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

[Akita Suggagaki]

If one cannot recognize the value of better visibility, when one can see the altar, the bread, the wine, and the face of the priest throughout the eucharistic prayer, facilitating more full, conscious and activate participation, there is not much more that can be said.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

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.

"hard to do" is not a defense. Being Christian is hard to do. But that is no reason to argue for clinging to liturgy that seems to exclude.

I just came from a small Mass. It was beautiful. Nothing dumbed down about it. Priest right in front of us, altar between us. There, the body and Blood of Christ for all to see. there the gestures and clear words of the Prayers. So welcoming, so self evident.

 

[dzheremi]

"hard to do" is not a defense. Being Christian is hard to do. But that is no reason to argue for clinging to liturgy that seems to exclude.

"That seems to..."

What if your interpretation of what is going on and why is based more on what seems to be the case to you than what is actually going on? Is that impossible to imagine?

A monk once told me about a man who observed his priest clapping during the liturgy, which in Orthodox circles is simply not done (the liturgy is not entertainment or performance like a musical concert or a motivational speaker's speech), and so he became distressed and went to their bishop saying "Bishop, Fr. so-and-so was clapping during this part of the liturgy! We are not that kind of Church!" The bishop smiled and explained to the man that what he had seen was a part of the liturgy during which the priest goes around the altar while reciting parts of the Psalms ("So I will go about Your altar, O Lord, That I may proclaim with the voice of thanksgiving...", "Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples! Shout to God with the voice of triumph!"), and that this is actually in the rubrics that the priest must do this -- it's part of the liturgy just as much as anything else is, not optional. The man just hadn't noticed it before and upon seeing what he thought was some kind of 'charismatic' intrusion into our Orthodox worship, he reacted as though there was something untoward going on when there really wasn't.

I just cam e from a small Mass. It was beautiful. Nothing dumbed down about it.

You seem to be really hung up the phrase "dumbed down", but I'm not sure you've understood it as it was meant, judging from your discussion with Fr. Matt. Maybe this is something that it would be better to move on from.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.

no, I am referring to what he saw on the mountain, which was the worship going on in heaven. Jewish worship was patterned after what he saw. Christian worship came out of Jewish worship. early Christians (who were after the establishment of the Last Supper) knew God was in their midst and their priests didn’t face the people.

so your not giving a solid, theological reason for the change.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If one cannot recognize the value of better visibility, when one can see the altar, the bread, the wine, and the face of the priest throughout the eucharistic prayer, facilitating more full, conscious and activate participation, there is not much more that can be said.

you are presenting a conclusion as a fact without an actual argument. you seem to assume that you know more about what should happen in the Liturgy than the very Fathers that gave it to you in the first place.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But that is no reason to argue for clinging to liturgy that seems to exclude.

for nearly 2000 years no one felt excluded. why do you think that is?

Nothing dumbed down about it. Priest right in front of us, altar between us. There, the body and Blood of Christ for all to see. there the gestures and clear words of the Prayers. So welcoming, so self evident.

and yet, you aren’t backing anything you are saying with anything concrete, aside to say you like it better. if it weren’t dumbed down, you could add a little more to support your claim. the Last Supper point doesn’t help your point since the position of the priest during the Mass with respect to communion and his flock isn’t the same as Christ’s with respect to the Supper and His disciples.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

no, I am referring to what he saw on the mountain, which was the worship going on in heaven.

Would you please provide the scripter verse you are referring to which requires Ad Orientem?

 

[prodromos]

Would you please provide the scripter verse you are referring to which requires Ad Orientem?

You're making Protestant arguments now?

 

[AlexB23]

It seems like the OP, @Nick Moser has abandoned us. He has not responded to any of the replies since March 16, 2024.

 

[prodromos]

It seems like the OP, @Nick Moser has abandoned us. He has not responded to any of the replies since March 16, 2024.

He is still around.

 

[AlexB23]

He is still around.

Good. Just making sure he is OK Maybe Mr. Moser is taking a break from CF?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would you please provide the scripter verse you are referring to which requires Ad Orientem?

would you please provide an answer to the question I already asked?

