Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Mass and how it is celebrated -Rites & rites. ; The differing, traditions Rites and Uses."
Topic Started: Sunday, 5. November 2006, 16:43 (2,336 Views)
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

I meant to post this before the thread drift. It may answer some additional questions about th Eastern churches (see how PC I've become- I didn't call them Rites :rofl: )

Quote:
 
1. Is there an American Eastern Catholic Church?

Eastern Catholic Churches are, by definition, from Eastern countries such as Romania and the Ukraine.  The US is a Western country, so it has no indigenous Eastern Catholic Church.  Many Eastern Catholic Churches have eparchies and parishes in the US to serve immigrant communities here, but these do not actually constitute an "American Eastern Catholic Church".
The closest thing we have to that is the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America.  Though still part of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, it has become so ethnically mixed that it now just calls itself "The Byzantine Catholic Church in America".  Its Liturgy is celebrated in English, and it is basically as close as any Eastern Catholic Church in America gets to being an "American Eastern Catholic Church".

2.Do Eastern Catholics pray the Rosary?

Some do. The Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Western Catholic prayer, but some Eastern Catholics choose to include it in their personal devotions.
Eastern Christians also have their own rosary, sometimes called the "Byzantine Rosary".  This devotion involves the meditative recitation of the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!) one hundred times, along with some other prayers.  The Jesus Prayers are counted on a prayer rope, called a komboschoinia in Greek or a chotki in Russian.  It is made out of wool and has either 33, 50 or 100 special knots in it, each tied in a cross-like form.  Sometimes, the prayers are said on a string of 100 beads.
The Byzantine Rosary is much older than the Western Rosary, dating back to the fourth century A.D.!  It is an ancient and venerable Christian practice.

3.I'm a Roman Catholic; can I attend an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy?

Absolutely!  We are all the same Catholic Church, so we have complete intercommunion with them.

4.I recently I visited a "Byzantine Catholic" church. Their Liturgy is so different; how can they be Catholic?

They are!  Many Roman Catholics grew up with little exposure to other aspects of Catholicism.  When they discover the Eastern Catholic Churches, it causes a kind of "culture shock", since they are so used to only one kind of Catholicism.  But these Churches are just as Catholic as the Roman Rite: no more, no less!  And worshipping with ones Eastern brothers and sisters can be a wonderful way to expand ones understanding of the universality of the Catholic Church.

5.But the priest there is married, and the Catholic Church doesn't allow that!

The Roman Catholic Church generally doesn't allow it, except by special dispensation for some converts from Anglicanism.  But most of the Eastern Catholic Churches do ordain married men to the priesthood (but not to the episcopacy; only celibate priests can become bishops).  That's their ancient tradition, and it is perfectly legitimate and valid for them.  The tradition of a celibate clergy in the West is also legitimate for the Roman Rite.
We have to broaden our understanding of what is "Catholic".  Married Catholic priests do exist, mainly in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and they are just as "Catholic" as their celibate counterparts!

6.What is Latinization and why is it wrong?

Latinization is the wrongheaded practice of forcing Eastern Catholics to conform to the practices of the Roman Rite.  It is rooted in a certain cultural arrogance; the attitude that "My form of Catholicism is the only 'correct' form".  Latinizers have a lack of respect for the ancient Eastern rituals. They can neither appreciate their beauty and uniqueness, nor perceive how the Holy Spirit has formed them, distinct from the Roman Rite in policy and practice yet united to it in the one Mystical Body of Christ!
Latinization is rare today, but has had tragic results in the past.  It has caused resentment among Eastern Catholics, who (understandably) don't like being told that their Catholicism is "wrong" or "deficient" - when it isn't!  This has sadly led to schisms and defections to Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Eastern ways are always preserved.
The irony is that this foolish attempt to enforce unity through conformity just leads to more disunity!  If a tree is known by its fruits (Matthew 7:16-20) then the bad fruits of Latinization are a strong testimony against it!  The Vatican officially condemns Latinization and encourages Eastern Catholics to preserve their own traditions and customs.

7.So if an Eastern Catholic adopts a Western practice like the Rosary (as you mentioned above), is that Latinization?

