Orthodox Divine Liturgy: More like TLM or NO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRevert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanRevert

Guest
There was an earlier thread that discussed the Mass of early Rome. After the OP nicely outlined the Mass, one of the comments was about how similiar this early Mass was to the Divine Liturgy and how over time, the two developed their own distinctiveness. My question is this: having never been to a Divine Liturgy (something I definately wish to do) is there a participatory element in it similiar to the NO Mass or is the Liturgy said solely by the priest and deacons like the TLM? To which form of the Mass, OF or EF, would you say the Divine Liturgy is most similiar?

Thank you.
 
RomanRevert said:
There was an earlier thread that discussed the Mass of early Rome. After the OP nicely outlined the Mass, one of the comments was about how similiar this early Mass was to the Divine Liturgy and how over time, the two developed their own distinctiveness. My question is this: having never been to a Divine Liturgy (something I definately wish to do) is there a participatory element in it similiar to the NO Mass or is the Liturgy said solely by the priest and deacons like the TLM? To which form of the Mass, OF or EF, would you say the Divine Liturgy is most similiar?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
The form and structure of the DL of St. John is overall, similar to both… equally so.

Some details are closer to the TLM, but the participation is closer to that of the NO.

SPecifically, the DL of St. John is supposed to be a dialogue back and forth between celebrants and people.

That the DL lacks a 3rd reading is pretty meaningless; Matins or Vespers add another reading and gospel.

All have links to the earliest DL’s… and to the Jewish synagogue services of the temple jewish praxis.
 
good info … thanks! In many of the Vatican 2 documents concerning the liturgy and its “reform” there is mention of its “restoration” … could this be what they are referring to? Specifically, the interactive nature of the liturgy?
 
RomanRevert said:
There was an earlier thread that discussed the Mass of early Rome. After the OP nicely outlined the Mass, one of the comments was about how similiar this early Mass was to the Divine Liturgy and how over time, the two developed their own distinctiveness. My question is this: having never been to a Divine Liturgy (something I definately wish to do) is there a participatory element in it similiar to the NO Mass or is the Liturgy said solely by the priest and deacons like the TLM? To which form of the Mass, OF or EF, would you say the Divine Liturgy is most similiar?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I have been to a Byzantine Eastern Catholic liturgy a couple of times (and a Greek Orthodox liturgy since some of my relatives are Greek Orthodox).

Without question I would say the Divine Liturgy is most similar to the TLM. Also, I would mention that the TLM can be celebrated with participation, where the people can chant in Latin the parts of the Mass proper to them in Latin.

Further, the roots of the DL and the TLM go back in history to about the same time (from what I understand).

Also, you have a definite hierarchical structure to both liturgies.

The ambience of the Novus Ordo Missae seems to be quite dissimilar to the DL. In fact, some of the harshest criticism of the Novus Ordo Missae will come from the Orthodox who can’t quite believe we actually did what we did with our liturgy.
 
If your description of the TLM is grand, exalting, historic, and timeless while your description of the NO is simple, dispiriting, modern, and faddish then you would say that the Divine Liturgy is closer to the TLM.

If you would say the TLM is rigid, mechanized, extravagant, and centered on worship while your description of the NO is flexible, fluid, modest, and centered on instruction or community then you would say the Divine Liturgy is closer to the TLM.

If your description of the TLM is silent, reverent, peaceful, and solemn while your description of the NO is noisy, irreverent, chaotic, and casual, then you would say that the Divine Liturgy is closer to the NO.

If you would say the TLM is stuffy, oppressive, inaudible, and disconnected while your description of the NO is personal, stimulating, understandable, and relevant then you would say the Divine Liturgy is closer to the NO.

None of these are to say that the Divine Liturgy is described in those words. It is my experience that people who would use those words or similar words to them to describe the TLM and NO consistently compare the Divine Liturgy to that Mass.
 
