Byzantine Catholic Bishops at charismatic style Mass

[malphono]

Maronite resistance to liturgical change from both Rome and the Patriarchate is well documented.

Yes, that was very true in the past. Rome thought it got what it wanted, but a good look at the traditional liturgical texts and traditional practices shows otherwise. Oh, admittedly Rome made some inroads, but they were superficial.

If anything, my own church could use a good dose of liturgical questioning towards our bishops if we are to survive this odd period of our history.

Indeed. What was superficial in the past has become pernicious in the present. And it only gets worse and worse by the day. The never-ending Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations must be stopped and reversed. I don’t know how we will accomplish it, but accomplish it we must, else we will not survive.

 

[Aramis]

You say EP II, Aramis says EP III. I don’t see much beyond improv either way, but it really doesn’t matter as long as I don’t have to put up with it.

I don’t have access to the other 10 EP’s on the sites I’ve got bookmarked.

EP R-II is a licit variation on EP III. I’d forgotton to check the other ones. I’ll take another listen.

EP I, EP II, EP III, and EP IV are all in most pew-books, and are in even the abridged sacramentaries.

EP’s Reconciliation I, Reconciliation II: are different anaphorae specifically adjusted for masses of Reconcilliation. They are only in some sacramentaries, and seldom in the pewbooks. Their text can be found here: grainofwheat.net/mass.html#eucharistv

EP’s Children’s I, Children’s II, Children’s III: are more different anaphorae adjusted for simpler language and more instructive modes of language, specifically for the benefit of youth. Again, only in some sacramentaries.

EP’s “Various Needs and Occasions” are lettered; VNO A, VNO B, VNO C, VNO D.

EP for the Deaf is specific for use with the deaf community and only by a priest who signs.

drgareth.info/MassEPs.pdf gives a synopsis of the various anaphorae but not the texts.

Edit: Nope, STILL not licitly done.
Th chalice is Glass or Crystal. The pattons are baskets
The Celebrant skips a line, and alters the episcopal commemoration.
THe Memorial Aclimation is missing “Christ has died.” from Memorial Aclimation A, which should be “Christ has Died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.” Moreover, it makes the same error in two languages.

 

[wynd]

I disagree. It is about the liturgical norms that the Church establishes. You know very well that there have been liturgical changes in certain EOC’s. And there have been several in the Coptic Orthodox Church, a few in my lifetime.

Perhaps, but I don’t see how this matters in the context of this discussion, which is about the linked video.

It’s my impression that Oriental Orthodox are more “old world” than Eastern Orthodox or Catholic Christians, and we simply don’t automatically rebel against our bishops’ decisions. It is my sincere belief that unless my bishop is preaching heresy, then my bishop knows better than me.

I don’t agree, but again, I don’t think this matters in the context of this thread.

Uuugh! That was below the belt!

As mentioned above, it’s not about tradition because all our Liturgies have undergone certain revisions. But it seems ironic that you appeal to liturgical tradition, yet dismiss my earlier appeal to the traditional rubric that states that the procession starts with the altar cross.

I believe this is an issue of “letter vs. spirit of the law.” Yes, the Mass technically starts with the procession, and no, there are no rules about what happens before the procession. But I believe, and I think our friends in the Traditional Catholicism forum would agree with me, that we should be mature enough not to boil it down to such minutiae and conduct ourselves according to how the church has historically lived out its rubrics, and not according to our own interpretations of them.

Take a look at this article, written by someone much more educated and eloquent than myself:

Let’s try this analogy. Let’s say that the parents are leaving for an hour, and the kids are at home. Before leaving, the parents warn the kids to “behave.” When the parents get home, they find that the chandelier in the dinner room is on the floor, cookie crumbs are all over the kitchen counter, sheets have been removed from beds to make a giant tent in the living room, and the hallway has been turned into a makeshift bowling alley.

The parents are outraged. But the kids protest that the parents never said anything specific against doing these things. They only gave the general instruction to behave, and, so far as they are concerned, they did behave. After all, everything can be easily restored as it was. If the parents are against all the things did while the parents were gone, they should have spelled it out in detail.