Latinization is essentially coercive, and it is usually forced on Eastern Catholics by Roman Catholics.  If an individual Eastern Catholic feels an affinity with a certain Western devotion, and freely chooses to include it in his personal devotions, he may do so - though he should not completely abandon the practices of his own Christian tradition.  The Vatican encourages Eastern Catholics to maintain and appreciate their own unique and beautiful customs.
Now, if a Roman Catholic tried to force Eastern Catholics to pray the Western Rosary and throw away their Eastern forms of devotion, that would be Latinization!  See the difference?  Choice -vs- coersion.

8.Can Roman Catholics adopt some of the customs and practices of their Eastern brothers and sisters?

Certainly!  Many Roman Catholics have discovered the spiritual benefits of ikons and the Jesus Prayer.

9.Can a Catholic switch from one rite to another, and how is that done?

Yes, a Catholic can transfer from one ritual Church to another, but it can only be done once in someone's life, so it should be preceded by much prayer.  The Canon Law regulations on that can be found.

10.I converted to Roman Catholicism, but now I'm considering transferring to an Eastern Catholic Church.  Am I allowed to do so?

Yes; the process would be the same as for a "cradle" Roman Catholic. Incidentally, a catechumen can choose to join any Catholic rite when entering the Church.

11.Can a married man from the Roman Rite transfer to an Eastern Catholic Church and become a priest?

It could be done, but is discouraged.  The Church does not want her children fleeing to another ritual Church just to avoid the disciplines of the Church of their birth!
It would also entail a lot.  One would have to learn the sacred language of the rite one joins, in order to celebrate the Liturgy in that language.  Also, if you live in the US or Canada, the Eastern Rite bishop would have to send you to his homeland for your ordination, because of an old law which forbids Eastern Rites from ordaining married men in the US or Canada (I personally dislike that law because I feel the Eastern Catholic Church should not be restricted so.  But for the moment it stands).
So let's say a married Roman Catholic man in the US switches to the Ukrainian Catholic Church with the intention of becoming a priest.  After studying for years in the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, learning Ukrainian and the Divine Liturgy in Old Slavonic (the liturgical language of that rite), he and his family would have to move to the Ukraine.  After his ordination he would most likely have to live there for a few years, serving the Ukrainian people.  After that, he and his family could be transferred back to the US.
So it's not easy, but it could be done.  Yet the Church discourages men from transferring to an Eastern Catholic Church just to get around the Roman requirement that priests be celibate.

12.I see there are lots of Eastern Catholic Churches, but is the Roman rite the only Western rite in the Catholic Church?

This isn't exactly a question about Eastern Catholicism, but I guess it's related. So here goes:
The Roman rite has been the primary rite in the Western Church for a long time.  During the Middle Ages, the Church had numerous smaller "sub-rites", which were essentially local alternate liturgies, not full-blown cultural expressions of Catholicism with their own canon law, traditions, etc.  Most of these disappeared during the time of the Protestant revolt.  Among the few that still exist are the Ambrosian rite, celebrated in Milan, Italy, and the Mozarabic rite in Toledo, Spain.  But these are part of the Roman rite, not distinct like the Melkites, Maronites, or other Eastern Catholic Churches.
Some Western religious orders have also had distinct liturgies, but I forget which ones or whether any still use them.  I believe some of them adopted the the Paul VI Mass (the so-called "Novus Ordo") after Vatican II.
In recent years, two more sub-rites (of sorts) have arisen in the Roman rite.  The first is called "Anglican-Usage".  In 1980, Pope John Paul II issued a Pastoral Provision, allowing Episcopalian converts to use modified portions of the Book of Common Prayer as their liturgy.  (For any who might not know, the Book of Common Prayer contains the liturgy of the Anglican and Episcopalian churches).  Last I heard, there were only six Anglican-Usage parishes in the United States.  They are each under the juristdiction of the local Roman Catholic bishop, and so do not constitute a distinct "Anglican Catholic Rite".  Thus they more resemble a "sub-rite", like the Mozarabic.
The second "sub-rite" is the Indult Tridentine Mass.  Once the primary Mass of the Roman rite, it was replaced by the Paul VI Mass in 1969.  Yet many traditionalist Catholics remained loyal to the Tridentine Mass, so the Holy Father gave special permission for its celebration in the encyclical Ecclesia Dei.  Many bishops have established regular Indult Masses in their dioceses, and entire orders like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter are dedicated to celebrating it, making the Indult Tridentine Mass perhaps the most widespread sub-rite in the Roman Catholic Church.
Will any of these sub-rites ever become distinct Western Catholic Churches, like the various Eastern Catholic Churches?  It is highly doubtful, since that would involve a "splitting" of the Roman rite.  I don't believe the Vatican wants that to occur, even if the resulting new rite remains within the fold.  Some traditionalists wish the Indult Masses would develop into a "Latin Rite" distinct from the Roman Rite, but this is unlikely to happen.  I don't know enough about the Anglican-Usage to say whether it has the potential to become a distinct rite.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

