Are Eastern Catholics and traditional Catholics Orthodox in denial [CONTROVERSIAL]

[dzheremi]

I agree completely. But Christ also empowered His Church through the Holy Spirit and that sometimes brings needed change.

So it is Christ and the Holy Spirit Who wanted the Roman Church and the Roman Church alone to have clown masses, and to change the direction that the priest faces so that he may face the people for the vast majority of the liturgy?

Even though I know what you're driving at, this still feels like a kind of soft blasphemy. "No! We didn't do that! We didn't evolve away from a common understanding that we used to have with the EO regarding the position of the priest in leading the prayers of the liturgy! It was Jesus and the Holy Spirit Who did that, or at least told us that we should do that!"

Yeah, no. That didn't happen. The Holy Spirit teaches one thing, just like Christ established one church. God is not the author of late-Roman confusion and indifference.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So it is Christ and the Holy Spirit Who wanted the Roman Church and the Roman Church alone to have clown masses, and to change the direction that the priest faces so that he may face the people for the vast majority of the liturgy?

Even though I know what you're driving at, this still feels like a kind of soft blasphemy. "No! We didn't do that! We didn't evolve away from a common understanding that we used to have with the EO regarding the position of the priest in leading the prayers of the liturgy! It was Jesus and the Holy Spirit Who did that, or at least told us that we should do that!"

Yeah, no. That didn't happen. The Holy Spirit teaches one thing, just like Christ established one church. God is not the author of late-Roman confusion and indifference.

plus, using that logic, it would also be God allowing Fr Martin to openly bless same sex couples.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

the latter, since it’s still a meal.

In all seriousness, I do appreciate this opportunity to talk about one of the most controversial issues in the Christian Church.

What comes to my mind are the words: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. (Sacrosanctum Concilum 14)

The Post-Vatican II liturgical changes sought a greater openness to the world, increased intelligibility, accessibility, and transparency. It encouraged more use of vernacular languages, a wider variety of biblical readings (especially from the Old Testament). Some people found that this change made the Mass “warmer” because the priest and people could see one another and clearly hear and understand what is going on.

I grew up in the Latin Ad Orientem liturgy. The priest was up there mumbling in Latin and no one could see what he was doing. It was common for people in the pews to pray the Rosary or some other prayers. Versus Populum seemed to be more welcoming, accessible and engaging, like Jesus himself.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yeah, no. That didn't happen.

This is clearly the fork in the road. Not just for you and I, but for most anyone interested in the life of the Christian Church. I think it comes down to confidence in the Holy Spirit guidance. Not that everything will be perfect. There is always the human element. Crazy stuff happens. I tend to be more of a "rubricist". We will always have people trying to take things left or right, backward/forward, conservative/progressive. That is why I stick with the GIRM, which, by the way, does not seem to specify a direction. That is the least of our problems.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

no, because if you are in communion with someone, you do affirm their theology by default, even if you personally don’t express that theology.

Thank you for your answer. May I ask I follow-up question: I am assuming you mean the theology of the specific church you are in communion with and not the theology of individual hierarchs or leaders within that church? (please correct me if I am wrong)

How do you identify the theology of a specific church (as opposed to the theology of individuals within that church)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

In all seriousness, I do appreciate this opportunity to talk about one of the most controversial issues in the Christian Church.

What comes to my mind are the words: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. (Sacrosanctum Concilum 14)

The Post-Vatican II liturgical changes sought a greater openness to the world, increased intelligibility, accessibility, and transparency. It encouraged more use of vernacular languages, a wider variety of biblical readings (especially from the Old Testament). Some people found that this change made the Mass “warmer” because the priest and people could see one another and clearly hear and understand what is going on.

