Orthodox Divine Liturgy: More like TLM or NO?

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Fortunately one can still engage in prayers that have organically developed over the centuries and were prayed by most of the Saints regardless of all that.

 

[Woodstock]

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.

I’ve seen lay Eucharistic ministers in a Divine Liturgy. The Ruthenians allow it. Few Eastern Churches have any instruments, so organ and guitar are equally forbidden. Those with instruments are latinized, but some are long since ingrained.

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’ve heard spoken Liturgy and chanted Novus Ordo.

the divine liturgy is way closer to the extraordinary form–high mass.

I’ve seen Eastern Catholic low liturgies all spoken and over in 30-45 minutes.

for one, both use incense.

I’ve seen liturgies regularly taken without.

they both are celebrated ad orientem. they both are usually celebrated in beautiful churches.

Yes. Though I have seen some pretty stark and plain looking eastern temples, too.

they both only have the priest or deacons administer communion.

Not the Ruthenians at the very least. They allow lay EMHCs.

communion is always on the tounge/mouth.

Yes. Many are put off by the Byzantine use of the golden spoon to dispense both the Body and Blood at once.

ordinary and propers are sung in chant.

A lot of Eastern churches aren’t keeping the full liturgical cycle and it is a latinization but not uncommon to find bare minimums and spoken.

the language in both is more traditional or frequently/exclusively use a liturgical language.

The east places great emphasis on the vernacular and the liturgical languages (Arabic, Slavonic, etc) are predominantly used in ethnic parishes where they are understood.

they both have a calander that is based on a year cycle. they both have fasting outside of lent.

Yes.

they both only have male altar servers… etc.

I’ve seen female altar servers in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes.

I’m not pointing all these out to be contrary. Many of them go against the eastern tradition and some against current rubrics. I’m doing so because there is a tendency in traditionalist Roman Catholic circles to hear how reverent and beautiful the Divine Liturgy is, and I’ve seen schismatic websites say only their Masses or Eastern Catholic Liturgies are valid. I had the pleasure of talking to a pair of young sedevacantists who were directed to my Eastern Catholic parish by sedevacantist websites. All of these people are shocked when they experience the Divine Liturgy because it is totally unlike what they are expecting. They were told repeatedly of its similarity to the TLM because of male altar servers, an ad orientam priest, incense, and communion on the tongue. They all hightail it out of there, some even before Liturgy ends, and never come back.

They say it is noisy, the children are distracting, the lack of uniformity of movement is disconcerting, they think it is casual because of the amount of lay participation, they are troubled by Eastern theology present in the liturgy like the Great Procession being before the Epiklesis, they do not like that there is no kneeling, no Stations, that children of all ages are receiving the Eucharist, the homily on Mary’s physical death, the filioque not being in the Creed, the list goes on and on.

So I don’t want any traditionalists on this board to think that the Divine Liturgy is very close to their idea of the TLM or to glamorize it into this abuse-free wonderland and to be one of the overwhelmed people who are scared to receive the Eucharist when they visit an Eastern Catholic church.

The east is beautiful. It has a rich liturgy and tradition. When celebrated in its fullness, it is magnificent. A lot of traditionalist Catholics respect it and enjoy visiting. I just want people to accept the Liturgy on its own terms.

 

[JuanMilton]

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?

It is tragic that anyone would actually believe the Catholic Church would replace one form of the Mass with another form that was somehow inferior in terms of beauty or reverence. Tragic indeed.

That’s not to say some won’t prefer one or the other in terms of their own personal taste – many do, but to suggest the above is tragic, not to mention ignorant.

The same sarcastic comments you offer in your first paragraph can be applied to your beloved Tridentine Mass.

The people you mention in your second paragraph are not “everyone” nor are they the Catholic Church – no matter how much you would like to believe they are…

 

[JuanMilton]

…So I don’t want any traditionalists on this board to think that the Divine Liturgy is very close to their idea of the TLM or to glamorize it into this abuse-free wonderland and to be one of the overwhelmed people who are scared to receive the Eucharist when they visit an Eastern Catholic church.

