The division in the Catholic Church (Churches)

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well I have to disagree with you on that; in my opinion, having visited traditional Latin masses, the piety is sincere and not motivated by nostalgia but rather by an appreciation for the liturgical beauty, which has also stimulated interest in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

When you say "liturgical beauty" what are you referring to other than music?

 

[discombobulated1]

Her statement that she never met any Communist who was in the Catholic clergy seems to fly in the face of the claims of her talking about how there was Communist infiltration that she participated in. Now, there are some possibilities the article discusses for how to possibly reconcile this with the secondhand reports about her talking about infiltration. So this doesn't necessarily mean she never made those other statements. But given all reports of them are secondhand and decades after her death, and we have a firsthand quote that at least appears in tension with the secondhand claims, I think some caution is warranted in citing her in regards to this.

I sometimes wonder if the communists were the least of the Church's problems vis a vis infiltration. The secret societies were probably the most insidious/evil

 

[discombobulated1]

Indeed, I myself have a hand missal, although the local Traditional Latin Mass I sometimes visit has much nicer hand missals than mine, which dates from the 1960s; theirs are more recently printed, and are beautifully illustrated hardcover books. Indeed they would make a lovely coffee table book. I forget the name, but I will try to recall it, as it is really the best printed missal I have seen. Whereas what I have is a simple leather bound hand missal from the 1960s which is adequate and compact.

LOL

I had a mental vision when you first used the term "hand missal"... a vision of a dangerous missile in your hand, maybe to lob at the communist Chinese when they invade... oops.. I mean continue invading (southern border).

OK, I'm done laughing. I also had a missal from the 60s and I need to find it because of course a real Catholic would not get rid of it. That reminds me: I went to a novus ordo Church years ago, didn't know better @ that time.. and one day there was, on a pew that was used as a bench in the "lobby" of the Church about a dozen books and booklets from the 60s! Someone had maybe passed on and relatives gave them to the Church or something.. I felt sad, like people didn't want those things, but I guess they could have already had some and wanted to be charitable... sigh

 

[discombobulated1]

What didn't you understand. I try not to be too obtuse.

LOL

never mind. It looks like we are both lost.. and too lazy to go back and see what the original "thing" was..

 

[discombobulated1]

There would be enormous benefits to that. Really, there isn’t that much in the Novus Ordo that is exceptional or worth preserving. For example, consider Eucharistic Prayer 2, which was included because it was in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Well, there are two problems with it: Annibale Bugnini and his colleagues restructured it so that it would follow the Roman pattern of the Epiclesis preceding the Words of Institution, which is contrary to the actual origin of the Anaphora (which is the Church in Antioch; the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus is actually a close relative of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as used by the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholics, and the Syriac Orthodox Anaphora of the Apostles, and what is more, it remains in use, and has always been used by, the Ethiopian Orthodox). But apparently Bugnini was unaware of this, because if he had looked at the Ethiopian Anaphora, he would have realized that the version in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus is akin to the version of the Alexandrian Divine Liturgy of St. Mark one finds in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, in that it was intended specifically for use by bishops, and omits the portions of the liturgy intended for the congregation, choir or deacons, except for certain responses.

I stopped here because I am totally lost. I haven't studied all those things you speak of. It was too bad I didn't because anything about Bugnini is interesting... (uh... when I can followw along)

 

[The Liturgist]

When you say "liturgical beauty" what are you referring to other than music?

The entire experience of the liturgy. This includes everything from the architecture of the church, to the wording of the prayers, to the actions specified by the rubrics performed by the clergy, to the incense, to the vestments worn by clergy and the corresponding paraments, to the iconography, both those icons permanently installed, including stained glass windows and reredos in Western churches and the Iconostasis in Eastern churches, for example, and also icons temporarily present for a particular liturgical occasion such as Pascha or the Nativity, to the flower arrangements, to the disposition of the people during the liturgy. And of course the music. Literally the entire package. One has to develop an appreciation for the whole service. Otherwise it would be adequate to merely listen to liturgical music, which I do a great deal, obviously, but that pales in comparison with actually attending the service.

The best Catholic website focused on liturgical beauty, on what is called the ars celebrandi in your church, is undoubtably the website of the New Liturgical Movement, which I personally love visiting, and which also, by virtue of its coverage of the Byzantine Rite, frequently addresses topics of Orthodox liturgics as well: New Liturgical Movement

So in general, by liturgical beauty, I am referring to the beauty of the liturgy in a holistic, integrated and entire capacity, the full experience of being there. The closest secular equivalent might be the Wagnerian artistic concept of his operas as a gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art). Although where as the Wagnerian idea is a relatively recent one, the idea of liturgical beauty as an integrated experience goes back to early Christianity, and was influential in the conversion to Christianity of St. Vladimir and the Kievan Rus people (who were the ancestors of the modern day Russian and Ukrainian and Belarussian people).