I grew up in the Latin Ad Orientem liturgy. The priest was up there mumbling in Latin and no one could see what he was doing. It was common for people in the pews to pray the Rosary or some other prayers. Versus Populum seemed to be more welcoming, accessible and engaging, like Jesus himself.

not every change from Vatican II we think is problematic (using the vernacular is the ancient praxis), so that’s not the issue.

no one questioned Christ’s accessibility with priests facing the same direction as the faithful, so there has to be a better argument than we like is this new way more. if it is just personal taste, then that is evidence of a dumbing down.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you for your answer. May I ask I follow-up question: I am assuming you mean the theology of the specific church you are in communion with and not the theology of individual hierarchs or leaders within that church? (please correct me if I am wrong)

How do you identify the theology of a specific church (as opposed to the theology of individuals within that church)?

heirarchs and individuals express the theology of the bodies they are in communion with by virtue of being members of that body. an individual Byzantine Catholic might disagree with the filioque, but he affirms it whenever he approaches the chalice, since he can approach a Latin Rite Eucharist where the service affirms the filioque, and a Latin Rite priest who affirms the filioque can approach the Byzantine Catholic parish chalice.

you affirm the theology of those with whom you are in communion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

not every change from Vatican II we think is problematic (using the vernacular is the ancient praxis), so that’s not the issue.

no one questioned Christ’s accessibility with priests facing the same direction as the faithful, so there has to be a better argument than we like is this new way more. if it is just personal taste, then that is evidence of a dumbing down.

As I said, I grew up in the AO liturgy and remember it very well. The priest was up there mumbling in Latin and no one could see what he was doing. It was common for people in the pews to pray the Rosary or some other prayers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I said, I grew up in the AO liturgy and remember it very well. The priest was up there mumbling in Latin and no one could see what he was doing. It was common for people in the pews to pray the Rosary or some other prayers.

that doesn’t address the issue at hand. and again, that’s not a theological defense of the change. that’s just your personal preference.

 

[prodromos]

As I said, I grew up in the AO liturgy and remember it very well. The priest was up there mumbling in Latin and no one could see what he was doing. It was common for people in the pews to pray the Rosary or some other prayers.

Do they not have bi-lingual prayer books available so that people can follow along?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do they not have bi-lingual prayer books available so that people can follow along?

I'm talking 60 years ago. And even with such a missal people seemed to prefer a rosary since visibility was nihil. If we really want fully conscious, and active participation it is far better to be able to see what the priest is doing, as if at a banquet table.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

that doesn’t address the issue at hand. and again, that’s not a theological defense of the change. that’s just your personal preference.

What is the issue at hand as you see it?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

no one questioned Christ’s accessibility with priests facing the same direction as the faithful, so there has to be a better argument than we like is this new way more.

Not a question of the accessibility of Christ, but accessibility to follow the actions, gestures, words and moments of the Mass more fully.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is the issue at hand as you see it?

what the change says theologically, especially when the formation is based on what Moses saw on the mountain.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not a question of the accessibility of Christ, but accessibility to follow the actions, gestures, words and moments of the Mass more fully.

that can’t be the reason for the change. since it’s easy to follow the motions, actions, gestures, words, and moments of the Liturgy in Orthodoxy (and others like Traditional Anglicans) and our priests face the same direction as the people.

plus, priests facing with the people was the norm for the majority of Rome’s history, and this wasn’t a historical issue.

so, that’s not a good reason.

 

[dzheremi]

Not a question of the accessibility of Christ, but accessibility to follow the actions, gestures, words and moments of the Mass more fully.

But that's on people to learn and stay engaged, regardless of what we're talking about. I mean, really, if "It's hard to do" were some kind of defense against the idea that you're jettisoning your own history and standards, then presumably we'd all have extremely short, extremely simplified liturgies, because those would be the easiest on everyone from a sensory perspective. Yet we don't do that -- including the Latins, historically. You guys also didn't do that, for the vast majority of your history.

When everything is turned to be parishioner-pleasing, yet as a result you have fewer and fewer people taking the faith seriously, I'd start to wonder if it weren't a better idea to go back to the old ways (not just meaning "pre-Vatican II", though yes, obviously before that...) than to do what would be most responsive to the wants and desires of people who find it too difficult to focus on worshipping God if they can't observe directly what the priest is doing 100% of the time. I'm unaware of any time before the modern era when that was taken to be necessary by any particular church outside of yours, yet in our time that same principle is the mother of many heresies. "Oh, we got rid of _____ years ago, because people said..."