The east is beautiful. It has a rich liturgy and tradition. When celebrated in its fullness, it is magnificent. A lot of traditionalist Catholics respect it and enjoy visiting. I just want people to accept the Liturgy on its own terms.

A most powerful and erudite posting. Thank you…

Most of the Tridentiners who have joined my eastern parish act fairly odd. They had a fit when the pastor named a female cantor. They kneel at odd times during the DL even though father has provided on-going catechesis. They got upset when a seminarian distributed communion even though he was lawfully an EMHC. They overtly pressure visiting women to cover their heads – which has caused more than one scene.

I sorta hope they leave now that we have a weekly Tridentine Mass nearby.

 

[JuanMilton]

Fortunately one can still engage in prayers that have organically developed over the centuries and were prayed by most of the Saints regardless of all that.

I can do that during the beloved Pauline Mass too.

I can recite the Confiteor, chant the Kyrie, sing the Gloria, recite the Credo, sing the responsorial Psalm, recite the Lord’s Prayer, sing the great amen and the Agnus Dei , etc. etc. – each prayed or sung by a very long list of Saints…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

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?

 

[bpbasilphx]

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?

In some places the choir and/or cantors make the responses. In others, there is congregational singing. It depends on the use of te particular jurisdiction.

** To which form of the Mass, OF or EF, would you say the Divine Liturgy is most similiar?**

Neither. It’s similar to both in that the mystery of the Eucharist is accomplished in all three, but it’s most similar to the Divine Liturgy.

If you try to think in Western terms when you deal with the Eastern Churches, you’ll get totally confused.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

The east is beautiful. It has a rich liturgy and tradition. When celebrated in its fullness, it is magnificent. A lot of traditionalist Catholics respect it and enjoy visiting. I just want people to accept the Liturgy on its own terms.

i agree. it is just that the liturgical abberations in both liturgies can be identified by those recent changes which do not have a counterpart in the ancient liturgies of the east, which probably better represent the liturgy of the church fathers.

i think roman rite catholics can see the apostlicity of the liturgy through the many similarites between the divine liturgy and the extraordinary roman rite form.

the catholic church suffers from an overly individualistic understanding of what the liturgy is about. i believe the cure can be found in studying the ancient liturgies of the east.

 

[Aramis]

Oh, yes, there is liturgical abuse in many churches.

For example, those who kneel during the DL of St. John… that’s an abuse. Those who insist on replacing Divine Praises with the Marian Rosary are abusing the liturgy.

Now, EMHC’s are permitted under the CCEO if the Synod of the particular Sui Iuris church permits. Deacons are permitted to be Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion IF the Synod allows, and are always allowed to be EMHC’s if not considered by their particular church sui iuris to be OMHC’s. Subdeacons are usually allowed to be EMHC’s. Non-clerics are allowed to be EMHC’s if their particular church sui iuris synod allows.

Now the Ruthenians allow lay EMHC’s, don’t have subdeacons (at present), and allow deacons as OMHC’s.

Women are allowed (even encouraged) to become cantors, lectors, and Catechists. They are forbidden by Ruthenian particular law to have any ministries at the altar (so no girls as altar servers, no women as EMHC’s), but I suspect no one will complain about women cleaning the altar area with a priest in attendence.

 

[Woodstock]

Women are allowed (even encouraged) to become cantors, lectors, and Catechists. They are forbidden by Ruthenian particular law to have any ministries at the altar (so no girls as altar servers, no women as EMHC’s), but I suspect no one will complain about women cleaning the altar area with a priest in attendence.

It depends on the priest, the jurisdiction, and his point of origin. I know one priest who wouldn’t allow his own wife behind the iconostas and who takes care of everything needed with the help of the male servers. I know another priest who balks at the idea of women not coming behind the iconostas and regularly encourages them to do so for trivial things.

 

[Patchunky]

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.

Went to a very nice talk just before Thanksgiving that given by a retired OCA Bishop who is also a famous scientist.

