Eastern Novus Ordo?

[malphono]

At my parish, the dropping of the Litanies does not shorten our Liturgy at all, father just makes his homily longer. I am not upset about this though as father is a great homilist.

AGGGHHH … (shame there’s no smiley for primal scream …) but I’d probably take the gas pipe. Yes, I am all too familiar with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching, but I never liked it, do not like it, and never will like it. No matter how good the preacher, if I wanted to hear absurdly long sermons (by any other name, a “homily” is a sermon), I’d be in one of the ubiquitous “Bible churches” found on just about every street corner (even in NYC, believe it or not).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

AGGGHHH … (shame there’s no smiley for primal scream …) but I’d probably take the gas pipe. Yes, I am all too familiar with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching, but I never liked it, do not like it, and never will like it. No matter how good the preacher, if I wanted to hear absurdly long sermons (by any other name, a “homily” is a sermon), I’d be in one of the ubiquitous “Bible churches” found on just about every street corner (even in NYC, believe it or not).

He usually does pretty good to keep to the readings in his “preaching” but then I would not be upset if we added the Litanies and he continued to preach the same length. Rushing liturgy to get out just bugs me to no end.

Having said that, my liking the preaching may be influenced by my coming to the Church through a protestant church. Long journey home that started in neo-paganism/wicca through protestantism, to where I am today.

 

[clinoforms]

My main point is that language is not an issue for Eastern Catholics as it is for those “traditionalist” Roman Catholics

yes and no. they can be seen as analogous situations. the jews used hebrew as a liturgical language at the time of Christ when the vernacular was aramaic and i suppose greek. in the west, greek was dropped for latin in the 3rd? century. latin was the language which united the western church. even in english, 20% or so of our language is latin via french. it’s more intelligable to speakers of romance languages than to us who speak a germanic language.

traditionaly the slavs use slavonic and the greeks use an older form of greek in the liturgy. latin is for many catholics the older form of their vernacular. so i don’t think the recent use of vernacular in the west is different in essence from the always psuedo-vernacular east, only in that the east were never united under a single language and culture like they were in the west under latin rite catholicism but into ethnic autocephalous churhes.

exceptions in the east would be the ethiopians, italo-albanians and the malabarese who didn’t understand the words of their service–Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship.

besides, even sacrosanctum concilium states that latin is to be preserved in the latin rite. i don’t think anyone can say that this is actually the case. western rite catholics are entitled therefore to their tradition which is latin. if you don’t like latin, then go to a novus ordo mass or divine liturgy.

 

[malphono]

He usually does pretty good to keep to the readings in his “preaching” but then I would not be upset if we added the Litanies and he continued to preach the same length. Rushing liturgy to get out just bugs me to no end.

Having said that, my liking the preaching may be influenced by my coming to the Church through a protestant church. Long journey home that started in neo-paganism/wicca through protestantism, to where I am today.

A very old and dear friend of mine who is a Ruthenian priest (he probably should be UGCC but never mind that here) was a great homilist: never went beyond 7 minutes, and usually closer to 5 (I guess he and I are of the same school, so-to-speak ). Anyway, his liturgy was wonderful: when he would sing in staroslavenski it brought tears to the eyes of many in the congregation (and not only the old ladies in black dresses). And then there was this one wayward Syro-Maronite who was always enthralled and yes, even I could even tell the difference between the staroslavenski and whichever Slavic vernacular he was using at the time. I guess I’m weird … (no comments please )

 

[malphono]

exceptions in the east would be the ethiopians, italo-albanians and the malabarese who didn’t understand the words of their service–Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship.

Not exactly true for the Ethiopians. The common tongue (Amharic) is a derivative of Ge’ez. Somewhat the way Italian derives from Latin. It’s rare for an Italian-speaker to plead total ignorance to Latin. So too for an Amharic-speaker to Ge’ez.