I would say that the DL is similar to the TLM rather than the NO. Especially in reverence and beauty. I attend an Antiochian Orthodox Church, since the TLM is all but a pipe dream in my area. My main reason is that I find allot of similarities in the DL and the TLM. Even though the DL is in English. It is a style of English that very poetic, with thee’s and thous. Both the DL and TLM are heaven on earth. A perfect liturgical continuity between the East and West.🙂
 
The thees and thous is a jurisdictional translation for the Antiochian Orthodox. Some Orthodox jurisdictions have thees and thous for God but yous and yours for man. Some are straight through me and you. It isn’t a distinguishing sign of the Divine Liturgy, for any unfamiliar with it.
 
I had the privilege to experience divine liturgy at the Serbian Orthodox Monastery Visoki Decani in Kos-Met while I was a US Soldier deployed there in support of KFOR. I will say that it is more like the TLM in the sense of tradition, music, and solemnity. The difference in some areas you feel both closer and further away during parts of the liturgy.

During parts of the liturgy the iconstasis is opened and closed, and its closed during the consecration. Even though you verbally here the words of consecration, it is not done in sight.

I will see though that the interaction, at least in this DL, between the servers and Monks and Priests, and the congregation was always present. During the Easter Liturgy the Priest would descend from the Altar and move through the crowd with the censer chanting Christos Voskrese! Vaistinu Voskrese! (Christ is Risen, Indeed he is Risen!)

I would say that even though it seems more fluid than the TLM, not a criticism of either as I love and attend the TLM, but under no circumstances would the mess that is experienced during a typical NO liturgy be compared to an Easter DL.
 
Opening and closing the curtain is traditional, but is also now a jurisdictional issue. Different jurisdictions have different types of iconostas and some have no curtain. The Russians are more likely to have a full floor to ceiling iconostas with curtain while those of the Greek tradition are more likely to have some degree of visibility through the iconostas and are more likely than the Russians to have no curtain.

Among the Eastern Catholics, a floor to ceiling solid iconostas plus curtain is rare.
 
The different eastern Divine Liturgies are far more like the Pauline Mass than the Tridentine. First, it’s celebrated in the vernacular. The role taken by the laity is profound – more than the Pauline Mass and far, far more than the Tridentine. Communion is always under both species.
 
bkovacs said:
I would say that the DL is similar to the TLM rather than the NO. Especially in reverence and beauty. I attend an Antiochian Orthodox Church, since the TLM is all but a pipe dream in my area. My main reason is that I find allot of similarities in the DL and the TLM. Even though the DL is in English. It is a style of English that very poetic, with thee’s and thous. Both the DL and TLM are heaven on earth. A perfect liturgical continuity between the East and West.🙂
Click to expand...
The reverence and the beauty of the Tridentine Mass in no way exceeds the Pauline Mass. Each can be celebrated differently (and licitly) but neither is inherently more reverent and beautiful than the other.

The DL is Heaven on earth – as is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – be it the Pauline or Tridentine (or other) variant.
 
Aramis said:
The form and structure of the DL of St. John is overall, similar to both… equally so.

Some details are closer to the TLM, but the participation is closer to that of the NO.

SPecifically, the DL of St. John is supposed to be a dialogue back and forth between celebrants and people.
**
That the DL lacks a 3rd reading is pretty meaningless;** Matins or Vespers add another reading and gospel.

All have links to the earliest DL’s… and to the Jewish synagogue services of the temple jewish praxis.
Click to expand...
I don;t think so. The extra Bible readings and the multiple cycles are a huge improvement offered by the Pauline Mass.
 
I definitely agree that the DL is more similar to the TLM; The priest faces the people, wears absolutely beautiful vestments, communion is given on the tongue.

One thing that was most interesting for me is that the DL i went to, here at St. Basil’s in Stockton, CA, had parts in both english and greek. I found it to be extremely beautiful and reverent, so i think we (that is to say, Latin Rite Catholics) should pay close attention to that, as we debate whether or not there is any place for the vernacular in the TLM. Personally, i wouldn’t be against it if we can pull it off the way they did.

Some differences: Leavened Bread. Standing during the consecration (the DL i atteneded actually kneeled, though standing is the norm), they recieve Eucharist standing, and by intiction.

