Why change the Mass if it puts us further from the Orthodox?

[lrcatholic95]

If the Second Vatican Council(which IS a valid and good council) wanted to be more ecumenical why would it ask for the changing of the Mass if it makes it even more different from the Orthodox liturgies. I have read articles about what the Orthodox want so there can be unity(really unrealistic btw) and one is to change the Mass back to a older form…one I read said that the current Mass is “unacceptable.” I would think if we wanted unity we would want to be as similar in worship as tradition allows. I just strikes me as odd that H.H. Pope Paul VI would bring in a Mass so different from eastern liturgies if he was so ecumenical towards the Orthodox…he went as far as kissing the foot of a Orthodox in 1975 (and refused the man when he wanted to return the gesture) Is there any sense in doing this? I love the Mass simply because it is the Mass so I’m not arguing about the current OF I am just asking why, if we wanted to be ecumenical, did we change the Mass to be so different for Orthodox liturgies.

 

[DianaCC]

Maybe the OF had Protestants in mind, rather than Orthodox. Also, keep in mind that the connection between the intentions of the council and the pope, and the form that the OF ultimately took, are not necessarily as close as you may think.

 

[MarkThompson]

Or possibly the premise is mistaken, and the changes were not primarily made for “ecumenical” reasons, but because they were considered to be desirable in their own right.

 

[Contarini]

Or possibly the premise is mistaken, and the changes were not primarily made for “ecumenical” reasons, but because they were considered to be desirable in their own right.

Well, I think the changes were made for a lot of reasons. With regard to the Orthodox, I suspect that it was assumed that since the revisions were guided by liturgical scholarship on the early Church, it would make Catholic worship closer to that of the Orthodox. And in some ways it does. The revised Eucharistic prayers sound a lot more like Eastern anaphoras than the old Roman Canon does.

However, for most Orthodox these considerations seem to be dwarfed by what they see as the overly reductionistic, rationalistic, this-worldly tone of the new liturgies.

Myself, as an Anglican drawn to Orthodox liturgy but also believing in the importance of union with Rome, I find that Eastern liturgy has the beauties that traditionalist Catholics claim for the traditional Mass. Since I’ve never been to a traditional High Mass, it’s possible that the claims are true for it. But I have not found a Tridentine Low Mass to be remotely the same thing as the most stripped-down Eastern liturgy.

Edwin

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not that the Tridentine Mass is any closer to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I don’t think the Orthodox are really looking for the Roman Catholic Church to have an “Orthodox” Liturgy because they know that the Rite is different. Unless you have stumbled upon the “triumphalist” Orthodox who thinks that the Byzantine Rite is the only true Rite of the Church (same that there are Roman Catholic triumphalists who think that the only Liturgy should be the Roman Rite Mass).

 

[Planty_Pall]

Since any reunion of Rome with Eastern Churches would never affect the liturgical rites of those churches, it seems safe to assume that there was little consideration of the East involved in whatever the reasons were for the liturgical reforms.

 

[TrueLight]

Since I’ve never been to a traditional High Mass, it’s possible that the claims are true for it. But I have not found a Tridentine Low Mass to be remotely the same thing as the most stripped-down Eastern liturgy.

Edwin

Yes, please do try a High Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, please do try a High Mass.

Its still not the same. Eastern Liturgies focus heavily on active participation by the congregations singing the responses and hymns. Its just two completely different spiritualities.

 

[TrueLight]

Its still not the same. Eastern Liturgies focus heavily on active participation by the congregations singing the responses and hymns. Its just two completely different spiritualities.

I know. I’ve been to one. However, I think he owes it to himself to attend a high mass for reference. The low mass is so quiet!

 

[Planty_Pall]

Not that the Tridentine Mass is any closer to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I don’t think the Orthodox are really looking for the Roman Catholic Church to have an “Orthodox” Liturgy because they know that the Rite is different. Unless you have stumbled upon the “triumphalist” Orthodox who thinks that the Byzantine Rite is the only true Rite of the Church (same that there are Roman Catholic triumphalists who think that the only Liturgy should be the Roman Rite Mass).

I am not doubting you. But really? There aren’t any people here who defend such an idea is there? To imagine that the ancient liturgical treasures of all the valid Rites all over the world should be suppressed in favor of any one Rite, is about as uncatholic an idea as I have ever heard. THAT was how the problem seemed in the beginning with the significant reforms under Paul VI which resulted in what we now designate the Ordinary Form. At first it seemed like the bishops wanted to just get rid of something that was ancient, and beautiful, and precious. Fortunately, that could never happen.