Yes, and? Since when is what the Church does supposed to be even slightly amenable to that? If people find it difficult to fast, is that reason to give up on fasting altogether? If they find it easier to 'connect with' photo-realistic religiously-themed paintings than with icons, do we get rid of our icon traditions of antiquity in favor of those paintings where Jesus looks like a member of the Allman Brothers? No, right?

 

[CantorSeraphim]

heirarchs and individuals express the theology of the bodies they are in communion with by virtue of being members of that body. an individual Byzantine Catholic might disagree with the filioque, but he affirms it whenever he approaches the chalice, since he can approach a Latin Rite Eucharist where the service affirms the filioque, and a Latin Rite priest who affirms the filioque can approach the Byzantine Catholic parish chalice.

you affirm the theology of those with whom you are in communion.

If I understand you correctly, you mean theology as expressed liturgically (and perhaps publically in whatever mode that body would consider authoritative?)

I can see how that would work. To use a similar example, in the case of the Non-Chalcedonian churches - if they were to come into communion with us, or with the EO churches, the very act of approaching the chalice would be an act of at least tacit acceptance of Chalcedon, since we both publicly accept that Council as ecumenical.

The issue would seem to hinge then on whether or not you consider the acceptance or non-acceptance of a particular doctrine to be heterodoxy (like the filioque or the Chalcedonian definition in my example) - or whether you consider it to be merely a difference in speaking.

Forgive me if this seems obvious to everyone else…perhaps we in the RCC are accustomed to understanding ecclesial communion more in jurisdictional terms.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The issue would seem to hinge then on whether or not you consider the acceptance or non-acceptance of a particular doctrine to be heterodoxy (like the filioque or the Chalcedonian definition in my example) - or whether you consider it to be merely a difference in speaking.

right, but the filioque for us is heresy, and not just a difference in speaking. Rome also officially viewed it as heresy, then officially viewed it as dogma, and only recently is it just a difference in speaking because both those who accept it and reject it come to the same Chalice.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But that's on people to learn and stay engaged, regardless of what we're talking about. I mean, really, if "It's hard to do" were some kind of defense against the idea that you're jettisoning your own history and standards, then presumably we'd all have extremely short, extremely simplified liturgies, because those would be the easiest on everyone from a sensory perspective. Yet we don't do that -- including the Latins, historically. You guys also didn't do that, for the vast majority of your history.

When everything is turned to be parishioner-pleasing, yet as a result you have fewer and fewer people taking the faith seriously, I'd start to wonder if it weren't a better idea to go back to the old ways (not just meaning "pre-Vatican II", though yes, obviously before that...) than to do what would be most responsive to the wants and desires of people who find it too difficult to focus on worshipping God if they can't observe directly what the priest is doing 100% of the time. I'm unaware of any time before the modern era when that was taken to be necessary by any particular church outside of yours, yet in our time that same principle is the mother of many heresies. "Oh, we got rid of _____ years ago, because people said..."

Yes, and? Since when is what the Church does supposed to be even slightly amenable to that? If people find it difficult to fast, is that reason to give up on fasting altogether? If they find it easier to 'connect with' photo-realistic religiously-themed paintings than with icons, do we get rid of our icon traditions of antiquity in favor of those paintings where Jesus looks like a member of the Allman Brothers? No, right?

bingo. plus, you don’t change the Liturgy because the priests aren’t teaching their people about the Liturgy. you make the priests teach their people about the Liturgy.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

what the change says theologically, especially when the formation is based on what Moses saw on the mountain.

Are you referring to Moses as mediator for the people of Israel, approaching the holy mountain where God was present, while the people looked on from a safe distance? But we are talking about Jesus, not Moses on the mountain. To the extent that the Mass is a re-presentation of and participation in the Last Supper, it seems quite necessary that the priest should face the people.