I feel like we’re going round in circles in exactly this manner.

Not at all. I appreciate frank discussions with my Christian brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

OK, if you say so. But it gives rise to the question, why a loose-leaf binder and not an actual missal?

The other 10 EP’s are not contained in any missal (AFAIK). They are for rare occasions. The binder the Bishop was reading from probably contained the 10 other EP’s.

In a word, no. Whether that text is “word-for-word” or not, I want no part of it. To continue with my “box 'o choklits” analogy, let’s just say I don’t do butter cremes.

I would generally not attend a Mass of that sort either, but if that was the only Mass/DL/Qorbono available, I would attend it and show every bit of respect that I would do at any DL. Despite my preferences, I still would not rail against it, because I don’t feel I have a right to criticize what goes on in the Latin Church.

I’ve known a lot of diversity, too, but one thing I can say is that I have never liked the Novus Ordo from the day it appeared. It’s not a matter of “not being used to it” but, rather, one of focus, decorum, and Tradition (both upper and lower case “t”). I see this case as nothing more than a horizontal “feel good” event, and that certainly isn’t “organic development” of anything other than the touchy-feely stuff from the late-'60s-early-'70s.

I understand that feeling, but despite other elements that have a more horizontal focus, during the reading of Scripture and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, I personally don’t understand how one can’t experience the vertical dimension,

And BTW, no, I don’t see a parallel between this and the standing vs kneeling issue.

It’s just a question of judging what one is not familiar with or what one does not understand. I don’t claim to understand fully, but I will give those people the benefit of the doubt that they are truly worshipping God in their actions.

But anyway, in the end, yes, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

I didn’t say that. And I still think they do look like that.

My immediate reaction was that it sounded too much like those sarcastic jabs Protestants make against the Eucharist. No harm done.

Thanks. That feeling is mutual.

I suspect you might be singing a different tune if your liturgy was being destroyed by Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations.

I may, I may not. I’m not the kind of person that gets worked up about probabilities. However else I may feel about what might occur in my Coptic Church, I still have no right to criticize what goes on in the Latin Church. To me, it just adds fuel to the fire for those schismatic traditionalists.

That is something that I, a “cradle Oriental,” am faced with constantly. And no, I do not automatically say my bishop (or any bishop) necessarily knows better than I which, in matters liturgical is, in fact, almost never the case. He/they may have the authority but that doesn’t mean he/they necessarily has/have the knowledge.

And as a Maronite Catholic, I would not begrudge you your right to complain. But I still don’t think that gives you leave to make criticisms about what goes on in the Latin Church, especially since it is a matter that has caused schism in that Church.

That is my whole point in this entire discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

HELLO!!! I have missed you so much! Glad to see you!

Forgive me for jumping in. I have found myself agreeing with Brother Marduk (truly, it happens more often than some would think), though only up to this point.

Be sure to not paint the Orientals with so broad a brush. Civil disobedience to our bishops has been as much a part of our history as that of our Eastern brothers and sisters, albeit to a far less known degree. Copts and Syriacs often times filtered from jurisdiction to jurisdiction against the documented outcry of their heirarchs, finding themselves in the heart of the Muslim world and detached from the Empire. Some of the first Maronite chronicles were wriitten by a man who sought to interpret his people’s history in a light that showed God punishing those Maronites who strayed from their bishops’ authority, though they did so anyway. Maronite resistance to liturgical change from both Rome and the Patriarchate is well documented. The tumultuous birth pains of your own Coptic Catholic Church show numerous examples of breaking ranks, as well.

If anything, my own church could use a good dose of liturgical questioning towards our bishops if we are to survive this odd period of our history.

Anyway, I actually share your perspective on this matter, my mutual distaste for the experience aside. I do, however, do not believe your quoted point does anything for our argument.

I agree with everything your wrote. However, I was really only referring to the Liturgy, notwithstanding the strife among the Maronites.