But why would any Catholic of good will want to take something that has nurtured souls for centuries, that remains a true treasure and apostolic heritage to other Catholic Christians, and try to force them to favor a different treasure that they have never known, nor their fathers? The Catholic Church would never do that to converts from the East even if it seemed possible. I would feel terrible if the Eastern rites were suppressed. You don’t throw away Van Gogh’s Starry Sky just because you prefer the Mona Lisa.

Even when things looked bleak in the years immediately following the promulgation of the Ordinary Form, those with good Catholic sense knew that the Church never suppressed the same beautiful Mass (Extraordinary Form) that had nurtured hundreds of saints and their own fathers for centuries.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am not doubting you. But really? There aren’t any people here who defend such an idea is there? To imagine that the ancient liturgical treasures of all the valid Rites all over the world should be suppressed in favor of any one Rite, is about as uncatholic an idea as I have ever heard. THAT was how the problem seemed in the beginning with the significant reforms under Paul VI which resulted in what we now designate the Ordinary Form. At first it seemed like the bishops wanted to just get rid of something that was ancient, and beautiful, and precious. Fortunately, that could never happen.

But why would any Catholic of good will want to take something that has nurtured souls for centuries, that remains a true treasure and apostolic heritage to other Catholic Christians, and try to force them to favor a different treasure that they have never known, nor their fathers? The Catholic Church would never do that to converts from the East even if it seemed possible. I would feel terrible if the Eastern rites were suppressed. You don’t throw away Van Gogh’s Starry Sky just because you prefer the Mona Lisa.

Even when things looked bleak in the years immediately following the promulgation of the Ordinary Form, those with good Catholic sense knew that the Church never suppressed the same beautiful Mass (Extraordinary Form) that had nurtured hundreds of saints and their own fathers for centuries.

Well, there are those elements out there. Thankfully they are not any significant group but they do work to ensure that their rite is what is considered as the one true rite. Pride always rears its ugly head no matter what, no matter where. But most mainstream Orthodox really don’t have an interest in meddling with the affairs of the Roman Church. Isn’t that one of their biggest issues? That they don’t want the Pope to meddle in their affairs in the even of a reunification? So why would they do that to the Roman Church? In fact, there is now a Western Rite of Orthodoxy which borrows from the Anglican Liturgy which itself borrows from the Tridentine Rite.

 

[Zhenia]

If the Second Vatican Council(which IS a valid and good council) wanted to be more ecumenical why would it ask for the changing of the Mass if it makes it even more different from the Orthodox liturgies. I have read articles about what the Orthodox want so there can be unity(really unrealistic btw) and one is to change the Mass back to a older form…one I read said that the current Mass is “unacceptable.” I would think if we wanted unity we would want to be as similar in worship as tradition allows. I just strikes me as odd that H.H. Pope Paul VI would bring in a Mass so different from eastern liturgies if he was so ecumenical towards the Orthodox…he went as far as kissing the foot of a Orthodox in 1975 (and refused the man when he wanted to return the gesture) Is there any sense in doing this? I love the Mass simply because it is the Mass so I’m not arguing about the current OF I am just asking why, if we wanted to be ecumenical, did we change the Mass to be so different for Orthodox liturgies.

I think they changed the mass to the novus ordo to appeal not to the Orthodox, but to the mainline liberal protestants.

At one time I worked for a Lutheran denomination that operated a publishing house (I worked for their publishing house); they had Lutheran services on site for those wishing to attend.

A few times I attended the Lutheran service to see what it was like, and I have to tell you, it was indistinguishable from the modern novus ordo mass. Indistinguishable, except that they didn’t pray for the Pope.

Many Orthodox I have spoken to say that if the Roman Catholic church had NOT changed its mass, they would have seen more in common with them. So all the changes did was drive the Orthodox further away. In fact many Orthodox I have met used to be Roman Catholic, but left for the Orthodox Church because they wanted a church that a) has apostolic succession; b) is ancient, and c) does not change so drastically, if at all.

In all fairness to the modern RCC however, it must be understood and known that the most drastic changes were done by enemies within the Church, and those enemies did not suddenly arise at V2…they existed long before then, which is why Pope St Pius X had to write his encyclical against modernism in the early 1900s!