why does everyone love the Eastern liturgy but despise the Latin Mass?

[StMarkEofE]

Eastern liturgies have nothing that corresponds to the Low Mass. If they can’t celebrate what in the West would be the equivalent of at least a high if not a solemn Mass, they don’t do it at all. If Eastern liturgies were a matter of a man and a boy moving from side to side with their back to us mumbling incomprehensibilities, we would not find them attractive, and if the Traditional Latin Mass had been celebrated in splendor on a regular basis at the parish level as it was intended, it would never have been abandoned.

One correction: the Liturgy itself trancends any Low Mass and if more that equivalent to any socalled Hi Mass.

 

[tequilamac]

Pope John Paul “the Great” knows better than Our Lady who specifically asked that Russia be consecrated? Another neo-catholic with an exaggerated view of infallibility and a false obedience!

I am sure Our Lady would have disapproved of John Paul II consecrating Russia at the time he did not do it. Why? Because it is a SIN to consecrate someone against their will. You might want to rethink your attitude that allows you to consecrate people against their will. Russia was not ready and it may not be ready now either.

 

[jbuck919]

One correction: the Liturgy itself trancends any Low Mass and if more that equivalent to any socalled Hi Mass.

I am rather getting tired of having to anticipate every possible misunderstanding or edgewise commentary any of my posts might arouse.

As to what you post, I know that and you know that, but the question was, why do people love, say, the Chrysostom litrugy while they are perfectly prepared to abandon the TLM which is of at least as ancient origin. It was not, what is of the essence and what are the accidents.

 

[StMarkEofE]

I am rather getting tired of having to anticipate every possible misunderstanding or edgewise commentary any of my posts might arouse.

As to what you post, I know that and you know that, but the question was, why do people love, say, the Chrysostom litrugy while they are perfectly prepared to abandon the TLM which is of at least as ancient origin. It was not, what is of the essence and what are the accidents.

The accidents true but lets us not ignore the Litugy of the Original Liturgy of Glorious St. Basil.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You might also enjoy the “noble simplicity” of a Lutheran service more than an authentically Catholic Mass; that’s basically what the Novus Ordo is–a Lutheran-style order of service with a (usually) valid Eucharist.

Not at all. Any similarity is due to the fact that they both have the same roots (similarly, the NO can be said to have things in common with the Anglican ritual, for which Thomas Cranmer drew heavily upon the Old Sarum Rite). “Smells and bells,” though I like them very much, does not make a service “authentically” Catholic. Floridity and “over-doneness” doesn’t make it any more authentic, either.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

WOW. Suspicious of the very Mass that grew out of centuries of organic development, has produced THOUSANDS of holy saints, was codified by the holy Council of Trent to combat the errors of Protestantism!? What a shame.
quote]

You could do much to alleviate that “shame” by going back and reading the tenor of all your posts…for example, using the term “put lipstick on a pig” to refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But I don’t imagine you will and it would be a wasted effort to ask you to even consider doing so.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Not at all. Any similarity is due to the fact that they both have the same roots (similarly, the NO can be said to have things in common with the Anglican ritual, for which Thomas Cranmer drew heavily upon the Old Sarum Rite). “Smells and bells,” though I like them very much, does not make a service “authentically” Catholic. Floridity and “over-doneness” doesn’t make it any more authentic, either.

Like I said, a TLM celebrated on the back of a jeep WITHOUT “smells and bells” is still authentically Catholic…a Novus Ordo celebrated with smells and bells is still not authentically Catholic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I hear that Benedict is actually orthodoxizing the NO Mass.

Just to be clear: there is nothing unorthodox about the NO Mass, so there is nothing to “orthodox.” We can hope that the Holy Father will deal strenuously and deliberately with abuses to that Mass, certainly, but the Mass promulgated by the Church is not and cannot be “unorthodox.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Like I said, a TLM celebrated on the back of a jeep WITHOUT “smells and bells” is still authentically Catholic…a Novus Ordo celebrated with smells and bells is still not authentically Catholic.

It most assuredly is. It was validly promulated by the Vicar of Christ on earth and celebrated by him and his successors. Furthermore, Trent anatematizes anyone who states that the liturgies of the Church can lead her people to impiety (that’s TRENT). The Church CANNOT propose to her people any Mass that is not “authentically” Catholic or orthodox. This is the irony of some “traditionalists.” They only honor the traditions that they like.

 

[St.Eric]

I must say that I love the Novos Ordo Mass and the tridentine Mass as well. Whatever Rome deems the acceptable Mass, I love. I truly believe Christ’s words when he says “the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church…” Therefore, whatever comes from Rome, i.e., Peter’s Chair, is the Gospel!!! and should be followed. So, therefore, I do not despise the Latin liturgy, I love it, along with the licit Eastern liturgy.

 

[Anima_Christi]

It most assuredly is. It was validly promulated by the Vicar of Christ on earth and celebrated by him and his successors. Furthermore, Trent anatematizes anyone who states that the liturgies of the Church can lead her people to impiety (that’s TRENT). The Church CANNOT propose to her people any Mass that is not “authentically” Catholic or orthodox. This is the irony of some “traditionalists.” They only honor the traditions that they like.

Trent also says that anyone who says that the canon of the Mass should be read aloud or in the vernacular is anathema.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Trent also says that anyone who says that the canon of the Mass should be read aloud or in the vernacular is anathema.

Matters of discipline, which the Pope may modify or change. And Trent did not forbid the vernacular, Trent said that it did not seem appropriate to allow it at that time. The Council did not say that a future pope could not allow the vernacular, indeed, the council could NOT say that, as it is, again, a matter of discipline. You are not questioning simple matters of discipline (to cite your examples, the audibility of the canon and the use of the vernacular, which incidentally was permitted pre-Vatican II in certain parts of Europe), you’re questioning the “catholicity” of an entire missal or rite, the most important rite of the Church, the Holy Sacrifice.