Byzantine Catholicism vs. Latin Catholicism?

[choy]

Never even mentioned the EF. Never said the OF is in itself irreverent. I said most of the time it is done irreverently and man-centered, sort of how the flyer presents it. The Holy Father’s OF is always reverent and beautiful.

my apologies then
but people who say that the OF is irreverent automatically are ones who prefer the EF. otherwise, why would they go to form of Mass they see as irreverent? that is why i brought up the EF

 

[awatkins69]

well, i know many people who actually do some good in the world. not like me who just likes to read stuff then argue over here at CAF. these are people who at least in a small part live the life that Jesus asked them to live. and these people go to OF masses.

we often forget that the Mass is a Mass (or Divine Liturgy). we are so concerned over the form but neglect the essence. we equate reverence in the form, but what is important that we capture the essence of the Mass, the sacrifice of Christ, the coming together of all believers in Communion with the Church and with Christ. if you go to Mass and then go out into the world and live the life that Jesus wants us to live, then didn’t the Mass serve its purpose? doesn’t it prove that the Mass is good? no matter what the form

First and foremost the Mass is not about us. It’s about God. Did we worship God with the absolute best we can? Did we make sure that we used the finest materials, the finest music, and the finest practice that we have? Did we truly give all the glory we could to the Son who freely died such a cruel and painful death for us? Remember when Moses was in the presence of God, God said “Come not near hither, put off the shoes from your feet; for the place, whereon you stand, is holy ground.” That’s the kind of reverence and awe we need, because we are just as close to God in Holy Communion as Moses was when God spoke to him. We are not even worthy to be in God’s presence, so we should treat it with the utmost respect.

Secondly, the Mass was given to us by Christ as a means of grace. God gives us grace based on our interior disposition. Those who receive Holy Communion irreverently without acknowledging clearly the greatness, love and sacredness present will not receive as much grace. Those who receive it with reverence, solemnity, and purity of heart, mind and soul will be granted the greater amount of grace, and Jesus will be closer while supping with them. So not only for the sake of our Savior, but for our own, we should make Mass the most sacred thing on earth, because that’s exactly what it is.

 

[choy]

First and foremost the Mass is not about us. It’s about God. Did we worship God with the absolute best we can? Did we make sure that we used the finest materials, the finest music, and the finest practice that we have? Did we truly give all the glory we could to the Son who died such a cruel and painful death for us?

Secondly, the Mass was given to us by Christ as a means of grace. God gives us grace based on our interior disposition during Mass. Those who receive communion irreverently without acknowledging as clearly the greatness and love present will not receive as much grace. Those who receive it with reverence, solemnity, and purity of heart, mind and soul will be granted the greater amount of grace, and Jesus will be closer while supping with them. So not only for the sake of our Savior, but for our own, we should make Mass the most sacred thing on earth, because that’s exactly what it is.

Mass is only part of worshiping God, its not everything about worshiping God. otherwise, why only do it one hour a week?

we live our lives in worship of God. we see the poor and we help them, we worship God. we take care of our family, we worship God. we go to work and do the best we can and put in an honest day’s work, we worship God.

what is giving all to God? do we forget that the essence of our souls and our lives is what God wants more than Gregorian Chants and a golden chalice? you are forgetting in the early history of the Church, Mass was done underground. they don’t have the finest music and the finest materials. did those not please God? no. what God demands from us is the proper disposition to receive His graces. the material things are for us, not for God. so that with our limited understanding, we may realize on our terms how great God is. but God is beyond materiality. the first Mass that Jesus celebrated was on a road and the bread was broken on a simple table, not inside a Cathedral. was it any less than what we have today? no

 

[dcointin]

Thank you! I have attended several OF masses with my girlfriend, we actually attend each other’s services on alternating Sundays. I honestly have a mixed reaction to it based on my background formerly in the Lutheran, and now Orthodox Church. On the one hand it seems too modernistic: the priest faces the people for the entire liturgy, contemporary hymns are sung, lay eucharistic ministers are used, a table is used instead of the altar, etc. On the other, its traditional in other respects: the singing is led by the choir and organ, they kneel throughout the consecration, the architecture and decor is traditional, etc. I did particularly enjoy the chant melodies that they used, and if the priest officiated in the traditional pre Vatican II style with more ceremony I think I would be quite at home there. I also attended an OF service at the cathedral here which was very beautiful (and even used incense!). I still haven’t attended a Tridentine mass so that might appeal much more to me.

