Skip to comments.The Latin Rite Mass: Should It Be More Lutheran Or Eastern Orthodox In Appearance?
Posted on 05/31/2014 10:12:38 AM PDT by NYer
This liturgy of the Latin Rite:
Resembles better this liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church:
While this liturgy of the Latin Rite:
resembles better these Protestant liturgies:
The Catholic Church sees as its ecumenical priority the healing of the Great Schism that led to the Churches of the East separating from the rule of the Bishop of Rome in 1054. Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis have ramped up that desired unity. A major breakthrough was announced yesterday.
This is from the Huffington Post:
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Barthlomew I prayed together in Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in a beautiful act of unity.
Now, they're taking a further step to heal the centuries-old schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches by holding a gathering together to commemorate the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325. Seventeen centuries later, Francis and Bartholomew will come together in 2025 to celebrate the historic meeting, reports Vatican Insider.
"We agreed to leave as a legacy to ourselves and our successors a gathering in Nicaea in 2025, to celebrate together, after 17 centuries, the first truly ecumenical synod, where the Creed was first promulgated," Bartholomew told Asia News.
One of the criticisms of the Second Vatican Council is that it made the Catholic liturgy more Protestant looking (and this led to erroneous theologies about the Eucharist that are more Protestant, which have since been repudiated by interpreting the Council through the lens of continuity rather than rupture).
However, what most Catholics don't realize is that our liturgical reforms spurred Protestant denominations, especially Lutherans and Anglicans to make their liturgy more like the Liturgy that Pope Paul VI reformed. Thus we think that the Catholic Liturgy is more Protestant looking when in fact the Protestant liturgy became more Catholic looking in the post-Vatican II sense after Vatican II.
But for the most part ecumenism with Protestant denominations is dead in the water except for tea and crumpets ecumenism and our ability to work together at soup kitchens and centers that help the homeless. Most historic Protestant denominations continue to move into a post-Christian stance with their theologies and this has created even more division that will be difficult to overcome. Non-liturgical evangelical Protestants tend to be more "Catholic" in their moral teachings than most mainline Protestant denominations, but they are far from us liturgically.
However, we are much, much closer to the Eastern Orthodox Churches in terms of actual Faith and Morals. The Orthodox celebrate all seven sacraments validly. They have valid Holy Orders and their Bishops are validly ordained and successors to the apostles. Their moral and ethical teachings are the same as ours although presented in a different pastoral way.
However, since Vatican II, the Latin Rite Church has drifted away from the cultural style of the liturgy that both the east and the west adopted in the immediate centuries following the conversion of Constantine. While the trajectory of liturgical and spiritual theologies diverged in valid ways, the liturgies had the same sort of ethos although differing in style of music and ceremony. Both developed very early in the post-Constantine era a sort of universal language for the liturgy. In the east it was Greek in the west a combination of Greek and Latin. Both developed chant as the music of the liturgy although with different styles. And both adopted ad orientem. The west developed kneeling for receiving Holy Communion and a more developed theology of the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament which actually led to kneeling while the east insisted on standing for Holy Communion and Holy Communion under both kinds for both clergy and laity. They do not have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as the Church of the west does, but their adoration developed toward the use of icons and in a much more dogmatic way than Catholic veneration of images.
Without loosing each others authentic spiritualities and theologies that have developed over the centuries, how could the Church of Rome resemble the Church of the East in better ways liturgically?
Well, Pope Benedict in his great wisdom did so by freeing the so-called Mass of Trent from the shackles of a museum piece in allowing it to be celebrated more widely. The missal of 1962 has more in common with the East than the Missal of Pope Paul VI in 1970.
So for now, we do have a liturgy in the 1962 missal and liturgical tradition that is more eastern in ethos. And of course we have the Eastern Rite Churches in union with the Pope whose liturgy and spirituality is identical to the Eastern Orthodox. Thus the 1962 missal heals the chasm created by the 1970's missal within those already united to the Pope.
The 1970 missal is more Protestant and allows orthodox mainline Protestants who desire to keep their Protestant style of liturgy, their own valid historical patrimony when they join the Catholic Church as a group. Currently we have the Anglican Ordinariate that has done this. But we could have a Lutheran Ordinariate and also a Presbyterian one. Who knows.
The real work lies in making the 1970 missal resemble the 1962 missal in style of celebration. This means the on-going recovery of the chant modes that are historically available to us in the Latin Rite, and a rich variety, as well as a recovery of ad orientem.
The other is the removal of the clericalization of the laity during the celebration of the liturgy and more use of deacons and sub deacons. Doing this will emphasize the proper and sublime role of the laity as laity during Mass and from their pews in the nave. In the Post-Vatican II era with the clericalizaiton of the laity with liturgical ministries, especially that of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, the laity have come to believe that actual participation in the Mass means doing a formal ministry such as reader or distributing Holy Communion rather than doing their normal parts during the Mass that actually belong to the laity, thus promoting a egalitarian participation in the Mass with the laity rather than separating some laity form others liturgically.