A very interesting dissertation Deacon Robert - one of the most interesting I have read on these forums.

When I was in Egypt it was not unusual to see both Greek and Muslim men with a short string of yellow beads in their hand. I eventually got the message they were saying a brief prayer on each bead (or supposed to be).
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Quote:
 
In recent years, two more sub-rites (of sorts) have arisen in the Roman rite.  The first is called "Anglican-Usage".  In 1980, Pope John Paul II issued a Pastoral Provision, allowing Episcopalian converts to use modified portions of the Book of Common Prayer as their liturgy.  (For any who might not know, the Book of Common Prayer contains the liturgy of the Anglican and Episcopalian churches).  Last I heard, there were only six Anglican-Usage parishes in the United States.  They are each under the juristdiction of the local Roman Catholic bishop, and so do not constitute a distinct "Anglican Catholic Rite".  Thus they more resemble a "sub-rite", like the Mozarabic.


Is there any possibility of similar provision for the Church of England, if ever they accept Papal authority?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Nov 18 2006, 10:33 PM
Is there any possibility of similar provision for the Church of England, if ever they accept Papal authority?

They won't though. To do that would mean they'd have to reject the Queen. It'd cause too many problems.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick its a long shot, but I would love to hear from Deacon Robert if an Anglican Rite would be possible, if (if) ever the Church of England was disestablished.

Also, I would like to acknowledge Deacon Robert's valuable input to this forum.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

At this point it would be pure speculation. Today the churches are granted permission on an individual basis. If, and this is a big if, a large number of churches chose to leave the Anglican communion there would need to be some real high level discussions between Rome and the Anglican church.

My OPINION is that it would be a political nightmare. As Patrick said, many would feel they were rejecting the Queen. I believe one of her titles is "defender of the faith", if that meant the Christian faith as a whole there is no problem. If on the other hand it is percieved to mean the C of E then it is seen as a rejection of her not the church.

Rather than pasting pages of liturgy, I shortened the following qoute (omitted is the description of the Liturgy) and gave the website for Our Lady of Atonement which has the information.


Quote:
 
The Anglican Use Liturgyin the Roman Catholic Church

provided by Dave Brown

In 1980, His Holiness Pope John Paul II granted a Pastoral Provision for the establishment of parishes composed of former Episcopalians which could use a modified liturgy from _The Book of Common Prayer_. There are, at present, six parishes in the USA now using the Anglican Use liturgy. (There are other groups now forming. Canonically, any groups seeking permission to use the Anglican Use liturgy must be composed of former Episcopalians. But once permission is given any Catholic may participate.) These parishes are in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, but permitted to have their own distinctive liturgy and also permitted to follow their own customs at Mass.

The following is taken from (with permission) from the _Order of Mass_ booklet found in the pew at Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church, the founding parish of the Anglican Use liturgy. Their address is: 15415 Red Robin Road, San Antonio, TX 78255. (210) 695-2944. They represent options available. This is not a complete listing of the liturgy. These are taken from the _Book of Divine Worship_ (to be published soon), approved by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship in 1987. This textfile will also contain differing options which are permissable at various points in the Mass--the selection of which is left to the celebrant. A word to explain some of the rubics and customs of the Anglican Use liturgy. The lectionary used is the new lectionary followed in the Roman Rite.