I would have to agree however that what is seen as reverent depends on ones tradition. For example, in the Divine Liturgy we stand throughout the service and at times prostrate, but rarely kneel (it depends on the day of the week, feast, etc.) I initially thought this was irreverent, but it’s simply a different expression of reverence. In the east we stand in the presence of God, and to sit is considered irreverent by many who will stand even when there are pews and others are sitting. I think it all depends on one’s intent.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, we don’t do it only one hour of the week. Mass is celebrated every day, on every continent, in every part of the world. “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.” Mass (and the DL as well) is the greatest prayer there is, greater than anything else.

Of course living our lives for God is a prayer. But it is nothing compared to the Holy Mass. Saint John Vianney said that one single Mass is more pleasing to God than all the good works of all people through all centuries combined. He also made sure that he used the finest materials he could and tried to make his celebrations of Mass the most perfect he could with his circumstances. Are we not called to be saints? Having more than him at our disposal can we expect to become holy by giving less? We are not persecuted Christians living underground. Even then, they gave the best that they had. Even then they celebrated with the most reverence they could. Are we giving the very very best that we have available?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

sSaint John Vianney said that one single Mass is more pleasing to God than all the good works of all people through all centuries combined.

I don’t doubt that he said that, but I completely disagree.

 

[choy]

Well, we don’t do it only one hour of the week. Mass is celebrated every day, on every continent, in every part of the world. “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.” Mass (and the DL as well) is the greatest prayer there is, greater than anything else.

Of course living our lives for God is a prayer. But it is nothing compared to the Holy Mass. Saint John Vianney said that one single Mass is more pleasing to God than all the good works of all people through all centuries combined. He also made sure that he used the finest materials he could and tried to make his celebrations of Mass the most perfect he could with his circumstances. Are we not called to be saints? Having more than him at our disposal can we expect to become holy by giving less? We are not persecuted Christians living underground. Even then, they gave the best that they had. Even then they celebrated with the most reverence they could. Are we giving the very very best that we have available?

love of God and love of neighbor cannot be separated. if we neglect the needy then we neglect Christ. did Jesus not say that whatever we do to the least of our breatheren we do to Him? so how can we receive Him in the Eucharist, and then neglect Him again by not doing the good works He asks us to do?

also, read the Good Samaritan. why did Jesus use a priest and a Levite as the “bad neighbors” and a Samaritan as a good neighbor? the priest and the Levite serve in the temple and/or synagogues and therefore cannot touch the bloody body lest they become unclean. and by doing so they cannot peform their temple duties. whereas Samaritans are Jews who do not worship in the temple, they worship in the land and mountain where their ancestors worship God. so because they are free from the forms of worship, they are able to peform the good works and please God. and at the same time this does not hold them back from being able to worship in accordance to the tradition of their ancestors.

so, does temple worship get in the way with helping others? it should not.

so, still worried about the form of Mass?

 

[awatkins69]

Woah woah I never denied we need to help our neighbor. Indeed, we must love our neighbors as ourselves. But we must love God even more. What I’m saying is that while Mass gives us the grace to do such good works, we must have the internal disposition to receive this grace, which comes from reverent and beautiful Masses. Even more importantly, the Mass is an act of worship towards God and Our Lord deserves the very best, not banalities and abuses. One thing that is very crucial is that we need to be obedient to the Church. While liturgical irreverence is the norm, it is actually disobedience. Read things like Sacrosanctum Concilium and the writings of the Holy Father and you will see that the way people celebrate Mass is usually contrary to official directives.

Unfortunately, since relativism and false charity have entered the Church people can barely identify a distinction between the sacred and profane, calling it all relative, making sacrilege nearly impossible. Yes, there are legitimate differences, like the purpose of kneeling, standing, music and such. However, I do not have any problem identifying legitimate differences like these when I go to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and illegitimate differences when I go to a folk Mass. If people really do not see the difference in degree between receiving Holy Communion by intinction and using tambourines and clapping out rhythms, then they suffer from liturgical schizophrenia.

 

[awatkins69]

I don’t doubt that he said that, but I completely disagree.

The Divine Liturgy is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ, whose merits are infinite.

