The Modern Liturgical Battle Brewing Among Catholics

[lil_user]

as happened when the Novus Ordo alternate eucharistic prayers were created

Ouch!

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Don’t know why not.

I’d guess it was for time. There were a couple of weeks at daily mass where they were omitting the homilies (and oddly enough a couple of days without the gloria (this was around the 12th/13th/14th week of Pentacost, and the masses didn’t call for the omission, so who knows)). At first I wondered if the new priest didn’t have permission to give homilies, but then everything went back to normal. I still wonder if it was that or time.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

as happened when the Novus Ordo alternate eucharistic prayers were created

Just stating the fact, not being critical of it, or calling it into doubt.

I could have lived all my life with the Roman Canon and nothing but the Roman Canon.

 

[PetraG]

While I personally think there are pros to both, I personally like the Ad Orientem because I don’t like the priest having his back to the tabernacle.

This seems an odd objection to me. How does the priest distribute Holy Communion, if not with his back to the tabernacle? He is acting in persona Christi.

We have a rich tradition; I fail to see why we have these debates about which is the best. I do think that ad orientum with a microphone definitely helps address the problem of being able to hear what the priest is saying.

I’m also not sure why we’re so ardent about having the Mass in Latin but don’t want to take it all the way back to Greek. Latin is a very powerful language, without a doubt, but Greek is more seminal to Christianity and more universal yet, as it is the original language of the New Testament. At the time of the Incarnation, the Septuagint was widely accepted and even used in synagogues. It was the missionary language of the early Church, as well.

 

[lil_user]

I could have lived all my life with the Roman Canon and nothing but the Roman Canon.

So could I. But we have to be humble and obedient to the Magisterium. If a prayer is approved for liturgical use, that’s all there is to it.

I believe there was room for liturgical growth but what took place instead was more than any one envisioned, perhaps too much too fast. Thank God that the Church cannot err in matters of faith, so her liturgy will always be holy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Don’t know why not.

I used to like the way one of the parish priests approached daily Mass before he died. After the Gospel, he delivered a kind of “micro-homily”, appeared to read it from an index card, just three or four pithy little sentences, no elaboration. Took about a minute. That was a very nice touch.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

That’s like our African priest. I think he just reads the St. of the Day to us and says of each one “how it really moved/touched” him.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’m also not sure why we’re so ardent about having the Mass in Latin but don’t want to take it all the way back to Greek. Latin is a very powerful language, without a doubt, but Greek is more seminal to Christianity and more universal yet, as it is the original language of the New Testament. At the time of the Incarnation, the Septuagint was widely accepted and even used in synagogues. It was the missionary language of the early Church, as well.

I would have nothing against an Eastern Rite liturgy in Greek, though I’m sure members of the Church of Greece (i.e., the Greek Orthodox Church) would have big problems with it. There is a very small (6000 faithful total) Greek Catholic exarchate in Greece and Turkey. I have to think they are barely tolerated.

 

[PetraG]

I would have nothing against an Eastern Rite liturgy in Greek, though I’m sure members of the Church of Greece (i.e., the Greek Orthodox Church) would have big problems with it. There is a very small (6000 faithful total) Greek Catholic exarchate in Greece and Turkey. I have to think they are barely tolerated.

You’re saying that Roman Catholics who conduct liturgies in Greek are not tolerated by Greek Orthodox Catholics? If not…what do you mean?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I’m also not sure why we’re so ardent about having the Mass in Latin but don’t want to take it all the way back to Greek. Latin is a very powerful language, without a doubt, but Greek is more seminal to Christianity and more universal yet, as it is the original language of the New Testament.

The use of Latin is not about antiquarianism though. It’s the tradition of the Latin Church and it was simply tossed out for a couple decades and practically suppressed so that now almost no one even knows what the mass was like just 60 years ago and thinks tradition means nothing in the church.

 

[PetraG]

…now almost no one even knows what the mass was like just 60 years ago and thinks tradition means nothing in the church.