During the liturgy of the Eucharist, the people kneel from the time of the prayer over the gifts through Communion. (Communion is by intinction, received kneeling and on the tongue.) The Tabernacle is on the Retable at the back of the Altar. The celebrant faces the people for the Great Thanksgiving ("Lift up your hearts..."), but the rest of the liturgy is done in the classic style facing the Altar and Tabernacle leading the people in their worship. (This is similar to the way the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in Eastern Catholic churches--as in the Byzantine and Melkite Rites of the Catholic Church.) Those in the Anglican Use would not style this as "the priest with his back to the people," but as "facing God."



http://www.atonementonline.com
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Deacon Robert
Nov, 02:25 PM
My OPINION is that it would be a political nightmare. As Patrick said, many would feel they were rejecting the Queen. I believe one of her titles is "defender of the faith", if that meant the Christian faith as a whole there is no problem. If on the other hand it is percieved to mean the C of E then it is seen as a rejection of her not the church.


I have posted something about "Fidei Defensor", "Defender of the Faith", on the thread called Church and State.

Link to "Church and State"
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Members may find this interesting. For a Vatican document, it is written in simple, easily understood language, by our dear Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger

Link

Association for Latin Liturgy
 

Under the patronage of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Founded in 1969 to encourage and extend the use of Latin in the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin . . . and she must manifest them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
 
This is a complete translation of the French text of a speech given by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, whilst Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given in Rome on October 24 1998.

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Liturgy

Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Ten years after the publication of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, what kind of balance sheet of its successes and failures can we draw up? I think it is above all an occasion to show our gratitude and to give thanks. The diverse communities born thanks to this pontifical text have given to the Church a great number of vocations to the priesthood and to religious life. These men and women, filled with zeal and joy and profoundly loyal to the Pope, are rendering their service to the Gospel during this present historical epoch – our own. By means of them, many of the faithful have been confirmed in the joy of being able to live the liturgy and in their love of the Church, or perhaps through them they have rediscovered both of these things. In many dioceses – and the number is not that small! – they serve the Church in collaboration with the bishops and in a fraternal relation with those faithful who feel themselves at home in the renewed form of the new liturgy. All of this causes us today to express our profound gratitude!

Nevertheless, it would not be very realistic to pass over in silence some less pleasant facts. In many places, there have been and still are difficulties. Why? Because many bishops, priests and lay-people see this attachment to the old liturgy as a divisive factor. They think the attachment does nothing but trouble the ecclesial community. They see the attachment as evidence that the Council is being accepted "only with certain reservations" and suspect that it means the obedience due to the Church’s legitimate pastors is less than it should be.
We must, therefore, pose the following question: How can these difficulties be overcome? How can the necessary trust be built up so that these communities which love the old liturgy can be fully integrated into the life of the Church? But there is another question underlying the first.. What is the profound reason for this distrust or even this refusal to accept a continuation of the old liturgical forms?
It is of course possible that in this area there are reasons which are anterior to any theology and which have their origin in the individual characters of people or in the conflict between different characters, or even in other entirely exterior circumstances. But it is certain that there are also deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons one most often hears are:

the lack of obedience to the Council, which is said to have reformed the liturgical books; and
the disruption of Church unity, which is said to follow necessarily if one allows the use of different liturgical forms.
It is in theory relatively easy to refute these two arguments. First, the Council did not itself reform the liturgical books; it ordered their revision and, to that end, set forth certain fundamental rules. Above all, the Council gave a definition of what the liturgy is, and this definition gives a criterion which holds for every liturgical celebration. If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and if one wished to set to one side the normae generales found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia – then yes, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council!

It is therefore in accordance with these criteria that one must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old books or according to the new. It is good to recall in this regard what Cardinal Newman said when he observed that the Church, in her entire history, never once abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms, something which would be entirely foreign to the Spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, a liturgy which expresses the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of various ceremonies which one may put together in a positivist and arbitrary way – today like this and tomorrow like that. The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities, born out of a dialogue of love between the Church and her Lord. They are the expressions of the life of the Church in which are condensed the faith, the prayer and the very life of generations, and in which are incarnated in a concrete form at once the action of God and the response of man.