 

[choy]

Woah woah I never denied we need to help our neighbor. Indeed, we must love our neighbors as ourselves. But we must love God even more. What I’m saying is that while Mass gives us the grace to do such good works, we must have the internal disposition to receive this grace, which comes from reverent and beautiful Masses. Even more importantly, the Mass is an act of worship towards God and Our Lord deserves the very best, not banalities and abuses. One thing that is very crucial is that we need to be obedient to the Church. While liturgical irreverence is the norm, it is actually disobedience. Read things like Sacrosanctum Concilium and the writings of the Holy Father and you will see that the way people celebrate Mass is usually contrary to official directives.

Unfortunately, since relativism and false charity have entered the Church people can barely identify a distinction between the sacred and profane, calling it all relative, making sacrilege nearly impossible. Yes, there are legitimate differences, like the purpose of kneeling, standing, music and such. However, I do not have any problem identifying legitimate differences like these when I go to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and illegitimate differences when I go to a folk Mass. If people really do not see the difference in degree between receiving Holy Communion by intinction and using tambourines and clapping out rhythms, then they suffer from liturgical schizophrenia.

i think you’ve stretched it a bit too far. yes, i agree that the abuses have no place in the Church. and not just Liturgical abuse, any abuse. however, the OF in itself is not an abuse nor is it less reverent. my original point, there are people who attend the OF and have lived better lives than many of us. so there’s no reason for anyone to say that people who go to the OF are shortchanged spiritually. if that were true, the Church wouldn’t have kept the OF. again, i do not see anything said in that flier to say that points a modern OF being bad. its not. it is what the world needs today. and the EF/TLM was kept because there is also a need for it by some.

isn’t it sad that i go to a Byzantine parish website and they tell me, “we have different Rites, but both are Catholic, both are good, both are equal.” then Latin Traditionalists telling everyone else, “its our way or the highway.”

 

[awatkins69]

Again, I never mentioned the EF my friend. I’m not even bringing it into the question. You are misunderstanding me. The OF is a legitimate expression of the liturgy. It can just be abused, and normally it unfortunately is. The leaflet seems to recognize that as being the norm. That’s what I’m decrying. Not the OF itself. Again, I go to the OF on Sundays. It can be celebrated beautifully, but most of the time it unfortunately isn’t, unlike most Divine Liturgies.

 

[angelic06]

I have read through most of these posts, and I am confused as to how a conversation regarding Byzantine and Latin Catholicism becaming a rant regarding love of God vs. love of neighbor. We love God first by attending the celebration of the Eucharist (however your church styles its name) which He himself commanded for our edification, lest we have no share in everlasting life. Then, having been nourished thus, we fulfill our responsibilities in the world, to love our neighbors as ourselves. And yes, I believe that we have to give God our best as best as we are able to, both during Mass as well as in our every day lives. The Church has already defined for us Latins, in both the Mass OF & that of the EF, what the standard is. And yes, the external form must be combined with the interior disposition, no doubt about this. Why, then, are you putting them in opposition? It is our role as obedient Catholics, to strive for it, that is, the standard of external form the Church sets. But even better, we should strive for the best because of our love of God, not merely because we are grudgingly following Church decrees, important as they are. Remember that Jesus said that in regards to charity vs. following the Law (the charity vs. liturgy/liturgical rubrics problem of the day), the Pharisess (and the rest of us) should do the one WITHOUT neglecting the other (emphasis my own). Now, for the record, while we are using anecdotal websites to back up our claims, I read on one eastern Catholic website that many a parishioner from an eastern parish, after visiting a Latin church while on vacation, business, etc., will tell their priest, “Why, yes, Father, we went to Mass of course, but we miss the Divine Liturgy.”

Huhh…??

Is that the Church, breathing with both lungs, that you want? (Remember, I’m not talking about Latin traditionalists here. I’m talking here about first time visitors—mind you, our fellow Catholics who allegedly should feel at home at any Catholic church----to a Roman church, or if not first time, those who do not come regularly.) It sounds like one of the lungs has pneumonia if this is the kind of commentary one hears regarding a parishioners first visit to a Roman Mass.

Me, I am looking very much forward to my first visit to a Byzantine Catholic parish. I am wondering whether or not many of my fellow Catholics (of the Byzantine church) are looking forward to their first visit to a Roman church. I suspect that while many are, many may not be, due to the same kind of stuff people read about not only on CAF but elsewhere.