 

[RyanBlack]

AGGGHHH … (shame there’s no smiley for primal scream …) but I’d probably take the gas pipe. Yes, I am all too familiar with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching, but I never liked it, do not like it, and never will like it. No matter how good the preacher, if I wanted to hear absurdly long sermons (by any other name, a “homily” is a sermon), I’d be in one of the ubiquitous “Bible churches” found on just about every street corner (even in NYC, believe it or not).

I hear it was not unusual for sermons during the patristic era to last well over an hour. Why do you have a problem with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching? It was desperately needed. While not all priests are great homilists, there’s no excuse for simply accepting poor preaching out of an attitude that preaching is unimportant.

 

[malphono]

I hear it was not unusual for sermons during the patristic era to last well over an hour. Why do you have a problem with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching? It was desperately needed. While not all priests are great homilists, there’s no excuse for simply accepting poor preaching out of an attitude that preaching is unimportant.

And we do not (and have not for well over 1000 years) live in the Patristic era. About the only people I can think of who would say that absurdly long “preaching” (call it “sermon” or call it “homily” or call it whatever, it doesn’t matter: it’s the same thing) was “desperately needed” are Protestants.

 

[ProVobis]

besides, even sacrosanctum concilium states that latin is to be preserved in the latin rite. i don’t think anyone can say that this is actually the case. western rite catholics are entitled therefore to their tradition which is latin. if you don’t like latin, then go to a novus ordo mass or divine liturgy.

I’m partial to Latin myself, but if I were to attend a Divine Liturgy, I would want to know first and foremost that it was authentic. If I were to hear any English I would certainly have my doubts.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m partial to Latin myself, but if I were to attend a Divine Liturgy, I would want to know first and foremost that it was authentic. If I were to hear any English I would certainly have my doubts.

 

[RyanBlack]

I didn’t say that “absurdly” long preaching was desperately needed. Although some people seem to think that a homily that lasts more than 10 minutes is aburdly long, which is, in my opinion, well, absurd. What I do believe was desperately needed was a renewed emphasis on the importance of preaching and a rejection of the mentality that poor preaching is OK, because, well, after all, we have a valid Eucharist, while those Protestants, who might have great preaching, don’t have a real Eucharist. While I certainly agree that our celebration of the Eucharist is more important than the homily, there’s simply no good reason to neglect the homily. Holy Scripture attests to the importance of preaching.

 

[ProVobis]

If there were any English in the Divine Liturgy, it means someone would have had to translate it. How would I know the translations were true? The Latin Rite seems to have a lot of problems with the English, in fact, it’s being retranslated as we speak. I can’t presume that other liturgies translated into English don’t have problems.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If there were any English in the Divine Liturgy, it means someone would have had to translate it. How would I know the translations were true? The Latin Rite seems to have a lot of problems with the English, in fact, it’s being retranslated as we speak. I can’t presume that other liturgies translated into English don’t have problems.

:shrug:This is not a problem that any Eastern Catholic would share with you.

 

[RyanBlack]

If there were any English in the Divine Liturgy, it means someone would have had to translate it. How would I know the translations were true? The Latin Rite seems to have a lot of problems with the English, in fact, it’s being retranslated as we speak. I can’t presume that other liturgies translated into English don’t have problems.

This position seems extreme to me. Why not limit all liturgies to koine Greek? After all, the words of institution are recorded in Holy Scripture in koine Greek. How do we know that whoever wrote the Roman Mass (in its original Latin) recorded the words of institution correctly. Also, what about Holy Scripture itself. Should we limit the readings to the original Hebrew and Greek, since there might be a problem with the translation?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

After all, the words of institution are recorded in Holy Scripture in koine Greek.

Wait, you mean the Vulgate isn’t the original!?!?!

 

[ProVobis]

This position seems extreme to me. Why not limit all liturgies to koine Greek? After all, the words of institution are recorded in Holy Scripture in koine Greek. How do we know that whoever wrote the Roman Mass (in its original Latin) recorded the words of institution correctly. Also, what about Holy Scripture itself. Should we limit the readings to the original Hebrew and Greek, since there might be a problem with the translation?

