mean a lot, although I'll admit I only have first hand experience in two Latin dioceses), the reform of the Roman Liturgy was undertaken in such a way that, in allowing this or that "innovation", the substance of the faith in those liturgies took a blow and became fuzzy, and this has drastic effects on the faithful. Of course the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany officially teaches, with the rest of the Latin Church, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice...but that's not the feeling I get when I go to Mass here. Of course they teach that we go to Mass to worship and adore God, but you wouldn't know it by the hymns and prayers that exalt man rather than God, or by the closet, tucked away in a corner in the back of the church, where the Lord is kept in the Eucharist.

In defending the liturgical practices of high-church Anglicans, I don't think Reader Serge is attacking the legitimate reform of the Latin Liturgy, but simply saying that their way is a good example of how the Latin Liturgy could be reformed, in the true spirit of Vatican II, unlike what passes for that reform in some quarters. They may not believe the stuff which their liturgy professes, or they may, and their orders are just null, but we believe it, and the Church of Rome, where their high-church Anglican liturgy finds its origin, has valid orders. It would be better to reform the liturgy the way they have done, while preserving the substance of the faith, and "Godward" worship, than by reforming the liturgy the way some Romans in some places have done, and putting both of these principles in danger. Granted this hasn't been done everywhere, and it very well might just be an American phenomenon (for all I know), but we can surely learn from those who, while outside the Church of Rome, have kept true to liturgical reforms of that Church, while preserving the faith the liturgy professes.

What's more, I think that he is saying such things in a spirit of genuine concern, because I would say the same things too, and in this whole essay of mine, I probably did just that. I think it's a good thing if we share constructive criticism like that, as long as we don't lower ourselves to ad hominem attacks, reading into others' thoughts, and criticising someone's credentials and ability to offer such criticism, but instead say all things, and do all things, in a spirit of love and truth.

I'll shut up now...

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Mor Ephrem --

Now that was quite a posting.

"I think what those of us who share views similar to Reader Serge feel is that the reform which the council fathers intended hasn't been carried out the way it should have been, at least in the United States."

YES. Speaking from personal experience, Germany is in a similar liturgical situation to the United States, as is Australia. The places where there are the most problems are, probably not very surprisingly, in those places where there is a substantial Protestant population, and where the culture is either only partially formed by Catholicism or not formed by Catholicism at all.

"Travel a little up north, my friends, and you end up in the Diocese of Albany, where I go to school, and you get a different picture of the reform."

This sounds very similar to the difference between the Diocese of Arlington, Va. and the Diocese of Richmond, Va. I once had a RC convert tell me that he thought he had joined the Catholic Church, but eventually realized he had joined "an ecclesiastical grouping known as the Diocese of Richmond". He meant that tongue-in-cheek, but that remark is not atypical for that diocese. I guess upstate NY has its diocesan challenges -- wasn't Rochester the diocese with the Bishop that --- until Rome leaned heavily on him -- wouldn't interfere with Fr. James Callan's strange practices (like blessing same sex unions and celebrating the Eucharist with a non-ordained female "assistant" at the table, wearing vestments and a stole, and raising the chalice). It sounds like there are a lot of strange practices in the Latin Church in upper NYS.

"But by trying to bring back a word used a long time ago and replacing a common word like priest, one blurs the distinction, and soon Father Smith isn't any more special than Brother Bob of Grace and Peace Ministries (fictional enterprise)."

Here they have started calling them "parochial administrators".

"That means, to me anyway, that when you play around with the Liturgy, you had better play in such a way that the integrity of the faith isn't watered down, or else you're facing disaster. Lex orandi, lex credendi, anyone?"

This is a good point to remember. Again, to me it seems that where the reform has gone astray has been in places where there is a greater pressure and greater degree of assimilation to a larger non-Catholic or only part-Catholic culture. That's really a critical problem, ISTM, in a place like the United States.