The supposed inferiority of the Latin Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pope_Noah_I

Guest
I was reading an article by Fr. Taft, S.J., last night and in it are listed several, very important ways, that the Byzantine Rite is superior to it’s Latin counterpart. Among the deficiencies of the Traditional Latin Rite are, to name two, a “schizophrenic” Christology.
and a lack of Trinitarian emphasis. All the while he states that the East is not some Liturgical Paradise, and that the Latin tradition is just as valid and apostolic as anything in the East, but I can’t conclude anything from this essay other than that the TLM, as we know it, is simply inferior to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Read it and tell me what your impressions are.

archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Eastern%20Presuppositions.pdf
 
Whether or nor a form of the Mass is inferior to superior, I leave that up to God, for the Mass is His, not mine.

I think this person needs to focus more on the Holy Sacrifice, instead of the form. We go to Jesus not to judge but to love.
 
He’s an internationally-recognized authority on the Eastern liturgies.

orthodoxinstitute.org/manolis_lectures.html
myocn.net/index.php/200812081251/Orthodox-News/SVS-international-liturgical-symposium-will-feature-Robert-F.-Taft-S.J.-as-keynote.html

Here’s an interview where he discusses Orthodox/Catholic relations and Ukraine. Actually I can see a few blood-vessels popping on both sides of that divide, depending on what section you read.
[natcath.com - natcath Resources and Information.(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/taft.htm](natcath.com - natcath Resources and Information.(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/taft.htm)
 
I have heard this argued by other people as well. I don’t have an opinion, but it does seem to be seriously argued by well respected liturgical scholars.

I think getting really into the nitty-gritty of comparing two liturgies is tough work, and most people are not really cut out for it. It can be hard to hold all the details of the actual texts in mind at once, without losing the big picture. It demands an excellent command of all the languages involved, and of the historical theological use of those languages, and the history of the development of the liturgies, and a superb knowledge of theology. And just a good sense of what the liturgies are trying to do, aesthetic jusgement, and psycological insight.

Reading a text about such a topic, I think the most useful questions are about what could be done if real limitations on or defects in parts of the liturgy were revealed. Sometimes it can be easier to see such things while looking at another way of thinking about it. It isn’t really a contest on who has the best liturgy.
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
a “schizophrenic” Christology
Click to expand...
.
He could have been more diplomatic, but his comment does not seem to be inherently insulting. ISTM all he is saying is that there is a greater breadth in the Christology of the West than the Christology of the East. If he stated these various Christological foci were erroneous, then I could understand the sirens going off - but that’s not what he says.
and a lack of Trinitarian emphasis.
Click to expand...
He never calls it a deficiency. He states it is merely the result of history (the Western Liturgy has its roots prior to when the Pneumatological heresies were settled, whereas the Eastern Liturgies came after that), and makes the statement matter-of-factly, rather than critically. Take it as a compliment that he states the Western Liturgy is more ancient than the Eastern.

Blessings
 
Robert Taft is not a “quack Jesuit” but a renowned liturgical scholar. Among his other books is an overview of the Divine Office in all Churches: THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS IN THE EAST AND WEST.

He normally celebrates in the Russian Catholic recension of the Byzantine rite, so you can expect him to be no less prejudiced towards his preference than a lot of tradionalists who post here are prejudiced to their own.

However, Fr. Taft has this advantage: he doesn’t limit his view of the Church to one particular liturgical praxis. Contrast this with an article in the American Ecclesiastical Review published in the late 19th century, which said that the “Ruthenian rite will always be in a position of inferiority to the Latin rite.”
 
I’m wondering, Pope Noah…

Did you read the ENTIRE article?

I found it most interesting.

One of the things he insisted on was that Western Christians not be afraid of looking at their OWN sources and traditions, which are just as Patristic and Apostolic as anything in the East.

Of course, to do that effectively, one must look back beyond Trend and the Middle Ages.

Perhaps I should mention a story I’ve heard about Fr. Taft which some here might enjoy.

Once he was attending Vespers at some Catholic college or other. Maybe it was Notre Dame; I don’t know.

Anyway, the priest celebrating it began with something like, “As we gather here to celebrate our evening happiness…”

Fr. T jumped up, said, “0h, $#|+ !,” walked out, and slammed the door.
 
Bluegoat said:
I have heard this argued by other people as well. I don’t have an opinion, but it does seem to be seriously argued by well respected liturgical scholars.

It isn’t really a contest on who has the best liturgy.
Click to expand...
This is what worries me. Simply the fact that the inferiority of the Traditional Latin Rite is being seriously entertained by some of the greatest liturgists in the Church should concern us all. If 1 billion Catholics are being subjected to a deficient liturgy, something should be done about it, no?
 
Let me guess, he’s a convert. That’s what makes some of those Onion Dome articles about converts so darn funny.
 