All in all, it made me long so much more for the TLM.

An interesting thing to note: I went with a group led by our Schools Pastor (a female episcopalian). She said it made her appreciate worship in the vernacular. I said it made me appreciate worship in the traditional language.
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
I definitely agree that the DL is more similar to the TLM; The priest faces the people, wears absolutely beautiful vestments, communion is given on the tongue.
Click to expand...
I think you mean the priest faces the altar together with the people, rather than the priest facing the people as it is with the Novus Ordae.
 
JuanMilton said:
The reverence and the beauty of the Tridentine Mass in no way exceeds the Pauline Mass. Each can be celebrated differently (and licitly) but neither is inherently more reverent and beautiful than the other.

The DL is Heaven on earth – as is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – be it the Pauline or Tridentine (or other) variant.
Click to expand...
Yeh I get a sense of heaven on earth when I see and hear guitar players and laity running up to the altar to do their eucharistic minister duties. Never seen any of that in an Orthodox DL. And in the DL you hear the beautiful Byzantine or Plain Chant and in the TLM, the Gregorian Chant. Never heard any form of chant in any NO (Pauline) Masses that I have ever attended in my lifetime. All contemporary religious music, or choirs that are completely out of sync.
 
I don’t wish to contrast differences, but no one will ever convince me. Even the Pope, that the Pauline Mass is equal in beauty or reverence to either the Divine Liturgy of St John or Basil, and the TLM. The closest thing I have seen apart from the TLM in the West is the Anglican Use parishes and the Book of Divine Worship, or the Ambrosian Rite. Those are also beautiful.
 
the divine liturgy is way closer to the extraordinary form–high mass. for one, both use incense. they both are celebrated ad orientem. they both are usually celebrated in beautiful churches. they both only have the priest or deacons administer communion. communion is always on the tounge/mouth. ordinary and propers are sung in chant. the language in both is more traditional or frequently/exclusively use a liturgical language. they both have a calander that is based on a year cycle. they both have fasting outside of lent. they both only have male altar servers… etc.

similarity between the ordinary form and the divine liturgy is that communion is given on the tounge and usually vernacular is more common.
 
bkovacs said:
I don’t wish to contrast differences, but no one will ever convince me. Even the Pope, that the Pauline Mass is equal in beauty or reverence to either the Divine Liturgy of St John or Basil, and the TLM. The closest thing I have seen apart from the TLM in the West is the Anglican Use parishes and the Book of Divine Worship, or the Ambrosian Rite. Those are also beautiful.
Click to expand...
No one need convince you.

They are what they are – all God-given. To suggest the Pauline Mass is not equal (or is superior) in beauty or reverence to the Tridentine or the different eastern Divine Liturgies is simply silly.
 
bkovacs said:
Yeh I get a sense of heaven on earth when I see and hear guitar players and laity running up to the altar to do their eucharistic minister duties. Never seen any of that in an Orthodox DL. And in the DL you hear the beautiful Byzantine or Plain Chant and in the TLM, the Gregorian Chant. Never heard any form of chant in any NO (Pauline) Masses that I have ever attended in my lifetime. All contemporary religious music, or choirs that are completely out of sync.
Click to expand...
I used to get that same feeling from the 12 minute Tridentine Masses were 1/2 the prayers were faked, the other 1/2 were omitted altogether, while 1/2 the people were day-dreaming and the other 1/2 endeavored to pray the rosary – during the Mass.
 
JuanMilton said:
No one need convince you.

They are what they are – all God-given. To suggest the Pauline Mass is not equal (or is superior) in beauty or reverence to the Tridentine or the different eastern Divine Liturgies is simply silly.
Click to expand...
So the Holy Spirit engaged Bugnini’s committee in automatic writing to ensure that whatever changes they made to the liturgy couldn’t possibly result in a loss of beauty or reverence or doctrinal strength?

And everyone, including Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dietrich von Hildebrand, authors published by Ignatius Press, etc. who say otherwise are just being silly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top