 

[ViaCrucis]

When you say "liturgical beauty" what are you referring to other than music?

I suspect the aesthetic is being referred to. Which would extend to more than just music.

Christian Liturgy has always been a fusion of form and function.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I suspect the aesthetic is being referred to. Which would extend to more than just music.

Christian Liturgy has always been a fusion of form and function.

-CryptoLutheran

I think liturgical beauty is more than just aesthetics, so I was not only referring to the aesthetics of the service. The beauty of the liturgy has a divine quality which is intrinsic, and there are certain common features which every valid liturgy should have, for example, certain parts of the services of Baptism and Holy Communion, and certain prayers, for example, one expects to see the Lord’s Prayer in every liturgy, and I do not believe that prayers can be considered a field aesthetics, even though they do have elements of literary style and poetry.

Additionally I also am of the view that any truly beautiful liturgy will not have formal components devoid of function. Which may at first seem like an odd view, considering that I regard the Byzantine, Syriac Orthodox and Coptic liturgies as the most beautiful, and these three liturgies are also the most ornate, and likewise I love the traditional Latin mass, which differs from the Novus Ordo chiefly in terms of being more ornate. However, these elements, which some people believe are accretions, aren’t; if one studies the liturgy in detail, one will discover that they all have important meanings and are important components of the entire liturgy, as opposed to optional extras which could be eliminated for the sake of simplicity.

Furthermore, it is my considered opinion, based on my study of the history of liturgical service books, which is in turn based on readily availble texts,, that liturgical accretions are mostly a myth; the only actual liturgical accretions I have found that could be regarded as spurious, problematic and worthy of removal are some of the elements present in the problematic Divine Office of the Roman Rite before the reforms of Pope Pius X, which were specific to that version of the Divine Office, and not to the version used in Benedictine and other monasteries, nor the Dominican Rite divine office, nor the Office of the Dead, and also there were a few other problems, for example, the overriding of ferial Sundays by minor feasts disrupting the reading of the lectionary. But for the most part, the phenomnenon of accretions is a mirage; an illusion that people came to believe in due to a misunderstanding of certain early liturgical service books:

In the West, you see, starting with the Missal, all parts of the liturgy said by anyone were consolidated into one book. This was partially due to the adoption in the Roman Catholic Church of a curious liturgical practice wherein the priest repeats in prayer all of the propers and responses in the liturgy, so the priest is actually praying everything, and this historically was not the custom in the Roman Rite (and I am not sure if it is an aspect of the Novus Ordo or not), and also, no other liturgy does it.

Outside of the Catholic Church, the historic arrangement of service books remained prevalent much longer, and in this system, liturgical books contained only the content specific for a given user. Thus the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, or the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, appear simpler than the versions of the Alexandrian and Antiochene liturgies in use today (and most people do not realize the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, also known as the Anaphora of Hippolytus, although St. Hippolytus almost certainly did not write it; rather I suspect he quoted it, since it seems likely that even in the third century the Antiochene type of liturgy was the most common) has been in continual use since the fourth century in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Now the confusion derives from the fact that, due to the influence of the Roman Missal and other service books structured along the same lines, it turned out to be very convenient to have the entire liturgical text in one book, so this became increasingly common across multiple ancient churches, but what this did is it simply resulted in the texts increasingly including more detail, that did exist previously, but which was not defined in the same volume. So if we look at the version of the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition in use in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which they call the Anaphora of the Apostles, one will find a much more fully fleshed out liturgy than the very skeletal text provided by St. Hippolytus, but context is everything: like the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, the text of Hippolytus was intended for use by bishops, and thus only included the parts of the liturgy said by the celebrant, and the immediate responses to it.

 

[The Liturgist]

I suspect the aesthetic is being referred to. Which would extend to more than just music.

Christian Liturgy has always been a fusion of form and function.

-CryptoLutheran

By the way ViaCrucis, I do greatly love reading your posts and your contributions and I am honored that you would comment on my reply in this manner. It gave me the opportunity for some very interesting additional reflection, which I have posted above, and which I do hope you will enjoy reading, as much as I enjoy reading your own posts. God bless you!