Such rites can die, if the subject which bore them historically disappears, or if the subject is inserted into another order of life. The authority of the Church can define and limit the usage of rites in different historical circumstances. But the Church never purely and simply prohibits them.

And so the Council did ordain a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not forbid the previous books. The criterion the Council expressed is at once more vast and more strict: it invited everyone to make a self-critique! We will return to this point.

Now for the second argument, that the existence of the two rites can harm Church unity. Here one must make a distinction between the theological and the practical aspects of the question. On the theoretical and fundamental side of the question, it must be stated that many forms of the Latin rite have always existed, and that these rites declined only slowly as a consequence of the unification of human living space in Europe. Up until the Council there existed, alongside the Roman rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the rite of the Chartreux and of the Carmelites, and the best known of all: the rite of the Dominicans. And perhaps there were still other rites with which I am not familiar.

No one was ever scandalised that the Dominicans, often present in our parishes, did not celebrate Mass like our parish priests, but had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was as Catholic as the Roman rite, and we were proud of this richness in having many different traditions.

Moreover, this must be said... the freedom that the new Ordo Missae allows to be creative, has often gone too far; there is often a greater difference between liturgies celebrated in different places according to the new books, than there is between an old liturgy and a new liturgy when both are celebrated as they ought to be, in accordance with the prescribed liturgical texts.

An average Christian without special liturgical training finds it hard to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a Mass sung in Latin according to the new Missal. In contrast, the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul V1 and the concrete vernacular forms and celebrations with all the possible liberties and creativities – the difference can be enormous!

With these considerations, we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice, where things are naturally more complicated, because they involve relations between living persons.

It seems to me that the aversions of which we have spoken are so great because the two forms of celebration are thought to reflect two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the whole of Christian life. There are many reasons for this. The first is that the two liturgical forms are judged on the basis of exterior elements and so the following conclusion is reached: there are two fundamentally different attitudes.

The average Christian considers it essential that the re-formed liturgy be celebrated in the vernacular and facing the people, that there be large areas for creativity and that lay-people exercise active roles. On the other hand, it is thought essential to the old liturgy that it be celebrated in the Latin language, that the priest face the altar, that the ritual be rigidly prescribed and that the faithful follow the Mass by praying in private, without having an active role. In this way of viewing things, certain outward phenomena are essential for a liturgy, not the liturgy in and of itself. In this view, the faithful understand and express the liturgy by means of concrete, visible forms and are spiritually quickened by these very forms, and do not penetrate easily to the profound levels of the liturgy.

But the oppositions we have just enumerated do not come from either the spirit or the letter of the conciliar texts.

The Constitution on the Liturgy itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular "especially in the readings and directives, and in some of the prayers and chants" (36, 2). As for the participation of lay-people, the Council insists first in general that the liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, Head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church "and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful," And the text specifies: In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him." (28) "By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And the proper time all should observe a reverent silence." (30)

These are the directives of the Council: they can provide matter for reflection to all. A number of modern liturgists, however, have unfortunately shown a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in only one direction. If one does this, one ends up reversing the intentions of the Council.

The role of the priest is reduced by some to one of pure functionality. The fact that the entire Body of Christ is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point that the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy distributes the different roles in it. There is also a dangerous tendency to minimise the sacrificial character of the Mass to cause mystery and the sacred to disappear, under the proclaimed imperative of making the liturgy more easily understood. Finally, one notes the tendency to fragment the liturgy and to emphasise only its communal character by giving the assembly the power to decide the celebration.

Happily, there is also a certain distaste for the rationalism banality and the pragmatism of certain liturgists, be they theoreticians or practitioners. One can see evidence of a return to mystery, to adoration, to the sacred and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as is witnessed by the "Oxford Declaration on Liturgy" of 1996.

Moreover, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. I have a great respect for our ancestors, who recited during low Masses the "Prayers During the Mass" contained in their book of prayers. But certainly one cannot regard that as the ideal for the liturgical celebration! Perhaps these reduced forms of celebration are the profound reason why the disappearance of the old liturgical books had no importance whatsoever in many countries and caused no sorrow. People had never been in contact with the liturgy itself.