 

[dzheremi]

Would you please provide the scripter verse you are referring to which requires Ad Orientem?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

would you please provide an answer to the question I already asked?

So you refuse?

Which question are you now referring to?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You're making Protestant arguments now?

It has been said that it is the theological foundation. Is it too much to ask to see it?

 

[CantorSeraphim]

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.

I did not know this. My understanding was that the West was always filioquist, even though the filioque was not part of the liturgical recitation of the Creed (which was a late addition to Roman liturgy in any case). When did Rome condemn the filioque as heresy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So you refuse?

Which question are you now referring to?

I don’t refuse, but since I didn’t get an answer to my question (which is a theological reason for the switch with a little more depth than you like it more), I am gonna wait until mine is answered.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

@Akita Suggagaki - I am Catholic as well (though I belong to a church of the Byzantine Rite), but I am not sure about your defense of the ad populum posture for celebrating the Holy Liturgy.

To my knowledge, this has never been a part of any liturgical rite in any church (we in the Byzantine Church certainly have never used it), until the 20th century. There is nothing in the liturgical documents of Vatican II that instructs anyone to do this; there is a paragraph in the current version of the Roman instruction that foresees this a possibility, but not a requirement, and the rubrics of the current Roman liturgy actually imply that the priest is not celebrating 'ad populum'.

Suggesting that such a break with liturgical tradition is in effect willed by the Holy Spirit as part of His guidance of the Church seems disingenuous.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I did not know this. My understanding was that the West was always filioquist, even though the filioque was not part of the liturgical recitation of the Creed (which was a late addition to Roman liturgy in any case). When did Rome condemn the filioque as heresy?

Pope John VIII (I think) condemned it as heretical in a letter and called a local council to excommunicate anyone who used it in the Creed.

another Pope put up the Creed in silver in the Vatican in Latin and Greek without the filioque to show it’s heretical.

and the biggie is that the filioque was formally condemned by the entire Church at Constantinople IV in the 9th century, which Rome held for over a century before changing their mind.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don’t refuse, but since I didn’t get an answer to my question (which is a theological reason for the switch with a little more depth than you like it more), I am gonna wait until mine is answered.

The Mass is a sacrifice and a sacred meal. Is not the Last Supper the pre-eminent model for the Mass?

Perhaps you do not appreciate it, but I think the sense of Sacrosanctum Concilium is valid:
“The faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations.” Something more is required than mere observation. “The faithful should take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”

In the reformed liturgy the priest is able to celebrate facing the congregation (“versus populum”). This allows for more explicit inclusion in the celebration and participation by the faithful. This was also encouraged by having the celebration in a language they could understand.

“Versus Populum” also enhances positive theological elements which received new emphasis such as the universal priesthood, the universal call to holiness, the communal dimensions of the Eucharist, and a deeper awareness of baptism as an initiation into the full Eucharistic life of the Church as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own. (1 Peter 2:9)

Versus Populum:

1. Did not Jesus face the people He was interacting with? Did Jesus not celebrated the Last Supper facing the apostles? Does not Jesus mediate a better covenant? Hebrew 8:66 "Now he has obtained so much more excellent a ministry as he is mediator of a better covenant, enacted on better promises."
2. VP emphasizes the horizontal, Immanent theology of the liturgy as the work of the people of God, as opposed to a sacrifice offered exclusively by the priest and merely aided by the prayers of the people. Since the Council Fathers had seen the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy in light of empowering the People of God and teaching them that they also share in the common priesthood, a greater participation of the laity was encouraged in the Novus Ordo. We can see the participation of the laity, both man and woman in a much fuller way with more emphasis on their participatory role as royal priesthood. It avoids the sense that the people are an addendum to the priest’s liturgy
3. It enables the people to see more clearly the actions going on at the altar in the course of the Mass and so to enter into a deeper understanding/appreciation of those actions. It improves people's ability to hear and understand the spoken words of the Mass better.
4. It is the historically authentic practice of the early Church.

.
But you have already dismissed the practical advantages of visibility, clarity and explicit signs and gestures of inclusion. So I must simply leave it as a disagreement of theology and priorities. If you want to call it “dumbing down” I cannot stop you.