 

[ViaCrucis]

By the way ViaCrucis, I do greatly love reading your posts and your contributions and I am honored that you would comment on my reply in this manner. It gave me the opportunity for some very interesting additional reflection, which I have posted above, and which I do hope you will enjoy reading, as much as I enjoy reading your own posts. God bless you!

I will read it more fully, but just to clarify. By aesthetic I don't mean anything shallow. I was trying to capture the idea of beauty, ambience, how art, architecture, and elements of the service combine to say something. Aesthetic is communicative. Liturgical aesthetics, can (and I'd argue should) confess. The aesthetic of having incense points to the prayers of God's people as a pleasing aroma and incense (a reference to the Apocalypse of St. John); it is a multi-sensory experience, there is confession happening in the beauty--in the aesthetic--of the Liturgy. So I don't want it to be thought that I in anyway intended to refer to only surface-level things here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I will read it more fully, but just to clarify. By aesthetic I don't mean anything shallow. I was trying to capture the idea of beauty, ambience, how art, architecture, and elements of the service combine to say something. Aesthetic is communicative. Liturgical aesthetics, can (and I'd argue should) confess. The aesthetic of having incense points to the prayers of God's people as a pleasing aroma and incense (a reference to the Apocalypse of St. John); it is a multi-sensory experience, there is confession happening in the beauty--in the aesthetic--of the Liturgy. So I don't want it to be thought that I in anyway intended to refer to only surface-level things here.

-CryptoLutheran

Ah outstanding! Thank you for clarifying that. And so yes, you are quite right.

I also agree entirely with your statement that the beauty of liturgy, that you refer to as liturgical aesthetics, can confess doctrinal truths. I think this point is extremely important, and in the ancient liturgies, this belief informs not just the words of the prayers and the hymns and the more obvious aspects of the liturgies, but also subtle details, like specific gestures and liturgical actions. This is particularly evident in the preparatory rites such as the Byzantine Prothesis, and the post-liturgical practices, commonly called the Ablutions, that one finds in all of the traditional liturgies (with the Byzantine Prothesis or Liturgy of Preparation being particularly ornate). In some cases these are visible to the laity, whereas in other cases they are not.

By the way I am sure you will agree the use of incense also points to the idea of prayers ascending to Heaven as referenced in Psalm 141, so it is indeed a concept that predates the Apocalypse of St. John. And of course, it was used in ancient Judaism, and is a liturgical practice that was carried over into Christianity, like many aspects of Jewish liturgy (for example, in the East Syriac liturgy, the reading of a Torah portion followed by a corresponding text from elsewhere in the Old Testament, called a haftarah, precedes the reading of an Epistle and a Gospel, and it is also evident that the special ceremony traditional churches use for reading the Gospel is based on the extreme reverence that the Jews used for reading the Torah. And this also nicely confesses the importance of the Gospel and the New Covenant in the context of Christianity.

This is why we see incense being very heavily used in the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, which originally did not regard the Gospel of John as canonical (they only accepted the twenty two books in the original translation of the Peshitta, which to be fair predated the 27 book New Testament canon that was promulgated by St. Athanasius, and were one of the last churches to embrace the 27 book canon, probably because they had for a few centuries a somewhat hostile relationship with the Syriac Orthodox and Maronite Catholic churches, who in turn had these books, as they were translated into Syriac in the sixth century by St. Thomas of Harqel and were added to the Western Peshitta, whereas the Eastern Peshitta, the one used by the Assyrians, never received these books, even after the Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian churches developed a much more close and warm relationship, for example, during the reign of the Maphrian (vice-Patriarch) Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, who was in charge of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Mesopotamia, which is the center of the Assyrian church, and he was so beloved by the Assyrians that when he unexpectedly died when returning to the Monastery of St. Mark in the hills above what is now Mosul (which miraculously survived the occupation of that city by ISIS) from the Syriac Orthodox stronghold of Tikrit, in a predominantly Assyrian area, the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East and four thousand Assyrians attended his funeral (which otherwise, due to the problems of carrying a deceased person across the deserts of Iraq without embalming, would have been limited to the small group of clergy who were accompanying Mar Gregorios).

 

[concretecamper]

Anyway, I wonder what other Catholics have to say about all this

I think you're premise is wrong


Catechism of Trent

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

 

[Lost4words]

God bless the Catholic Church and protect it from those that want to split it and destroy it.