I really hope to see more of your (name removed by moderator)ut in other threads.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

From the Closing Liturgy of the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress 2010
youtube.com/user/RECongress#p/a/u/1/dO1iLNdQHaY

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[malphono]

I understand that feeling, but despite other elements that have a more horizontal focus, during the reading of Scripture and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, I personally don’t understand how one can’t experience the vertical dimension

Those two are precisely the elements that taken on a horizontal focus in the Latin Rite OF.

And as a Maronite Catholic, I would not begrudge you your right to complain. But I still don’t think that gives you leave to make criticisms about what goes on in the Latin Church, especially since it is a matter that has caused schism in that Church.

That is my whole point in this entire discussion.

One clarification: perhaps I was a bit oblique in my prior comment: when I said “any bishop” I had in mind any of my own bishops, not simply the Local Ordinary. Yes, I am quite familiar with the EF in the Latin Church, but not to the degree with which I am familiar with matters liturgical in the West Syriac Churches, in which I am, shall we say, very well versed. I have to leave it at that.

That said, I have to add that I do (frequently) assist at the Roman Rite EF (and the traditional Ambrosian Rite when in Milan). The liturgical disintegration within my own Church is one reason for that. As for what goes on in the Latin Church (OF), as I said earlier in this thread “it’s like a box 'o choklits: ya never know what yer gonna git” and that’s one big reason why I do not otherwise frequent Latin Rite churches.

And yes, I think we all have leave to comment on what goes on in the Latin Church, mainly because that Church is ubiquitous (the “elephant in the room” as one of our guys put it a while back) and, like it or not, what goes on there reflects on the East and Orient. I wouldn’t waste my time commenting on the average horizontal OF Mass, but the case in this thread is quite different. Plus it had the unnecessary participation of several Eastern bishops which sort of puts it in the realm of “multi-ritual.” Do we have to wait until our own liturgies are tainted this way before saying something?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Edit: Nope, STILL not licitly done.
Th chalice is Glass or Crystal.

The GIRM says that glass or crystal is not permitted because they are breakable. I’m going to give those bishops and clergy the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were using platinum glass, which is not only highly durable, but rather expensive.

The pattons are baskets

Not exactly. The pattons were in the baskets.

The Celebrant skips a line,

Which one?

and alters the episcopal commemoration.

He is a bishop visiting in another diocese. It was proper for him to commemorate the bishop of that diocese.

THe Memorial Aclimation is missing “Christ has died.” from Memorial Aclimation A, which should be “Christ has Died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.” Moreover, it makes the same error in two languages.

They made the proper acclamation. “Christ was died” was sung in Spanish. “Christ is Risen” was sung in Tagalog and English. “Christ will come again,” was sung in English.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The missing line is “At the end of the meal he took the cup.”

The “visiting bishops” i’ve seen celebrate do not alter the commemoration; they invoke the local bishop by the literal text as if merely a priest of the diocese.

 

[Aramis]

A clarification: the alteration specified in the GIRM for the episcopal commemoration is apparently ad-libbed, for it does not follow the approved text there.

I’ve not experienced a local bishop being commemorated by a visiting, for the local bishop is an Archbishop, so they always use the " N. our Archbishop, and me, your unworthy servant"…

It’s lots of little things.

 

[Formosus]

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Indeed

 

[mardukm]

The missing line is “At the end of the meal he took the cup.”

If you look carefully, he was continuing after he had just lifted up the Body. He must have overlooked the next line inadvertanely when he drew his eyes back to the booklet. Not a big deal.

The “visiting bishops” i’ve seen celebrate do not alter the commemoration; they invoke the local bishop by the literal text as if merely a priest of the diocese.

A clarification: the alteration specified in the GIRM for the episcopal commemoration is apparently ad-libbed, for it does not follow the approved text there.

I’ve not experienced a local bishop being commemorated by a visiting, for the local bishop is an Archbishop, so they always use the " N. our Archbishop, and me, your unworthy servant"…

It’s lots of little things.

The text says “May this Spirit keep us always in communion with Benedict, our Pope, {name of local bishop} our bishop, with all the bishops and all your people…”

What the Bishop did was replace “our bishop” with “the bishop of this city.” I cannot possibly see what wrong or harm there was in doing that. Sorry, but this is even less than a “little thing.”