On the other hand, in those places where the liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy – in those places where this movement anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, as for example the praying participation of all in the liturgical action – in those places there was greater suffering in the face of a liturgical reform undertaken in too much haste and limiting itself often to the exterior aspect. Where the liturgical Movement never existed, the reform did not at first pose any problem, The problems arose only in a sporadic way in those places where a wild creativity caused the disappearance of the sacred mystery.

This is why it is so important that the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I cited above, be observed, even if one is celebrating according to the old Missal!

When this liturgy truly moves the faithful with its beauty and profundity, then it will be loved, and then it will not be in irreconcilable opposition to the new Liturgy – provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished. Different spiritual and theological accents will continue, certainly to exist. But they will no longer be two opposing ways of being a Christian, but rather two riches which belong to the same Catholic faith.

When, several years ago, someone proposed "a new liturgical movement" to ensure that the two forms of liturgy did not diverge too much and to show their inner convergence, several friends of the old liturgy expressed the fear that this was nothing other than a stratagem or ruse to eliminate the old liturgy entirely.

Such anxieties and fears must cease! If in the two forms of celebration the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery should appear clearly, that could only be a reason to rejoice and thank the Good Lord. In the measure to which all of us believers live and act according to these motivations, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the old liturgy does not trouble or harm the unity of their diocese, but is rather a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ, of which we are all the servants.

So, dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience – to keep trusting – and to find in the liturgy the force needed to give our witness to the Lord for our time.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Here's the Sarum Rite:

[doHTML]<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/21pnAoiGnjs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/21pnAoiGnjs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>[/doHTML]
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Mar 27 2007, 08:14 PM
Cardinal Ratzinger
 
The Constitution on the Liturgy itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular "especially in the readings and directives, and in some of the prayers and chants" (36, 2). As for the participation of lay-people, the Council insists first in general that the liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, Head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church "and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful," And the text specifies: In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him." (28) "By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And the proper time all should observe a reverent silence." (30)

These are the directives of the Council: they can provide matter for reflection to all. A number of modern liturgists, however, have unfortunately shown a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in only one direction. If one does this, one ends up reversing the intentions of the Council.

The video of the Sarum Rite gives me the impression the Mass is for priests and deacons, and nothing whatsoever to do with the laity.

The Novus Ordo Rite makes it very clear that we, the congregation, are not mere spectators. In fact, the movements of the clergy on the video gave me the impression the emphasis was on what I can only describe as well rehearsed movements. I just hope that if I had been a disciple on Mount Calvary on the day Christ died, I would have felt "part of" what was happening.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Quite an interesting piece on the Sarum Rite over at New Advent

Unfortunately, the video is only just over 2 minutes long, but it was celebrated on Candlemas Day 1997 at Merton College, Oxford.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Mar 28 2007, 05:39 PM
I just hope that if I had been a disciple on Mount Calvary on the day Christ died, I would have felt "part of" what was happening.

Rose,

I rather think that "feeling part of" what was happening would be the last thing on your mind, if you had been there!

:blink:

Clare.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare, "feeling part of" means, sharing the grief and empathising with the mother, and that to me is the difference between spectating and sharing. The disciples, and more so Mary the Mother of Jesus, though not crucified themselves, were very much part of the crucifixion - perhaps more so than the soldiers doing "their job". At Mass, WE are part of the re-enactment.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
CARLO
Member Avatar

Thanks for that video clip Patrick. I really enjoyed it!

Better than any ballet! :D

How I would have loved to be there to experience that mystical and holy atmosphere.

I wouldn't have felt 'left out' at all.

Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea
For thou Lord art all my strength


CARLO
Judica me Deus
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
CARLO
Mar 29 2007, 09:53 PM
Thanks for that video clip Patrick. I really enjoyed it!

Better than any ballet! :D

How I would have loved to be there to experience that mystical and holy atmosphere.

I wouldn't have felt 'left out' at all.

Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea
For thou Lord art all my strength


CARLO

Thanks Carlo, you're welcome!

Yes, I would have loved to experience it too, it's a shame the video was so short!
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic