"Even If"...The Pope Knows What He is Doing

[runningdude]

I don’t wish to be or sound un-Christian, but now with the resurection of the Mass in Latin, all of you younger people know how older Catholics who were taught that the Latin Mass was eternal in nature felt in the 1970’s when the Latin Mass was all but prohibited in the USA.
At the time, I was a fallen away Catholic, illicitly married a 2nd time to an Episcopalian who dragged me off to their services. My first exposure to the new Mass came when my father came to visit and I accompanied him to Mass on Sunday at a neighborhood church. To my shock, and my fathers disgust, it turned out to be a “Rock n’ Roll” Mass. My father almost walked out except that his feeling for religious obligation over-rode his being appaled.
I returned to the church in 2003, and to my amazement, the English wasn’t even a close translation of the Latin, and was very close to the Episcopal services I attended during the 1970’s. However, the early training I received in a Jeseut run parochial school kicked in and I humbly obeyed the contemporary teaching.
In my opinion, JPII had a terrible time handling the excesses of Vatican II, especially in the US. If he had cracked down at the time, he stood a very good chance of many dioceses becoming scismatic to a greater degree than Bishop Lefebre’s people., Now, enough time has elapsed that Pope Benedict can restore order and discipline in the Church, and I believe it. It is far better to have a smaller church with people who genuinly believe in and practice the faith than having nominal Catholics who attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter and are pro choice, believe in divorce, and believe one church is as good as another…and clergy who are “creative” with the Mass and make their parishes into a business.

You know, I sympathize with your disgust of the abuses in the Mass. Its something I’ve been blessed to never experience personally in my home parish, but as I’ve traveled, I’ve scene parishes less reverent, and have read some horrible abuses on this website.

I do want to point out however that the Episcopalians reformed their liturgy in response to the Catholic Church as an ecumenical gesture. The Pauline form is an Catholic prayer adopted by many Protestants, drawn to its simple authenticity.

The Catholic Church may have been inspired by some developments within Protestantism in developing the new Order, and the translation from Latin to English may have been flawed (and horribly abused at times), but it is and always been an authentic celebration of the most Holy Eucharist!

 

[Corki]

Untrue. More urban legend. More corrosive nonsense.

Not untrue. Not only did the documents of Vatican II require Latin be retained, they specifically charged the Bishops with making sure that the faithful knew the common prayers of the Mass in Latin.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless **steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin **those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Both from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM. Are you claiming that the Council promulgated “corrosive nonsense”?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Rome is driving me away…

I have spent countless hours trying to harmonize Vatican II with the ancient tradition. Learning liturgical history so as to be able see the Mass of Paul VI as a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite.

Now Pope Benedict XVI has the opened the flood gates for a wider celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy. Now my pastor is intending to offer the Extraordinary Form on special occasions. Now priests all over the United States and Europe are excitedly celebrating a liturgy that was seen as needing restoration and revision by Vatican II.

It is as if the teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium at Vatican II are being ignored. That Council made clear that the Roman Rite NEEDED revision and restoration. Now the current Pope is saying that the old Rite which NEEDED revision was never abrogated and can be celebrated fairly widely.

What?!?!??!??!?!?!?!

Now I feel like the only conservative Roman Catholic who DOESN’T want the EF to become mainstream. (Personally, I don’t even think it should be celebrated at all!!!)

I’m tired of this. I’m sick of Rome always changing her mind as to what liturgy she is going to celebrate. How long before the Liturgy of the Hours is changed again? How long before the rites of confession, baptism, and such are changed again? How long before we get some “hybrid” OF/EF Mass that a Cardinal said the Pope wants to occur.

I can’t take this anymore!!! I have suffered beyond anything I could have ever imagined in my obedience to the Church of Rome. I’ve had enough!

I want to be a Roman…a good Roman with all the beauty and heritage while at the same time being faithful to the most recent Church teachings (i.e. Vatican II). But I cannot be a Roman **WHEN I DON’T KNOW WHAT BEING A “ROMAN” IS!!! **Is the Roman Rite the “traditional” Latin liturgy that Vatican II sought to reform and revise? Or is it the post-Vatican II Mass and sacramental rites? It would seem even the Pope himself doesn’t know…or doesn’t care.

Honestly, I’m sick of it. Y’all don’t know how much I have been thinking lately about just cutting my losses now and seeking my Christian vocation in the Catholic East. There I can be a member of a Catholic Church that has changed very little since the 4th century. I can do things the way they did them in the Middle-Ages and the Patristic Era. I can still be Catholic too, without having to worry about seeing my own beloved liturgy change every 40 years or so. I could simply rest IN PEACE!

Look, I know a lot of this is just drama right now, but, quite frankly, I’m pretty pissed.

Cannot Rome make up her mind about what being a Roman Catholic means liturgically??? I don’t want to see my parish or any other parish become some “bi-ritual” community divided between those who attend the EF and those who attend the OF. We can barely keep the Roman Church united as it is…why add a completely different expression of the Roman Rite into the mix???!??!?! How could this possibly help with unity?

It looks to me that Pope Benedict XVI simply likes the pre-Vatican II Mass and wants it to be celebrated alongside the post-Vatican II Mass. I, for one, CANNOT see how such a vision is being faithful to the Second Vatican ECUMENICAL Council. I just can’t see it.

I WANT to see it, but I can’t and it’s agonizing!

But once again I am told: “Just trust…just obey…” WHY??? Why can’t the Pope simply tell us so we can have peace.

It took me so long to come to love the Roman Rite…and, by God, I LOVE HER. But now I wonder whether it would have just been better for me to have completed my Initiation under the Melkites…at least then I could be sure that the liturgy under which I completed my Initiation wasn’t going to be scrapped for something else in my lifetime.

It’s not fair! For all of us who have been faithful to Rome through the abuses and the post-Vatican II period…for all of us who have studied and seen the genius of Vatican II…of all of us who have fought the “traditionalist” for Rome’s sake.

Now it’s like we are just going to let the “traditionalists” have their way…have what they’ve wanted for 50 years.

Is this how Rome treats her friends???

At least among the Melkites things are stable…quiet…and oh so ancient! At least at Antioch there is continuity without someone wishing to just turn things on their heads for their own personal tastes…

I want to trust the Pope in Summorum Pontificum, but it seems to completely go against everything I have studied and researched liturgically and historically.

 

[The_Idiot]

Antonius Lupus

Be careful and think hard before you act.

At present you are running FROM the Latin Church . This is not a good reason to say you are looking at the Melkites or indeed any of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome.

 

[At_Trent]

The Mass and Divine Liturgy have the same goal, consecrate the most Holy Eucharist. It would be at a minimum awkward to say that the “Mass or Divine Liturgy” is the highest form of worship.

The Eucharist is the highest form of human worship, and either word is appropriate to describe its universal celebration.

right, my point is when speaking specifically about the Roman Catholic Church, and it is obvious, so many times here on these forums the context is shoved aside to make a “correction” to a statement that was never made. A game really.

 

[FatHead]

Untrue. More urban legend. More corrosive nonsense.

your ignorance is showing, as usual

seriously: try backing up your statments with church documents once and a while (oh wait, you cant)

vatican II asked that latin be retained, as well as chant (sacrosanctum concilium)

why dont you quit your claptrap and see what the church says about some of these things?

 

[runningdude]

Rome is driving me away…

I have spent countless hours trying to harmonize Vatican II with the ancient tradition. Learning liturgical history so as to be able see the Mass of Paul VI as a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite.

Now Pope Benedict XVI has the opened the flood gates for a wider celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy. Now my pastor is intending to offer the Extraordinary Form on special occasions. Now priests all over the United States and Europe are excitedly celebrating a liturgy that was seen as needing restoration and revision by Vatican II.

It is as if the teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium at Vatican II are being ignored. That Council made clear that the Roman Rite NEEDED revision and restoration. Now the current Pope is saying that the old Rite which NEEDED revision was never abrogated and can be celebrated fairly widely.
…

It’s not fair! For all of us who have been faithful to Rome through the abuses and the post-Vatican II period…for all of us who have studied and seen the genius of Vatican II…of all of us who have fought the “traditionalist” for Rome’s sake.

Now it’s like we are just going to let the “traditionalists” have their way…have what they’ve wanted for 50 years.

Is this how Rome treats her friends???

I really don’t think this is the path that Pope Benedict is moving in. He wants to reach out primarily to the traditionalist who stayed faithful, but were disgusted by the liturgical abuses as you said. Celebrating an ancient liturgy every now and then doesn’t deny the validity of the Pauline Mass, or the Vatican Council’s teaching on liturgical reform.

And as I said before, I believe the Cardinal was speaking of a unified rite in a communal rather than liturgical sense. They want to end the fighting by promoting greater reverence throughout the Roman Rite. Not strictly following the rubrics of Tridentine form can lead a priest into mortal sin. The Pauline form eases up the rubrics for Priests, but the emulating discipline and reverence demonstrated by their peers celebrating for the Tridentine form can only be beneficial.

At least among the Melkites things are stable…quiet…and oh so ancient! At least at Antioch there is continuity without someone wishing to just turn things on their heads for their own personal tastes…

Eastern Catholicism is going through its own quiet upheaval in the aftermath of the Vatican Council. These churches are gaining more autonomy, and are going through a painful “de-Latinization”, where centuries old devotions are being discouraged in favor of a more authentic Eastern Christian spirituality. If you find Western Christianity to be confusing and divisive, sugar coating the issues in Eastern Christianity won’t help.

I want to trust the Pope in Summorum Pontificum, but it seems to completely go against everything I have studied and researched liturgically and historically.

Vatican II has had a profound effect on all of Christianity, and the whole world. Its empowered the Pope’s to confront communist control in Poland and Russia. Its reinvigorated the Orthodox Churches, who are now tackling the extraordinary number of abortions performed in these countries due to atheistic dehumanization.

Its inspired new mechanism of unity, inspiring thousands of Anglican protestants to come to the authentic, apostolic faith. Its inspired millions to authentic church apostates. I for one benefited from one such product, the Fellowship of Catholic University Students, a campus group lead by peer missionaries. Thousands more have joined pro-life apostates throughout the country.

The bottom line is that Vatican II has inspired so much hope and change throughout the world, even outside of the Catholic Church proper, that I feel there is no danger of its benefits ever being denied. The Holy Spirit has worked wonders in the Church through the Sacred Holy Council.

As you said before, you trust the Pope, so be at peace!

 

[Contarini]

Antonius,

I sympathize with the anguish you’re feeling, and I think your perspective is a very interesting one, but I’m a bit puzzled by the underlying ecclesiology of your posts. Perhaps that’s just because I’m a heretical Anglican

You seem very passionate about figuring out what it means to be a “Roman,” and if you can’t do that, you consider abandoning the Latin tradition for Eastern Catholicism. I find this confusing. Isn’t the Catholic Church one Church? Why is being “Roman” so important, especially if you respect the Eastern Rites so much? Clearly the Catholic Church as a whole has unity in spite of having very different Rites (Byzantine, Roman, Coptic, etc.) Why couldn’t that apply within the Latin tradition as well? Why is it so important to have a unified Latin Church alongside the Eastern Churches–since clearly you aren’t talking of the unity that pertains to the Catholic Church as a whole?

I don’t share your enthusiasm for the process by which the Latin Rite swallowed up the other Western Rites. I don’t share your enthusiasm for uniformity and for liturgical “reform” imposed from on high. It seems to me that the unity of the Church is and should be unity in diversity, and that Pope Benedict understands this.

In short, I question your premises, and I’d like to see you explain further just why you start from these particular premises.

Edwin

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Look: for those who think I’m some sort of anti-EF troll or something, I apologize. That’s not why I am here.

I want HELP in understanding why the Pope is doing this. It is so odd when looked at from a liturgical historical and it only becomes even more disturbing when word of a “unified/hybrid rite” is spoken of in the shadows.

I feel so alone, and I wonder if my research was all wrong…and I don’t know who to trust about the future of the rite. What the Pope is doing doesn’t make sense in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium and other movements of His Predecessors and the understanding of the Council when understood through a hermeneutic of continuity. If the Holy Spirit truly spoke at Vatican II, as St. Francis de Sales would have us believe about Ecumenical Councils, then what real use is there is splitting the Roman Rite in two and allowing the pre-conciliar rite to live in the same vigor that it did in times past…if not more so!

WHY!!!

Um, part of the answer is that the OF as very often experienced in the last 40 years was NOT what Vatican II intended. Read the documents. Vatican II specifically called for Gregorian Chant to retain pride of place and for the PEOPLE (you and me) to be able to say, IN LATIN, those parts of the Mass which were for the people’s response. There was NOTHING in the documents about CITH, removing the altar rails, celebrating facing the people, everybody standing round the altar, and above all, nothing about "now everything has to be In English and we can add, or subtract, or paraphrase to suit the congregation and/or the priest’s ideas of what is MEANINGFUL.’

nobody is trying to ‘take away the OF’. The so-called ‘hybrid’ is simply the restoration of what the OF was originally meant to be: Mass with parts in the vernacular, with Gregorian chant in pride of place, music which is sacred in character, and active participation by the people in the vernacular for where the People’s parts were to be in the vernacular, and IN LATIN where they were to be in Latin: say the Red and do the Black, no ‘additions’ or ‘subtractions’.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Rome is driving me away…

I have spent countless hours trying to harmonize Vatican II with the ancient tradition. Learning liturgical history so as to be able see the Mass of Paul VI as a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite.

Now Pope Benedict XVI has the opened the flood gates for a wider celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy. Now my pastor is intending to offer the Extraordinary Form on special occasions. Now priests all over the United States and Europe are excitedly celebrating a liturgy that was seen as needing restoration and revision by Vatican II.

It is as if the teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium at Vatican II are being ignored. That Council made clear that the Roman Rite NEEDED revision and restoration. Now the current Pope is saying that the old Rite which NEEDED revision was never abrogated and can be celebrated fairly widely.

What?!?!??!??!?!?!?!

Now I feel like the only conservative Roman Catholic who DOESN’T want the EF to become mainstream. (Personally, I don’t even think it should be celebrated at all!!!)

I’m tired of this. I’m sick of Rome always changing her mind as to what liturgy she is going to celebrate. How long before the Liturgy of the Hours is changed again? How long before the rites of confession, baptism, and such are changed again? How long before we get some “hybrid” OF/EF Mass that a Cardinal said the Pope wants to occur.

I can’t take this anymore!!! I have suffered beyond anything I could have ever imagined in my obedience to the Church of Rome. I’ve had enough!

I want to be a Roman…a good Roman with all the beauty and heritage while at the same time being faithful to the most recent Church teachings (i.e. Vatican II). But I cannot be a Roman **WHEN I DON’T KNOW WHAT BEING A “ROMAN” IS!!! **Is the Roman Rite the “traditional” Latin liturgy that Vatican II sought to reform and revise? Or is it the post-Vatican II Mass and sacramental rites? It would seem even the Pope himself doesn’t know…or doesn’t care.

Honestly, I’m sick of it. Y’all don’t know how much I have been thinking lately about just cutting my losses now and seeking my Christian vocation in the Catholic East. There I can be a member of a Catholic Church that has changed very little since the 4th century. I can do things the way they did them in the Middle-Ages and the Patristic Era. I can still be Catholic too, without having to worry about seeing my own beloved liturgy change every 40 years or so. I could simply rest IN PEACE!

Look, I know a lot of this is just drama right now, but, quite frankly, I’m pretty pissed.

Cannot Rome make up her mind about what being a Roman Catholic means liturgically??? I don’t want to see my parish or any other parish become some “bi-ritual” community divided between those who attend the EF and those who attend the OF. We can barely keep the Roman Church united as it is…why add a completely different expression of the Roman Rite into the mix???!??!?! How could this possibly help with unity?

It looks to me that Pope Benedict XVI simply likes the pre-Vatican II Mass and wants it to be celebrated alongside the post-Vatican II Mass. I, for one, CANNOT see how such a vision is being faithful to the Second Vatican ECUMENICAL Council. I just can’t see it.

I WANT to see it, but I can’t and it’s agonizing!

But once again I am told: “Just trust…just obey…” WHY??? Why can’t the Pope simply tell us so we can have peace.

It took me so long to come to love the Roman Rite…and, by God, I LOVE HER. But now I wonder whether it would have just been better for me to have completed my Initiation under the Melkites…at least then I could be sure that the liturgy under which I completed my Initiation wasn’t going to be scrapped for something else in my lifetime.

It’s not fair! For all of us who have been faithful to Rome through the abuses and the post-Vatican II period…for all of us who have studied and seen the genius of Vatican II…of all of us who have fought the “traditionalist” for Rome’s sake.

Now it’s like we are just going to let the “traditionalists” have their way…have what they’ve wanted for 50 years.

Is this how Rome treats her friends???

At least among the Melkites things are stable…quiet…and oh so ancient! At least at Antioch there is continuity without someone wishing to just turn things on their heads for their own personal tastes…

I want to trust the Pope in Summorum Pontificum, but it seems to completely go against everything I have studied and researched liturgically and historically.

I really have an honest question. Or not those “taditionalist” also friends of Rome. Are not we all Catholic. Here. is something to think about as well you want the oldest form of the liturgy for the western church does that mean you want to be down in catacombs in hiding, surround by those that have passed on with the altar being a shelve on the wall. No instrumental music. Stand from beginning to end. That would be the earlies form of the western liturgy.

I for one prefer to use either the EF or OF, or for that matter one for the rite of the orders or even an Angelican Use liturgy. All are valid and licit lituries in the western Church.

I also submit that it the leaders of the church that bring us the Liturgy. We as laity can influnece it but it comes from the Church to us.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Um, part of the answer is that the OF as very often experienced in the last 40 years was NOT what Vatican II intended. Read the documents. Vatican II specifically called for Gregorian Chant to retain pride of place and for the PEOPLE (you and me) to be able to say, IN LATIN, those parts of the Mass which were for the people’s response. There was NOTHING in the documents about CITH, removing the altar rails, celebrating facing the people, everybody standing round the altar, and above all, nothing about "now everything has to be In English and we can add, or subtract, or paraphrase to suit the congregation and/or the priest’s ideas of what is MEANINGFUL.’

nobody is trying to ‘take away the OF’. The so-called ‘hybrid’ is simply the restoration of what the OF was originally meant to be: Mass with parts in the vernacular, with Gregorian chant in pride of place, music which is sacred in character, and active participation by the people in the vernacular for where the People’s parts were to be in the vernacular, and IN LATIN where they were to be in Latin: say the Red and do the Black, no ‘additions’ or ‘subtractions’.