In short, except for that dancing deacon (who I hope was reprimanded by the Bishop after mass), there was no other liturgical impropriety during that Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Those two are precisely the elements that taken on a horizontal focus in the Latin Rite OF.

I can think of only two reasons you would say this. (1) The singing (which doesn’t bother me at all); (2) laypeople going up to the altar during the consecration (which the bishops put a stop to long ago, IIRC). Can you think of any other reason?

And yes, I think we all have leave to comment on what goes on in the Latin Church, mainly because that Church is ubiquitous (the “elephant in the room” as one of our guys put it a while back) and, like it or not, what goes on there reflects on the East and Orient. I wouldn’t waste my time commenting on the average horizontal OF Mass,

I disagree, of course. I would accept complements or help or sentiments of concern for the Coptic Church, but I certainly would not appreciate someone criticizing the internal affairs of my Church. I’m just extending the same charity to my Latin brethren.

but the case in this thread is quite different. Plus it had the unnecessary participation of several Eastern bishops which sort of puts it in the realm of “multi-ritual.” Do we have to wait until our own liturgies are tainted this way before saying something?

As the mod exhorted us earlier, the thread should have been about the participation of the Eastern bishops. Instead, it seems to have devolved to a free-for-all against the OF and, by implication, bishop Zavala.

But on the topic at hand, I absolutely do not believe the Eastern bishops who attended as guests can be accused of any impropriety, especially since there was no impropriety during the Liturgy in the first place (though there was that slip-up with the dancing deacon during the Procession, who probably did that all by himself, and should be reprimanded).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I can think of only two reasons you would say this. (1) The singing (which doesn’t bother me at all); (2) laypeople going up to the altar during the consecration (which the bishops put a stop to long ago, IIRC). Can you think of any other reason?

Yes, actually. Those two are part of it, and small parts at that. But as you said in your last, this is not a commentary on the OF so I won’t go further.

I disagree, of course. I would accept complements or help or sentiments of concern for the Coptic Church, but I certainly would not appreciate someone criticizing the internal affairs of my Church. I’m just extending the same charity to my Latin brethren.

It’s not criticism as such: what it is, (to use your own term), is a sentiment of concern. It reflects on all Churches, not only the one that was the primary sponsor.

As the mod exhorted us earlier, the thread should have been about the participation of the Eastern bishops. Instead, it seems to have devolved to a free-for-all against the OF and, by implication, bishop Zavala.

The identity of the celebrating bishop is of no consequence. Nor is the fact that it was (technically, at least) the OF. The consequence is in the details. If it had been, e.g., a Byzantine DL, the comments (and I’m sure not only mine) would have been quite the same, and perhaps even stronger.

But on the topic at hand, I absolutely do not believe the Eastern bishops who attended as guests can be accused of any impropriety, especially since there was no impropriety during the Liturgy in the first place (though there was that slip-up with the dancing deacon during the Procession, who probably did that all by himself, and should be reprimanded).

The matter of “impropriety” is, I guess, in the eyes of the beholder. Apparently I’m not the only one here who was offended by the entire display. And, BTW and FWIW, I’ve heard similar comments in person from others (clergy and hierarchy included) who were, to it mildly, less than impressed with the goings-on at the event, and for quite the same reasons.

While you and I may be of like mind 95+% of the time, obviously neither of us is going to “give in” on this one. With that in mind, it seems to me it’d be best to table the matter and put this sub-exchange to rest. Agreed?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

While you and I may be of like mind 95+% of the time, obviously neither of us is going to “give in” on this one. With that in mind, it seems to me it’d be best to table the matter and put this sub-exchange to rest. Agreed?

:crying:

:sad_yes:

For the record, I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything. I respect your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Catherine_Grant]

As the mod exhorted us earlier, the thread should have been about the participation of the Eastern bishops. Instead, it seems to have devolved to a free-for-all against the OF and, by implication, bishop Zavala.

I’ve been waiting for a place to close the thread as it has nothing to do with Eastern Catholicism and has passed the line into a lack of charity.

Now that everyone has agreed to disagree, I will close the thread.

May God Bless You Abundantly.
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator