Eastern Novus Ordo?

[malphono]

Malphono,

I would like to apologize for the harsh tone of my comments. Although they were not meant to be insulting, I can certainly see how they would inevitably be interpreted as such. It’s my fault. I hesitated before posting because I realized the harsh tone, and yet I posted anyhow. Mea culpa and please forgive me.

I respect your experience and would certainly like to know more just so that I could better appreciate where you’re coming from.

Thank you.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yeah, I’ve heard that “theory” around these fora for several years. If anyone is in the market for that, I’ve also got a bridge for sale (cheap!) that’ll knock your socks off.

But the unfortunate fact remains, Malphono, that this “theory” is pretty prevalent especially in the West, and it’s the lens through which the West often views the Eastern Church. I declined once to participate in a N.O. in an almost sacrilegiously irreverent setting by some Dominicans only to be told later on that evening how much I ought to love the N.O. as opposed to the Tridentine because how Eastern it was. It’s idiotic and frankly insulting, but like every other prevalent idiocy (like the pro-choice movement, or the Protestant heresy, or anything else) it’s still something we need to grapple with and fight.

 

[Cecilianus]

Traditionally among the Byzantines no prayers are said silently, it’s simply a matter of how loudly the priest prays them.

But neither are they said completely silently in the Roman Rite; the rubrics instruct the priest to say them in a “low voice”. If you listen hard enough you can hear them in the Roman Rite, as opposed to the Byzantine Rite in which the priest is saying the prayers in a low voice behind the iconostas while the congregation is singing. Only the acolytes can hear the prayers then, and even then only with difficulty.

 

[malphono]

But the unfortunate fact remains, Malphono, that this “theory” is pretty prevalent especially in the West, and it’s the lens through which the West often views the Eastern Church.

I declined once to participate in a N.O. in an almost sacrilegiously irreverent setting by some Dominicans only to be told later on that evening how much I ought to love the N.O. as opposed to the Tridentine because how Eastern it was. It’s idiotic and frankly insulting, but like every other prevalent idiocy (like the pro-choice movement, or the Protestant heresy, or anything else) it’s still something we need to grapple with and fight.

Oh yeah, don’t I know it. :tiphat: As far as I’m concerned, just about the only thing “Eastern” regarding it (the Novus Ordo) is the direction that the priests who use it normally do not face.

The post-conciliar spin doctors apparently had to work overtime to get that lens to do what they wanted it to do. It’s like hammering a square peg into a round hole; they will rationalize just about anything and contrive answers to fit, in order to further their agenda. It’s been their stock-in-trade since day one.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But neither are they said completely silently in the Roman Rite; the rubrics instruct the priest to say them in a “low voice”. If you listen hard enough you can hear them in the Roman Rite, as opposed to the Byzantine Rite in which the priest is saying the prayers in a low voice behind the iconostas while the congregation is singing. Only the acolytes can hear the prayers then, and even then only with difficulty.

Does anyone have access to a Latin Missal?

I have seen instructions that for the mingling of the Body and Blood that the say, “He puts the particle into the chalice, saying silently”.

I would like to know what the Latin says.

 

[ProVobis]

Does anyone have access to a Latin Missal?

I have seen instructions that for the mingling of the Body and Blood that the say, “He puts the particle into the chalice, saying silently”.

I would like to know what the Latin says.

Et continuo celebrans recitat, submissa
voce, sequentem orationem, de more
inclinatus, manibusque iunctis super altare
positis:

 

[Aramis]

Oh yeah, don’t I know it. :tiphat: As far as I’m concerned, just about the only thing “Eastern” regarding it (the Novus Ordo) is the direction that the priests who use it normally do not face.

The post-conciliar spin doctors apparently had to work overtime to get that lens to do what they wanted it to do. It’s like hammering a square peg into a round hole; they will rationalize just about anything and contrive answers to fit, in order to further their agenda. It’s been their stock-in-trade since day one.

Let’s see:

English in the Liturgy: 1956, Ruthenian Church (1880’s for the Russian Orthodox…)
Vernacular in the liturgy: many eastern catholic churches going back centuries.

Communion in the hand: several Syriac churches going back centuries continued to use it; the ancient Roman Church also used it (as did the 2nd century churches in many areas).