Finally, while somebody mentioned the persecutions, we must remember those are extraordinary times. When they ended, artists, musicians, etc., strove to provide the best for divine worship, something to help us to convey, as best as possible, the ineffable majesty of our God and King, something to bring us beyond the here and now into eternity—and in the medieval age, due to people’s love of God, not in spite of it, artistic creativity flourished here in the West.

Now, can we please get back to the OP’s query, now, regarding differences (and similarities) between Byzantine & Latin expressions of Catholic Christianity?

(My sincere apologies for the length of this post—I really and truly wanted it to be brief, but when somebody starts pitting love of God through worship against love of neighbor, this is the kind of stuff which will cause me to rant.)

 

[Vico]

…

Of course living our lives for God is a prayer. But it is nothing compared to the Holy Mass. Saint John Vianney said that one single Mass is more pleasing to God than all the good works of all people through all centuries combined. He also made sure that he used the finest materials he could and tried to make his celebrations of Mass the most perfect he could with his circumstances. Are we not called to be saints?..

“All Good Works together are not of equal value with the sacrifice of the Mass, because they are the works of men, and the holy Mass is the work of God.”
Catechism on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by St. John Vianney

saints.sqpn.com/stj18012.htm

Also St. John Vianney said, “My friend, the devil is not greatly afraid of the discipline and other instruments of penance. That which beats him is the curtailment of one’s food, drink and sleep. There is nothing the devil fears more, consequently, nothing is more pleasing to God. Oh! How often have I experienced it! Whilst I was alone – and I was alone during eight or nine years, and therefore quite free to yield to my attraction – it happened at times that I refrained from food for entire days. On those occasions I obtained, both for myself and for others, whatsoever I asked of Almighty God.”

 

[awatkins69]

I don’t see anything wrong with what he said in both examples Vico.

angelic06

You basically summed up what I was trying to say. The reason it got to that, was because I was saying that the leaflet at the beginning portrays Latin Catholicism as basically very lax and “laid-back”, which it unfortunately is. And then whenever somebody criticizes that, due to a false sense of charity people try to defend abuses which no real authority has. I never stress liturgical rubrics or norms in a Pharisaic way. Just as you said, we should give the very best because of supernatural charity towards God. I hope you read all my posts, because I was trying to stress that love of neighbor is very important. However love of God is more important. In the end, my main point was that although the leaflet accurately portrays modern liturgies in the Latin Church as being people-centered, I am kind of sad that it is correct. Read the writings of the Holy Father and you will see this is not what he wants.

 

[Vico]

I don’t see anything wrong with what he said in both examples Vico.

angelic06

You basically summed up what I was trying to say. The reason it got to that, was because I was saying that the leaflet at the beginning portrays Latin Catholicism as basically very lax and “laid-back”, which it unfortunately is. And then whenever somebody criticizes that, due to a false sense of charity people try to defend abuses which no real authority has. I never stress liturgical rubrics or norms in a Pharisaic way. Just as you said, we should give the very best because of supernatural charity towards God. I hope you read all my posts, because I was trying to stress that love of neighbor is very important. However love of God is more important. In the end, my main point was that although the leaflet accurately portrays modern liturgies in the Latin Church as being people-centered, I am kind of sad that it is correct. Read the writings of the Holy Father and you will see this is not what he wants.

I wanted to provide the quote, and decided to add more more pertaining to individual penance.

I did read you posts, all fine posts. Believe me, I have experienced the gamut as I was an altar boy for eight years (1961-1969) in the Latin Church assisting in the Latin Mass of Pope Pius XII (1955), the Latin Mass of Pope John XXIII (1962), the English Mass revisions prior and including the Pope Paul VI Novus Ordo Missae in 1970. Then the folk Mass, rock Mass, and the Spanish Mass of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe which includes dances. Carmelite Latin Mass and also Mass outside of a church, in mountain settings (1963-1966 era). And the Divine Liturgy (old and new forms), of course, much more in formality like the older Masses I assisted with.

What I observed is that formality in our culture (clothing and behavior) has decreased in general, about the time of the introduction of Mary Quant hot pants in 1969, the Mini-Pill 1970, and Roe vs. Wade allowing abortion 1973.