 

[Valletta]

I sometimes wonder if the communists were the least of the Church's problems vis a vis infiltration. The secret societies were probably the most insidious/evil

There was a person who said that the Communists had infiltrated the Church and provided details. That person, Bella Dodd, said they had recruited numerous people. I found an article mentioning Bella Dodd:

Bella Dodd & the Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church (Guest: Paul Kengor)

Bella Dodd is one of those mysterious figures who often comes up in discussions of Catholic conspiracy theories. But who was Bella Dodd and why should Catholics care?

crisismagazine.com

There was a different person, a defector, who testified there there was a Soviet drug program, one drug would gradually make people go crazy. It was mentioned that it had been used on bishops. Most of the drugs in the program were used in order to get information, the idea being to extract information but having the subject never be aware. The U.S. had their own parallel program which was scuttled after it became known they used LSD on a person who committed suicide as a result. The Soviets kept the best drugs for themselves but shared lower level drugs with other communist nations. For instance, one drug just made people open to suggestions, more friendly and cooperative (I suppose like alcohol) but the person would never know it. That could be used for making connections with U.S. scientists and gaining access to our universities and labs.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think you're premise is wrong


Catechism of Trent

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t the Tridentine Catechism been superseded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Since, for example, Orthodox Christians and members of the Assyrian Church of the East are now allowed to receive the sacraments from Catholic churches if they are unable to reach one of their own parishes for whatever reason, and likewise Catholics can receive the Eucharist, as far as Rome is concerned, from Orthodox and Assyrians (in practice, only the Assyrian Church of the East and some Syriac Orthodox parishes are likely to allow this intercommunion, but it is authorized from the Catholic side).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t the Tridentine Catechism been superseded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent still stands as valid as it ever was. It is not superseded. I advocate that they both be read and studied. There is also a new catechism by bishop Athanasius Schneider that is worthy of a read.

By the way, none of them are infallible documents but are valuable because of what they refer to. They do have ‘imprimatur’ but one of those in itself is not an infallible document.

 

[concretecamper]

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t the Tridentine Catechism been superseded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Not that I am aware of.

By the way, none of them are infallible documents but are valuable because of what they refer to

The Council of Trent is infallible. Therefore, the Catechism born out of the Council is a little bit more than just valuable. It is essential.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not that I am aware of.


The Council of Trent is infallible. Therefore, the Catechism born out of the Council is a little bit more than just valuable. It is essential.

But it seems to no longer reflect current RC doctrine concerning the validity of EO, OO and Assyrian sacraments, and the permissability of EO, OO and Assyrian Christians to receive the sacraments in the RCC without converting, and likewise, the permissibility of Roman Catholics and sui juris Eastern Catholics to receive the sacraments from EO, OO and Assyrian churches.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not that I am aware of.


The Council of Trent is infallible. Therefore, the Catechism born out of the Council is a little bit more than just valuable. It is essential.

The catechism that resulted from the Council of Trent, as a product created after the council, does not share in the infallibility of that council but it is valuable for what it copied from the council and what it copied from the common and previous teaching of the Church. It’s a good book, don’t get me wrong, and is not superseded, and should be read. But in and of itself it is only infallible like a Math textbook would be. It copies true things. It has an Imprimatur and it is a good guide to the faith, albeit in a 16th century idiom that needs unpacking like any early modern document would. And as we know, even the documents of Vatican II need unpacking because we are not that in touch with our 1960’s selves any more.

 

[concretecamper]

But it seems to no longer reflect current RC doctrine concerning the validity of EO, OO and Assyrian sacraments, and the permissability of EO, OO and Assyrian Christians to receive the sacraments in the RCC without converting, and likewise, the permissibility of Roman Catholics and sui juris Eastern Catholics to receive the sacraments from EO, OO and Assyrian churches.

The Roman Catechism is certainly straight to the point without the gray of the CCC

The catechism that resulted from the Council of Trent, as a product created after the council, does not share in the infallibility of that council but it is valuable for what it copied from the council and what it copied from the common and previous teaching of the Church. It’s a good book, don’t get me wrong, and is not superseded, and should be read. But in and of itself it is only infallible like a Math textbook would be. It copies true things. It has an Imprimatur and it is a good guide to the faith, albeit in a 16th century idiom that needs unpacking like any early modern document would. And as we know, even the documents of Vatican II need unpacking because we are not that in touch with our 1960’s selves any more.

If one reads Trent's Catechism, it doesn't need "unpacking" like the CCC because it is clear and concise.

Also, I'm not sure what 16th century idiom means. The same truth is truth in the 16th or 20th century