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

[ArmyMatt]

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.”

it is valid, and we have that sense not facing the people.

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.

that’s an assertion, not a theological argument. and we have always used the vernacular, so no need to bring that up since we agree on that point.

“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)

assertion again, not an actual argument.

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."

not in the way they do in the Mass, and also not the way in worship.

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

assertion again.

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.

assertion again.

It is the historically authentic practice of the early Church.

not true.

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. I am weary of this liturgical superiority. If you want to call it “dumbing down” I cannot stop you.

it’s because for most of Christian history until recently and only in the West, was the priest not facing the people seen as being a problem. the fact that the defense is just your personal take says something.

and yes, it is liturgical superiority because one was given by God to Moses of how He is worshipped in heaven. I am not one to think I know more than Him.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

God to Moses of how He is worshipped in heaven

Reference please.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Reference please.

Hebrews 8. plus the visions of God in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Exodus, and Revelation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hebrews 8. plus the visions of God in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Exodus, and Revelation.

Can you please be more specific? I would like to know exactly what you are referring to and how they relate to Ad Orientem.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can you be more specific? I would like to know exactly what you are referring to and how they relate to Ad Orientem.

have you read them?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

have you read them?

In the past but not recently. Why are you so reluctant and evasive?

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the past but not recently. Why are you so reluctant and evasive?

because I don’t do people’s homework for them, especially since I told you where to find them in the Bible.

plus, if the discussion is on whether or not there has been a dumbing down in the West, and the person trying to defend the Western practice only says that they like it more and offer nothing concrete from history….it kinda backs up my point.

and lastly, you have been evading my question of something solid to defend your position with something solid.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

because I don’t do people’s homework for them, especially since I told you where to find them in the Bible.

plus, if the discussion is on whether or not there has been a dumbing down in the West, and the person trying to defend the Western practice only says that they like it more and offer nothing concrete from history….it kinda backs up my point.

and lastly, you have been evading my question of something solid to defend your position with something solid.

O.K. I am done here. I did not evade your question. You did not accept my response.

It is you who claim the foundation for your theological argument for Ad Orientem is Biblical. One would think you would have those specific texts at you fingertips rather than expecting others to search through Hebrews, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Exodus, and Revelation for whatever it is that you have in mind.

Concrete from history? How about the last supper? But you don't see that as a model. Rather you prefer a Mosaic allusion from the old covenant.

You are not interested in discussion nor even sharing the sources of your view.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I did not evade your question. You did not accept my response.

because it wasn’t hard, actual evidence. just personal taste.

It is you who claim the foundation for your theological argument for Ad Orientem is Biblical. One would think you would have those specific texts at you fingertips rather than expecting others to search through Hebrews, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Exodus, and Revelation for whatever it is that you have in mind.

you don’t need to deeply search through any of those books. the specific visions in heaven are easy to find. plus, I am pretty sure I gave the chapter in Hebrews.

Concrete from history? How about the last supper? But you don't see that as a model. Rather you prefer a Mosaic allusion from the old covenant.

because you don’t actually follow the model of the Last Supper.

You are not interested in discussion nor even sharing the sources of your view.

I actually did. saying where to look in specific books especially in modern sources is sharing. if you don’t want to crack open a Bible to look at a single chapter in Hebrews, that ain’t on me.

I am totally interested with someone who is taking this seriously enough to open their own Bible and reading it.

 

[Lukaris]

When we all face the altar, are we not all facing God? Sure the priest must face us for the homily etc. but shouldn’t we all be facing God like during the Lord’s Prayer?

 

[CantorSeraphim]

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.

Thank you, I have to confess that I am not very familiar with the history here, so I will have to look into it. I have heard the anecdote about Pope Leo III and the silver shields in St. Peters before, though I also recall hearing or reading somewhere that although he opposed the insertion of the filioque into creed, he may have been ok with it as a theologoumena.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, I have to confess that I am not very familiar with the history here, so I will have to look into it. I have heard the anecdote about Pope Leo III and the silver shields in St. Peters before, though I also recall hearing or reading somewhere that although he opposed the insertion of the filioque into creed, he may have been ok with it as a theologoumena.

I don’t think he would have made the silver shields and erected them if it was just a theological opinion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

When we all face the altar, are we not all facing God? Sure the priest must face us for the homily etc. but shouldn’t we all be facing God like during the Lord’s Prayer?

For the sake of discussion, is God only in the "East"? God is everywhere. Is not God also in the midst of them gathered in his name?
All facing "East" is a strong symbolism of unity in worship. But so is the priest facing the congregation.
It is a matter of theological emphasis. God transcendent and out there in the "east" or God immanent within and among those gathered in His name.

 

[ArmyMatt]

God transcendent and out there in the "east" or God immanent within and among those gathered in His name.

that’s not why we face the same direction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For the sake of discussion, is God only in the "East"? God is everywhere. Is not God also in the midst of them gathered in his name?
All facing "East" is a strong symbolism of unity in worship. But so is the priest facing the congregation.

we agree that He is everywhere, which means He is clearly in the midst of His people even when they face the same direction.