I believe that for western culture, the respect and mystery of each other, expressed outwardly, has decreased (even since early 1900s with the idealization of youth and emulation of movie stars in the 1920s, etc.), and is reflected through the casual postures, fashions, and attitudes of people, which also is brought to church, unless one makes a conscious effort to overcome it.

 

[awatkins69]

Good analysis. This is why I like the Byzantine Divine Liturgy so much. It hasn’t had these problems for some reason. The EF, while I like it too, has kind of become something reactionary and stuck in the past, rather than a living tradition.

 

[Vico]

Good analysis. This is why I like the Byzantine Divine Liturgy so much. It hasn’t had these problems for some reason. The EF, while I like it too, has kind of become something reactionary and stuck in the past, rather than a living tradition.

Interesting idea, I had not thought of the 1962 Mass as being stuck in the past, probably because the history of the Latin Missals, often has 30 year periods without change.

Missals:
Tridentine 1570. *
Pope Clement VIII in 1604. *
Pope Urban VIII in 1634. *
Pope Pius X in 1911.
Pope Benedict XV in 1920.
Pope Pius XII in 1955.
Pope John XXIII in 1962. (EF)
(Vatican II 1962-1965)
Orders for Missal changes March 7, 1965. *
Second instruction 1967.
Pope Paul VI Novus Ordo Missae on March 22, 1970. *

---

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentSubCategories/Index/2/SubIndex/41

But when the Nikon reforms to the Divine Liturgy occured Orthdoxy had a split with the Old Believers.

All these Recensions were published, with different rubrics and languages for the various Oriental Churches:

I.-Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Bizantino
V51 A) In Lingua Greca
B) In Lingua Slava Ecclesiastica
V52 1. Recensio Vulgata (Pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis)
V53 2. Recensio Ruthena (Pro Ucrainis Et Ruthenis)
V53 3. Pro Utraque Recensione
V54 C) In Lingua Rumena
V55 Ii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Copto
V56 Iii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Etiopico
V57 Iv. Edizione Romana Dei Rituali Etiopici
V58 V. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Siro-Orientale O Caldeo
V59 Varia
V60 Vi. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali In Lingua Russa
V61 Vii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Melkita

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/varie.html

 

[awatkins69]

Well, it’s been 50 years for one thing. But I kind of mean that people try to celebrate it as it was in the 1920s or something. Laity is just an audience kneeling and standing. Even in the 50s and 60s before the Council there was liturgical participation and organic growth. It’s just my opinion. Not disparaging the EF or anything.

 

[Aramis]

Well, it’s been 50 years for one thing. But I kind of mean that people try to celebrate it as it was in the 1920s or something. Laity is just an audience kneeling and standing. Even in the 50s and 60s before the Council there was liturgical participation and organic growth. It’s just my opinion. Not disparaging the EF or anything.

Unfortunately, where that was occurring, also much of it was illicitly done.

Likewise, people forget the number of irreverent masses said in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, some of which are documented. The stereotype of the 20 minute morning mass exists because a LOT of priests did so.

Irreverence is a sad cultural norm.

 

[Vico]

Well, it’s been 50 years for one thing. But I kind of mean that people try to celebrate it as it was in the 1920s or something. Laity is just an audience kneeling and standing. Even in the 50s and 60s before the Council there was liturgical participation and organic growth. It’s just my opinion. Not disparaging the EF or anything.

You are thinking of the precise Mass rubrics of pre-Novus Ordo I suppose. When people do not understand the language it can be difficult for them. I’m not sure if the typical person learned Latin then. Just as it may be harder to follow with the Divine Litugy where many do not know Greek, or Old Church Slavonic, or Syriac, etc. One thing I learned from the Divine Liturgy is that we enter the kingdom of God as we begin it, and are there to give to God.

Certainly a long time has passed, and I left out some in the list, so here it is revised without the minor changes:

Missals:
(Latin)
1570 – Pope Pius V
1604 – Pope Clement VIII
1634 – Pope Urban VIII
1884 – Pope Leo XIII
1920 – Pope Benedict XV
1962 – Pope John XXIII
(Vernacular)
1970 – Pope Paul VI
1975 – Pope Paul VI
2002 – Pope John Paul II

Years between: 34, 30, 250, 36, 42, 8, 5, 27.