Frequent use of the OT: Byzantine Rite (albeit, in Matins, which traditionally precedes DL, rather than the DL proper.)

Multiple Anaphorae texts: Everyone BUT the Romans and Byzantines…

Restoration of the Role of the Deacon in the Liturgy: Only the Roman Church needed to restore it… the others all KEPT it…

Restoration of Concelebration: Again, the Roman Church is the only one that needed its restoration…

Audible secret prayers: Kyivan Church, pre-reuinion… various other byzantines at various times and places.

The fact is, a lot of the “innovations” people ***** about are not innovations. A variety of easternizations, a number of antiquarianisms…

Facing the people? Antiquarianism.

The reasons why they came together might be questioned, but the specific changes themselves have multiple sources, and the creation of the Pauline missal was done by men familiar with more than just the western rites.

The only church with obvious neolatinizations inspired by it are the Maronites… and the current Maronite Mass can readily be confused with the OF…

The trends towards politically correct and/or inclusive language are not unique to the OF missal, but are a common issue throughout the western world in many areas of endeavor. They are most OBVIOUS in the OF missal, and the RDL, but they are not latinizations as much as Anglicizations…

 

[Vico]

…

Multiple Anaphorae texts: Everyone BUT the Romans and Byzantines…

Not sure that I understand this. The Byzantine use Liturgy of St. Basil or Liturgy of St. Chrysostom with their different anaphoras. The Romans have four anaphoras available for the ordinary form, no. 4 is from the Coptic. Of course, not as many as the Coptic 14 and Maronite 22.

 

[Cecilianus]

Let’s see:

English in the Liturgy: 1956, Ruthenian Church (1880’s for the Russian Orthodox…)
Vernacular in the liturgy: many eastern catholic churches going back centuries.

Though the Old Believers still cling tenaciously to Slavonic, as have many Catholic churches until very recently (ten years ago for a Ukrainian church I’ve gone to; other Ruthenian churches I know of still occasionally do a Liturgy in Slavonic).

Communion in the hand: several Syriac churches going back centuries continued to use it; the ancient Roman Church also used it (as did the 2nd century churches in many areas).

A Latin practice until possibly as late as the 9th century; the Byzantines started using the spoon in order to confute the Manichaean heresy (whose adherents refused to drink the wine).

The fact is, a lot of the “innovations” people ***** about are not innovations. A variety of easternizations, a number of antiquarianisms…

Facing the people? Antiquarianism.

Compare the glory of reverence of a traditional N.O. versus a Byzantine and then tell me it isn’t a frankly insulting comparison. Also, whenever the priest faced the people in ancient times, the people turned their backs to him so that they would also be facing East.

The only church with obvious neolatinizations inspired by it are the Maronites… and the current Maronite Mass can readily be confused with the OF…

Except when a biritual priest of the Roman Rite is saying the Liturgy.

The trends towards politically correct and/or inclusive language are not unique to the OF missal, but are a common issue throughout the western world in many areas of endeavor. They are most OBVIOUS in the OF missal, and the RDL, but they are not latinizations as much as Anglicizations…

Uggh don’t get me started on the “and for us [men] and for our salvation…”

 

[Aramis]

Not sure that I understand this. The Byzantine use Liturgy of St. Basil or Liturgy of St. Chrysostom with their different anaphoras. The Romans have four anaphoras available for the ordinary form, no. 4 is from the Coptic. Of course, not as many as the Coptic 14 and Maronite 22.

The Trent to pre-Vatican II Roman Missal had ONE anaphora.

 

[malphono]

Let’s see: …

The fact is, a lot of the “innovations” people ***** about are not innovations. A variety of easternizations, a number of antiquarianisms…

Looks like more spin to me. Spin it whichever way you want, ther’s not one thing on that list that is “Eastern” or anything of the kind in the Novus Ordo. I will only remark on the following:

• I’m not dealing with the all-vernacular-all-the-time issue. It’s not directly part of the Novus Ordo, and we all know that it’s not directly part of Eastern and Oriental patrimony either.
• CITH can only be considered an antiquarianism, the practice in the ACoE notwithstanding. It’s also not part of the Novus Ordo per se, nor is it even a norm in the Latin Church. It’s merely an indult allowed (for the time being, anyway) in certain places.
• Attempting to justify the total (or near total) suppression of “low voice” prayers is a stretch that is going to make the rubber-band snap. (That particular item has already been discussed in this thread, and I have no interest in resurrecting that tangent.)
• versus populum is in a class by itself, and again is not exactly part of the Novus Ordo. It is, in and of itself, perhaps the greatest coup pulled off by those post-conciliar spin doctors. Even calling the practice an “antiquarianism” is questionable.