“I had gone to a TLM (low Mass) a few weeks ago in an attempt to find some reverence and tradition while I wait on our Mission. Boy, that Latin Mass didn’t hold a candle to the Byzantine Liturgy! (I’m not putting it down, it’s just not for me)”

See! That’s what I mean! This is just one of numerous examples of people saying that the TLM just isn’t as “good” or as "beautiful as the DL! Doesn’t this bother anyone?
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
“I had gone to a TLM (low Mass) a few weeks ago in an attempt to find some reverence and tradition while I wait on our Mission. Boy, that Latin Mass didn’t hold a candle to the Byzantine Liturgy! (I’m not putting it down, it’s just not for me)”

See! That’s what I mean! This is just one of numerous examples of people saying that the TLM just isn’t as “good” or as "beautiful as the DL! Doesn’t this bother anyone?
Click to expand...
I meant no disrespect to the Latin Mass. There are alot of people who love it ad that is wonderful. I, however, am drawn to the East and love the Eastern liturgy, theology and tradition more. I’m sure there are people out there who are more attracted to the TLM than the DL. Indeed I absolutely love the Ordinary Form celebrated properly. I find it very beautiful. It is the EF that I can’t relate to. But that’s just me, others will think differently.
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
“I had gone to a TLM (low Mass) a few weeks ago in an attempt to find some reverence and tradition while I wait on our Mission. Boy, that Latin Mass didn’t hold a candle to the Byzantine Liturgy! (I’m not putting it down, it’s just not for me)”

See! That’s what I mean! This is just one of numerous examples of people saying that the TLM just isn’t as “good” or as "beautiful as the DL! Doesn’t this bother anyone?
Click to expand...
Please focus on the bolded portion.

This is not a case of someone saying that the EF isn’t as “good” or as “beautiful” it is just a case of someone saying that the EF is not “for me” that “I prefer” something other than the EF.

Your post is just another example of someone’s preference for something other than the EF as an attack on the EF. If someone has a preference for something other than what you prefer it is not an attack, it is just a personal choice.

Especially when they say that exact thing.

Now the question I really have, why was this thread from six months ago revived yesterday?
 
ByzCath said:
Please focus on the bolded portion.

This is not a case of someone saying that the EF isn’t as “good” or as “beautiful” it is just a case of someone saying that the EF is not “for me” that “I prefer” something other than the EF.

Your post is just another example of someone’s preference for something other than the EF as an attack on the EF. If someone has a preference for something other than what you prefer it is not an attack, it is just a personal choice.

Especially when they say that exact thing.

Now the question I really have, why was this thread from six months ago revived yesterday?
Click to expand...
That last question is a very good one. We should start a new thread rather than simply revive an old one.

That said, I love the Eastern Liturgy… I mean absolutely LOVE eastern liturgy. I am a Roman Rite Catholic and will stay where I am of course.

I just wish the OF were celebrated everywhere in a way that resembled the Byzantine or the EF more than it does a protestant worship service. That would go a LONG way to making me an even MORE joyful and grateful Catholic.
 
cathguy said:
That last question is a very good one. We should start a new thread rather than simply revive an old one.

That said, I love the Eastern Liturgy… I mean absolutely LOVE eastern liturgy. I am a Roman Rite Catholic and will stay where I am of course.

I just wish the OF were celebrated everywhere in a way that resembled the Byzantine or the EF more than it does a protestant worship service. That would go a LONG way to making me an even MORE joyful and grateful Catholic.
Click to expand...
You know we had a very rich tradition with the EF, but much of the Latin rite has stripped itself of it, due to misinterpretation of VII/total anarchy on the part of individuals in the Church after VII.

Thank goodness for the pope. We’re getting our tradition back, and the OF is going to finally get a strict comb through by the Vatican chief liturgist. They’ll throw out all the watered down fluff.

Sure Byzantines have their own fancy traditions, so do we…what’s the point?
 
Father Robert Taft is known for his holiness and learning. He is by no means a “quack Jesuit”.

He is a Jesuit (raised in the Latin Church), devoted (in obedience) to the practice of the Russian recension and praxis of the Byzantine Liturgy, so of course he’s going to be writing from that standpoint.

People here need to remember that there are TWO forms of the Latin rite: Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. “The Latin Rite” doesn’t automatically mean EF.

Finally, saying that all rites are equal and none is superior to the other does NOT mean that the EF is inferior.
 
i bet you will not find all that talking running up and down the aisle hand shaking back slapping texting phones ringing shorts miniskirts sweatpants altergirls women all over the alter handing out communion people dashing out b4 the priest leaves the tabernacle is gone or off to the side no red candle no genuflecting no rosaries no confessional ( i can keep going ). i don’t know anything about the Byzantine rite. may never get a chance to attend one.but the ordinary, is just that everyone has forgotten why they go to mass. they don,t see the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus anymore. it’s too easy. they don’t even go to confession. i am a sinner every few seconds i do or ( mostly ) say something stupid. its like watching pelosi and all the rest of the pro choicers go to communion. i have seen only one really holy ordinary mass, on ewtn SANCTUS SANCTUS SANCTUS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top