Indeed, bravo. This is what is such a shame. I’ve had these conversations before, and have been labelled archaic/pope-loving/Vatican-fanboy/anti-Christian by Catholics for making these points clear. In charity I point out that a solo guitarist has no place in the Mass, and that Latin is to be retained. I cite documents. What I get back is that “vatican II changed all that, we are now allowed to express ourselves”. It’s a never ending vicious circle - you can’t ask them to cite documents, because they’ll tell you that the documents say you don’t need documents because it’s all about how you feel and what you want. There exists a huge problem. Yes, we should have hope for the Church in that younger people are now in love with the EF, but the overwhelming majority are still in the mindset that VII “changed it all”.

It’s such a shame that the OF has been treated badly in the past 40 years. Really it is. I do prefer the EF myself, however, I can fully understand, appreciate, and love the OF when said properly. I’ve never seen it myself except online and on EWTN.

 

[agnes_therese]

It took me so long to come to love the Roman Rite…and, by God, I LOVE HER.

Apparently not. If the fact that some people will sometimes celebrate a form of the Mass which you personally do not prefer makes you “suffer beyond anything you could have imagined” – you don’t love Rome. You love your idea of Rome, the Rome which does everything exactly as you want it done.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

It would appear then that I am simply a young fool who has misunderstood EVERYTHING. Never before have I felt so alone. It would appear my entire understanding of this whole issue has been but one misunderstanding, falsehood, and lie after another. I can find no-one who has the same perspective as my own, only further confirming that I have been led astray…

Just my luck.

 

[TrueLight]

It would appear then that I am simply a young fool who has misunderstood EVERYTHING. Never before have I felt so alone. It would appear my entire understanding of this whole issue has been but one misunderstanding, falsehood, and lie after another. I can find no-one who has the same perspective as my own, only further confirming that I have been led astray…

Just my luck.

Oh yes, there is one person who is staunchly against the EF and makes no bones about it. I am sure he will weigh in soon.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Just a little while ago I gazed at a painting and saw something I didn’t see before:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/PerovVG_PervHristianKievGRM.jpg

The painting depicts a small group of newly baptized Russian Christians celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the middle of the night. It is clearly the period of Russian history when they were just being converted to Christianity. Their priest is a disheveled hieromonk and their cantors are two young men with pieces of paper for hymnals. The altar is a rock under a tree and the only sacramentals present is the vessel and an old icon. It is hardly the prime example of a Byzantine Divine Liturgy! And yet:

The men singing are filled with awe and reverence. The priest is on his knees in a posture of supplicatory prayer. The other laity are kneeling and genuflecting with such love and peace that I am envious of them.

Clearly liturgical beauty and ancientness wasn’t what was drawing these people…it was the Faith itself, and how much greater it was than the old Slavic paganism of their past.

It is much akin to what many of you said. I’ve been such a fool! I’m so ashamed.

Because the fact is: if I truly loved Rome, I would follow her unquestioningly. If I truly desired to be a “good Roman” then I would accept that whatever Rome says is legitimate is indeed legitimate. Being Roman simply means whatever Rome says that it means.

Why indeed did I choose Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy??? I wanted to be Greek Orthodox…to express my faith in a static and stable manner. To worship God with all the splendor of the Greek Orthodox tradition. To know that my faith is the same as it was in centuries past. Isn’t that what I’m again trying to attain now?

At the end of the day, I chose Catholicism because the Fathers said that it was the standard of Orthodoxy. I chose it because I wanted the Truth; not just some liturgical beauty. Hell, if I wanted liturgical beauty I could have just as easily been a Muslim, a Jew, or a Pagan.

I question the Pope. I question his decisions. I fear for the future that he is outlaying. Am I not just like Luther? Or Calvin? Or St. Photios? All these doubted Rome as I do now, and yet in retrospect they had no reason for fear.

Someone told me that, since I say that I trust the Pope, then what’s the problem? Trust him and be at peace! I wanted to punch that person, because I knew he/she was right.

I’m such a fool, and I don’t know what to do after having seen myself fall so far from a proper understanding of the liturgy. How could I have been so blind to reduce the liturgy to the same ossification that the Orthodox have so sadly reduced it. I just don’t know what to believe anymore after everything I have suffered of late.