Everything was once new. Having the Mass in Latin was once new. As I remember, the traditionalists waged a real battle to preserve at least the Kyrie in Greek.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I would have nothing against an Eastern Rite liturgy in Greek, though I’m sure members of the Church of Greece (i.e., the Greek Orthodox Church) would have big problems with it. There is a very small (6000 faithful total) Greek Catholic exarchate in Greece and Turkey. I have to think they are barely tolerated.

I was merely speculating and I could be wrong. I’ve never even been to Greece (it’s on my bucket list). But I do realize that the Orthodox tend to view the very existence of Eastern Catholicism as a kind of insult, and the term “Uniate” is a bad word in their eyes. I would think having a church in the midst of Greek Orthodoxy — “to be Greek is to be Orthodox” is a common expression — with an identical liturgy to theirs, being in union with the Pope of Rome, would not be well-received by the majority. My understanding is that Catholics like Orthodoxy far better than the Orthodox like Catholicism. This saddens me, but that’s just the way it is.

 

[ProVobis]

St. John XXIII added it. Not saying it shouldn’t be there, just pointing out it wasn’t there, and it was removed again later (and added again by Pope Francis).

Yes and no. The 1962 Missal added St. Joseph to the Roman Canon. And it was “Eiusdem Virginis Sponsi” (Spouse of the same Virgin), but was translated as “Her Spouse” in the EP1 vernacular. Pope Francis added St. Joseph in EP2, EP3, and EP4 as “Her Spouse.” I believe EP1 in Latin has retained the “Eiusdem Virginis” which Pope John insisted on. The difference in theology may seem subtle to most however.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

An article on Greek Catholics

The following article was published last month in The Tablet; I thought it was worth reprinting here. The Archbishop of Corfu, Yannis Spiteris, has published a couple of articles on John Bekkos (&#…

bekkos.wordpress.com

Looks like my assumption was correct.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Until very recently, the Church was very cautious in introducing even acceptable novelties for these reasons (among others).

Novelties? That’s a bit of an insult. When the missionaries in China in the early 1600’s received permission from Pope Paul V to say the Mass in Chinese, this wasn’t a novelty. It was recognition that Latin just didn’t suit every culture. For the same reason Mass was said in the vernacular in the Dalmatia region since the late 1800’s. There are many examples of where the vernacular has been used in missionary territories because Latin wasn’t familiar and didn’t suit.

Also did you know that Mass at St Peters b basilica in Rome has never been celebrated towards the apse. The altar is built to face the people so that at least the Priest could face the East.

I think the true novelty is this modern obsession with attributing the Sacrament of Eucharist with forms and traditions rather than with the communion. It’s pretty much the essence of paganism to do that.

 

[CTBcin]

Oh boy. There’s two things liturgically which get everybody up in a tizzy…

1. Music
2. The orientation of the priest

I won’t add my thoughts here, except for one fact: the GIRM has instructions at points of the Mass for the priest to turn and face the people. I’ll leave that up for others here to interpret .

 

[gracepoole]

You forgot Communion in the hand.

 

[gracepoole]

Have we all seen this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[DeniseNY]

That reads strangely to me. While yes there are Catholics in Greece, most often “Greek Catholics” are Byzantine Catholics, and we are not ethnically Greek.

 

[phil19034]

This seems an odd objection to me. How does the priest distribute Holy Communion, if not with his back to the tabernacle? He is acting in persona Christi.

When distributing Holy Communion, the priest is not talking directly to God. However, when praying the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the vast majority of the time), the priest is talking directly to God.

During the parts of the Mass, when the priest is talking to the people, the rubrics specifically tells the priest to face the people. Why, because it is important to face the person(s) you are directly speaking to.

Again, my argument is ironically the same argument used by the priests/bishops who moved the tabernacle away from the main altar.

That’s what I mean. It is also ok for a minister of the royal court to turn his back to the king when speaking directly to the people. But it would never be ok for the same minister to talk directly to the king without facing the king. So if this is how we treat earthly kings, why not do the same for The King of Kings?