 

[Lukaris]

For the sake of discussion, is God only in the "East"? God is everywhere. Is not God also in the midst of them gathered in his name?
All facing "East" is a strong symbolism of unity in worship. But so is the priest facing the congregation.
It is a matter of theological emphasis. God transcendent and out there in the "east" or God immanent within and among those gathered in His name.

I am just affirming my basic understanding of how to worship with Orthodoxy and I have no criticism of how Catholics worship ( or most Protestants either). I don’t necessarily agree but I also believe there is still salvation within your confession. I would have deep concerns over such innovations within our Orthodox confession especially in today’s world.

In a similar sense, I have no criticism ( for ex.) of the Catholic use of the Filioque within the confession of the Catholic Church. I believe there is still salvation within Catholic faith despite what is an unsound theology for us. I would be real concerned if it was considered “no big deal” within our confession. Despite this, if a non Christian approached me saying he or she found Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church, I would rejoice with that person.

Anyway, I believe when we all face God, we are all equal in worship. When it is time to preach, then the priest is there to face us.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Anyway, I believe when we all face God, we are all equal in worship. When it is time to preach, then the priest is there to face us.

Fine. But you seem to imply that God is in one direction while "us" in the other.

 

[dzheremi]

For the sake of discussion, is God only in the "East"? God is everywhere. Is not God also in the midst of them gathered in his name?
All facing "East" is a strong symbolism of unity in worship. But so is the priest facing the congregation.
It is a matter of theological emphasis. God transcendent and out there in the "east" or God immanent within and among those gathered in His name.

So if it's all matter of "God is everywhere" (a point which no one disputes, regardless of what communion they are in), then why did the RCC itself face east for a huge chunk of its history before switching over to mostly facing the people? Presumably there was some reason why you faced specifically that direction, just as you have given reasons for why you switched. Can you explain why your Church faced the east for centuries, rather than focusing on why it's supposedly fine that you largely don't do so anymore?

I can't speak for the RCC or the EO of course, but when it comes to my own Church, it's there in the rubrics and even in the dialogue of the liturgy itself, such that we don't have to come up with some kind of ex post facto argument about symbolism (though we don't deny symbolism as a thing, of course; it's just not a part of the rationale as to why we do things as we do them). The direction from the deacon during the Apostolic Kiss, for instance, is "Stand with trembling; look toward the east!", not "Stand with trembling; look wherever you want/fixate on what the priest is doing, because God is everywhere!" And the reason for why the east is quite obvious and given in simple terms in the reference book for the liturgy of St. Basil with commentaries (ed. Fr. Abraam Sleman) that is accessible via coptichurch.net's repository of liturgical texts, to give just one reference so that it's not left up to opinion or personal taste, as that is certainly not why we do anything: "As we are counted with the heavenly hosts, we ought to stand with them looking to the east, to the throne of the Sun of Righteousness." We are worshipping together with the heavenly hosts, and they are certainly not in the geographical position of being an 'audience' in worship, so neither should we be.

 

[ArmyMatt]

even in the dialogue of the liturgy itself

bingo. the Liturgy has always been a dialogue. not between the laity and the clergy, but all the faithful and God.

 

[Valletta]

So if it's all matter of "God is everywhere" (a point which no one disputes, regardless of what communion they are in), then why did the RCC itself face east for a huge chunk of its history before switching over to mostly facing the people? Presumably there was some reason why you faced specifically that direction, just as you have given reasons for why you switched. Can you explain why your Church faced the east for centuries, rather than focusing on why it's supposedly fine that you largely don't do so anymore?

I can't speak for the RCC or the EO of course, but when it comes to my own Church, it's there in the rubrics and even in the dialogue of the liturgy itself, such that we don't have to come up with some kind of ex post facto argument about symbolism (though we don't deny symbolism as a thing, of course; it's just not a part of the rationale as to why we do things as we do them). The direction from the deacon during the Apostolic Kiss, for instance, is "Stand with trembling; look toward the east!", not "Stand with trembling; look wherever you want/fixate on what the priest is doing, because God is everywhere!" And the reason for why the east is quite obvious and given in simple terms in the reference book for the liturgy of St. Basil with commentaries (ed. Fr. Abraam Sleman) that is accessible via coptichurch.net's repository of liturgical texts, to give just one reference so that it's not left up to opinion or personal taste, as that is certainly not why we do anything: "As we are counted with the heavenly hosts, we ought to stand with them looking to the east, to the throne of the Sun of Righteousness." We are worshipping together with the heavenly hosts, and they are certainly not in the geographical position of being an 'audience' in worship, so neither should we be.

Facing to the east was indeed a sign of unity. St. John Damascene, a Doctor of the Church in both East and West, explained it as a tradition handed down from the Apostles, and quoted Biblical tradition for facing the east.