Liturgy, ultimately, is the manner by which God comes to meet His People. It manifests itself in numerous ways and expressions, and all of them are equally dignified if lawfully recognized by the Church.

I allowed myself to be tied up in knots by all my research into liturgical history, that I failed to see that I have nothing to fear with the revival of the EF.

I am sorry to have wasted all of y’all’s time.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oh yes, there is one person who is staunchly against the EF and makes no bones about it. I am sure he will weigh in soon.

Probably not. He’s too outnumbered, has no audience for his show.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Probably not. He’s too outnumbered, has no audience for his show.

Apparently so.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just a little while ago I gazed at a painting and saw something I didn’t see before:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/PerovVG_PervHristianKievGRM.jpg

The painting depicts a small group of newly baptized Russian Christians celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the middle of the night. It is clearly the period of Russian history when they were just being converted to Christianity. Their priest is a disheveled hieromonk and their cantors are two young men with pieces of paper for hymnals. The altar is a rock under a tree and the only sacramentals present is the vessel and an old icon. It is hardly the prime example of a Byzantine Divine Liturgy! And yet:

The men singing are filled with awe and reverence. The priest is on his knees in a posture of supplicatory prayer. The other laity are kneeling and genuflecting with such love and peace that I am envious of them.

Clearly liturgical beauty and ancientness wasn’t what was drawing these people…it was the Faith itself, and how much greater it was than the old Slavic paganism of their past.

It is much akin to what many of you said. I’ve been such a fool! I’m so ashamed.

Because the fact is: if I truly loved Rome, I would follow her unquestioningly. If I truly desired to be a “good Roman” then I would accept that whatever Rome says is legitimate is indeed legitimate. Being Roman simply means whatever Rome says that it means.

Why indeed did I choose Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy??? I wanted to be Greek Orthodox…to express my faith in a static and stable manner. To worship God with all the splendor of the Greek Orthodox tradition. To know that my faith is the same as it was in centuries past. Isn’t that what I’m again trying to attain now?

At the end of the day, I chose Catholicism because the Fathers said that it was the standard of Orthodoxy. I chose it because I wanted the Truth; not just some liturgical beauty. Hell, if I wanted liturgical beauty I could have just as easily been a Muslim, a Jew, or a Pagan.

I question the Pope. I question his decisions. I fear for the future that he is outlaying. Am I not just like Luther? Or Calvin? Or St. Photios? All these doubted Rome as I do now, and yet in retrospect they had no reason for fear.

Someone told me that, since I say that I trust the Pope, then what’s the problem? Trust him and be at peace! I wanted to punch that person, because I knew he/she was right.

I’m such a fool, and I don’t know what to do after having seen myself fall so far from a proper understanding of the liturgy. How could I have been so blind to reduce the liturgy to the same ossification that the Orthodox have so sadly reduced it. I just don’t know what to believe anymore after everything I have suffered of late.

Liturgy, ultimately, is the manner by which God comes to meet His People. It manifests itself in numerous ways and expressions, and all of them are equally dignified if lawfully recognized by the Church.

I allowed myself to be tied up in knots by all my research into liturgical history, that I failed to see that I have nothing to fear with the revival of the EF.

I am sorry to have wasted all of y’all’s time.

NEVER call yourself a fool for coming to your family with questions and worries. That’s what we’re here for --to be your family and to help as much as we can.

You didn’t waste time, because you had the answers you needed to help you resolve something that was really troubling you. . .and hopefully others who might have lurked and not had enough resolve as you to ‘speak right out’ were helped too.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Apparently so.

I did not mean that as a jab at you, at all.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I did not mean that as a jab at you, at all.

I know that, my fellow Diocese of Charleston brother…see my last post, I think you deserve to read it since you were a major factor in “waking me up.”