Fair point. But since when has English become a sacred language? And has it spread Catholicism like Latin, Greek, Syriac, etc.? Why do we have to have all liturgies in English now, especially when there are such problems with its meaning changing nature? And as far as Scriptures are concerned, we’re going to the other extreme. Reading the comments over in that forum, it seems as if people now treat the Bible as if it had originally been written in English. How can you begin a discussion if the only discussion is which English Bible to have as the standard? Something doesn’t seem right to me there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think in the East we have always focused on a language that the people know, rather than the idea of a “sacred” language.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Tradition, including Liturgy, is better preserved if its in a language the people understand. Remember that even Greek is not the language the Apostles were instructed in, they would have translated it from Aramaic. They didn’t have that much Aramaic text because its the gentile converts who are more particular about having books and documentation rather than the Jews who are used to oral tradition.

The Liturgy would have to be translated for the people to understand anyway. In Latin we say,“Et cum spitiru tuo”. What does it mean? The only way we understand what it means if it were given to us in our language, “And with your spirit”. So to us every time we hear “Et cum spiritu tuo,” in our minds it only means, “and with your spirit.” So why not use the English, “and with your spirit.” Its the same thing. We understand under the context we convey. God reads our minds and our hearts, no matter how precise or imprecise language is, God is beyond that. He knows exactly what we mean even though we used something in Chinese which we thought was a nice word but is actually unknown to us a swear word.

 

[malphono]

Tradition, including Liturgy, is better preserved if its in a language the people understand. Remember that even Greek is not the language the Apostles were instructed in, they would have translated it from Aramaic. They didn’t have that much Aramaic text because its the gentile converts who are more particular about having books and documentation rather than the Jews who are used to oral tradition.

The Liturgy would have to be translated for the people to understand anyway. In Latin we say,“Et cum spitiru tuo”. What does it mean? The only way we understand what it means if it were given to us in our language, “And with your spirit”. So to us every time we hear “Et cum spiritu tuo,” in our minds it only means, “and with your spirit.” So why not use the English, “and with your spirit.” Its the same thing. We understand under the context we convey. God reads our minds and our hearts, no matter how precise or imprecise language is, God is beyond that. He knows exactly what we mean even though we used something in Chinese which we thought was a nice word but is actually unknown to us a swear word.

Here’s a though: why don’t we all just do the whole thing in mime (which of course means no words in ANY language, whether the derided liturgical, or the exalted vernacular) and be done with it? S Macel Marceau anyone?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Tradition, including Liturgy, is better preserved if its in a language the people understand. Remember that even Greek is not the language the Apostles were instructed in, they would have translated it from Aramaic. They didn’t have that much Aramaic text because its the gentile converts who are more particular about having books and documentation rather than the Jews who are used to oral tradition.

The Liturgy would have to be translated for the people to understand anyway. In Latin we say,“Et cum spitiru tuo”. What does it mean? The only way we understand what it means if it were given to us in our language, “And with your spirit”. So to us every time we hear “Et cum spiritu tuo,” in our minds it only means, “and with your spirit.” So why not use the English, “and with your spirit.” Its the same thing. We understand under the context we convey. God reads our minds and our hearts, no matter how precise or imprecise language is, God is beyond that. He knows exactly what we mean even though we used something in Chinese which we thought was a nice word but is actually unknown to us a swear word.

Nice post.

This is why I balk at the idea of a “sacred” language.

Philosophically speaking language only means what we as a society agrees that it means. There is no “sacred” meaning, that is there is no defined meaning to any language or words by God. God has not defined any language for us to use. Actually, if you read the Holy Scriptures, all languages were created by God in the story of the Tower of Babel. All languages have developed from earlier languages and if one believes in the truth of the story of the Tower of Babel then every language has its roots in something created by God.

 

[malphono]

This is why I balk at the idea of a “sacred” language.

Is any language a “sacred” language? No. Are there, however, venerable and respected liturgical languages? Absolutely. But I’m not going there: it’s beyond the scope of this thread, and even if it weren’t, I just don’t have the wherewithal to fight about it any more.