The rest are merely restorations of certain practices that have common roots in East and West.

and the creation of the Pauline missal was done by men familiar with more than just the western rites.

So? What difference does that make? Just because a German chef might be familiar with Japanese cuisine, doesn’t mean that he’ll use fugu instead of river trout. A German chef who is trendy might do the “fusion” thing, but a German chef who is true to his own roots will not: it insults both culinary traditions and muddies the flavors.

The only church with obvious neolatinizations inspired by it are the Maronites…

Not quite accurate: the Syro-Malabars are equally affected.

and the current Maronite Mass can readily be confused with the OF…

Sadly that is all too true.

 

[dvdjs]

Looks like more spin to me. Spin it whichever way you want …

What do you mean by “spin”? Usually this expression is used to put down another’s arguments,\ without addressing their substance. It is generally viewed as an insult. Presumably, you, who manifest a sensitivity to insult, mean something else. What do you mean? And on “novus ordo inspired neo-latinizations” same question; do you understand the insult that you give to people by this remark?

 

[malphono]

What do you mean by “spin”? Usually this expression is used to put down another’s arguments,\ without addressing their substance. It is generally viewed as an insult. Presumably, you, who manifest a sensitivity to insult, mean something else. What do you mean?

It’s not a personal (or ad hominem) insult, if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s strictly meant against the argument. I’m quite sure Aramis knows that.

And on “novus ordo inspired neo-latinizations” same question; do you understand the insult that you give to people by this remark?

No. If someone takes it as a personal insult, that’s too bad. Methinks perhaps that person protesteth too much.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s not a personal (or ad hominem) insult, if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s strictly meant against the argument. If someone takes it as a personal insult, that’s too bad. … Methinks perhaps that person protesteth too much.

Arguments, like liturgies, are made by people. People may be right or wrong in their arguments and their work. An epithet levied against a person’s argument or work is intrinsically a personal insult. It is not a counter argument, as it is not an argument at all; it is an assessment: . Your work is “novus ordo inspired neo-latinization” = you are a “novus ordo inspired neo-latinizer”, or worse. It is simply amazing that you do not see the insult in this.

 

[malphono]

Arguments, like liturgies, are made by people. People may be right or wrong in their arguments and their work. An epithet levied against a person’s argument or work is intrinsically a personal insult. It is not a counter argument, as it is not an argument at all; it is an assessment: . Your work is “novus ordo inspired neo-latinization” = you are a “novus ordo inspired neo-latinizer”, or worse. It is simply amazing that you do not see the insult in this.

And around and around … and around we go. :hypno: This goes beyond the absurd. I probably should have done it earlier, but **now ** I am going to the ignore list.

 

[dvdjs]

Whatever. If you would want to provide information or engage in cogent discussion I am always willing to learn. But if you just hurl epithets against my church or its people I will protest unfounded claims and insults.

 

[Vico]

The Trent to pre-Vatican II Roman Missal had ONE anaphora.

Thank you. I read that the fixed anaphora called the canon, beginning with Sursum Corda till before the Pater Noster, was established in 366-84 A.D. by Pope Damsus I, for the Latin Church, but then in different areas it was modified, eventually being restrained in 1570 with the Roman Missal. Interstingly some of the canon come from the the Liturgy of St. James.

 

[Aramis]

It’s not a personal (or ad hominem) insult, if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s strictly meant against the argument. I’m quite sure Aramis knows that.

No. If someone takes it as a personal insult, that’s too bad. Methinks perhaps that person protesteth too much.

Malphono, you are being thoroughly rude in my opinion.

And quite obviously, not just mine.

 

[ciero]

Malphono, you are being thoroughly rude in my opinion.

And quite obviously, not just mine.

Boy I think Malphono was making some rather good points…even though certain people around here dont like to hear the truth.

 

[malphono]

Malphono, you are being thoroughly rude in my opinion.

Sorry you feel that way.