He was asked what was the best way to keep a mission/parish on trak to development. He said they needed to get rid of the choir and go back to congregational singing. The entire congregation singing the DL gave them a sense of contributing to the DL instead of just listening!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Went to a very nice talk just before Thanksgiving that given by a retired OCA Bishop who is also a famous scientist.

He was asked what was the best way to keep a mission/parish on trak to development. He said they needed to get rid of the choir and go back to congregational singing. The entire congregation singing the DL gave them a sense of contributing to the DL instead of just listening!

I think that depends on what the congregation is singing. The high point for me is singing parts of the TLM in Latin, that truly feels participatory (historically, mystically, and congregationally). The regular singing I hear at the local Novus Ordo I could just as well do without.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve seen lay Eucharistic ministers in a Divine Liturgy. The Ruthenians allow it.

Actually it is only allowed where the priest has some infirmity that does not allow him to distribute communion. In those cases that I am aware of they had a sub-deacon who distributed communion.

As for my opinion on the original question. The Divine Liturgy is more like the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

I say this because of the participation of the laity (yes I know some participation has been added to the Extraordinary Form but that is not how it originally was or is in some places) and the use of the vernacular. The flow of it just seems more like the Ordinary Form too.

 

[Patchunky]

I think that depends on what the congregation is singing. The high point for me is singing parts of the TLM in Latin, that truly feels participatory (historically, mystically, and congregationally). The regular singing I hear at the local Novus Ordo I could just as well do without.

Actually, congregational singing was the norm for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox communities. Choirs were only found in monastic settings.

It wasn’t until the large emmigration to this country and the establishment of large communities in the metropolitan centers that you began to see the mixed choirs. This then began to become the “norm”.

 

[Woodstock]

Actually it is only allowed where the priest has some infirmity that does not allow him to distribute communion. In those cases that I am aware of they had a sub-deacon who distributed communion.

The Ruthenians also allow it when the crowd numbers over 75. When I’ve seen it, it has always been a non-ordained lay man, which is allowed by the Ruthenians. If a sub-deacon had been present, he would take precedence. The Ruthenians have few sub-deacons.

 

[Patchunky]

The Ruthenians also allow it when the crowd numbers over 75. When I’ve seen it, it has always been a non-ordained lay man, which is allowed by the Ruthenians. If a sub-deacon had been present, he would take precedence. The Ruthenians have few sub-deacons.

I have never seen this before especially at the Otpust where there was definitely more than 75 people.

I would definitely like to know which Bishop OK’d this…

 

[Woodstock]

I have never seen this before especially at the Otpust where there was definitely more than 75 people.

I would definitely like to know which Bishop OK’d this…

I don’t have access to it right now, but I think it is in the Ruthenian’s particular law. I don’t think it would be the typicon. I’ll ask in the EC forum for the source.

 

[bkovacs]

The atmosphere of an Orthodox DL, with incense, bells, icons, and chant. To me is more like the TLM. The congregational parts, and English is more like the NO. But overall, I find the DL to be more in tune with the TLM.

 

[East_and_West]

Actually it is only allowed where the priest has some infirmity that does not allow him to distribute communion. In those cases that I am aware of they had a sub-deacon who distributed communion.

As for my opinion on the original question. The Divine Liturgy is more like the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

I say this because of the participation of the laity (yes I know some participation has been added to the Extraordinary Form but that is not how it originally was or is in some places) and the use of the vernacular. The flow of it just seems more like the Ordinary Form too.

I absolultely agree.

 

[RomanRevert]

The atmosphere of an Orthodox DL, with incense, bells, icons, and chant. To me is more like the TLM. The congregational parts, and English is more like the NO. But overall, I find the DL to be more in tune with the TLM.

thank you everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Now, for a followup question: In many of the Conciliar documents on the Liturgy, there is mention of the “restoration” of the Liturgy, the result of which is our Novus Ordo Mass. Aside from the elements of music, sacredness, and beauty, were they trying to get the Mass closer to the DL by making it, among other things, more interactive?

Thanks!