For example, there is a mentality that at children's Masses, especially our school Masses, we need hoards of children doing all kinds of things, from reading the petitions and scriptures to bringing up the gifts to get as many of them actually involved in the Mass when in fact, we shouldn't focus on these things at all but elevate what all the kids are doing and to do it properly from the pews during Mass--don't create an elite group of laity for the ministries of the Mass that rightly belong to the clergy!
Sub deacons could be designated as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and trained and certified by the bishop for this ministry, not only liturgically but also to the sick and home-bound. We already have this with the official ministry of acolyte but few bishops invite lay men to this official ministry and still use it only as a stepping stone for ordination either to the diaconate or priesthood. What a pity!
Shouldn't, though, the two liturgies of the one Latin Rite resemble each other better and be like this?
The 1962 Missal Mass:
The 1970 Missal Mass:
I report; you decide!
We’ve already tried the Lutheran one...in the Novus Ordo. That clearly did not work, so maybe it’s time to try the Byzantine model.
Actually, all we have to do is go back to the 1965 missal (which was essentially the traditional Latin rite low mass, with a few minor simplifications and translated into the vernacular) and start over. It was basically the English version that we all had in our missals at the time.
Also, let’s go back to the traditional calendar, although possibly changing it so that Easter is on the same date as Orthodox Easter. Changes to the calendar were terrible. This would include the dropping of various saints, the elimination of rogation days, the strange and unconnected readings and near total elimination of St Paul, and the ability to proclaim Ascension Thursday was now “Ascension Sunday.”
Is this a Catholic Only Caucus thread? If not, I could offer some help saving you guys A LOT of money.
The church does not resemble the offshoots. The offshoots resemble the church.
Just use the Sarum Use - its Western, but heavily Eastern flavored.
Were the Church a democracy, I would vote for the 1962 Missal Traditional Latin Rite.
Getting all set for a one world religion, I see.
No. The article mentions non-Catholic denominations by name therefore is exempt from a caucus label.
Thee and me.
Sorry, not *exempt* but *ineligible*.
Here’s a novel idea: how about we be Catholic?
I’m just confused on why the religion-hating Huff Post reports on this.
Don’t look at me. It’s not my church.
New Religion Moderator?
This was a test. This was only a test...
. . .who has forbidden rock & roll.
**Most historic Protestant denominations continue to move into a post-Christian stance with their theologies and this has created even more division that will be difficult to overcome. Non-liturgical evangelical Protestants tend to be more “Catholic” in their moral teachings than most mainline Protestant denominations, but they are far from us liturgically.**
I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Regardless of whether the chicken or egg came first, do we really think that Protestants would make their liturgy more like the Paul VI liturgy if it was truly Catholic? LMAO.
The albino assassin monks will be delivering your tin-foil miter shortly.
My first reaction is: “...continued move into post-Christian stance....” means a move to secularism and away from the teachings of Jesus. the Episcopal, United Church of Christ, some Methodist and Presbyterian branches come to immediate mind. They are going to social gospel/secular humanism and away from the Christian faith.
The groups non-denominational evangelicals are religiously conservative and have Jesus and the Bible as their center point. They reject the move to secular humanism and away from the salvation that Jesus bought for us.
And look at those Protestant congregations that have joined the Catholic Church as a group as rejecting “post-Christian stance.”
Absolutely, pure unadulterated 100% B.S. Why post this crap?
Why go back to the "traditional calendar" and then change it to accommodate schismatics? Makes no sense.
The official website of the national Episcopal Church carried a "Women's Eucharist" which is pure pagan worship of the female body. When a circle of women drink from a cup of wine they invoke the image of their menstrual blood in an act which looks like Satan worship.
One of the most prominent Episcopal churches in the nation, Trinity Church on Wall Street in New York City, had a very interesting celebration on Trinity Sunday 2005. While we at St. Andrew's were celebrating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the liturgy of the faith used for almost 2000 years, Trinity Wall Street had a clown mass.
No words were said for the readings which were instead acted out in mime. The congregation responded with noise makers rather than said or sung prayers. The priest was dressed up like Bozo the Clown rather than wearing liturgical vestments. Instead of incense they blew bubbles around the altar.
If you go to the Trinity Wall Street website you can watch this entire hour-long liturgy travesty.
Last summer, St. Mark's in NYC offered a Gay Disco Mass.
“Absolutely, pure unadulterated 100% B.S. Why post this crap?”
Actually that’s true. And it has some bizarre aspects: http://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2003/worship-doubters-and-other-good-christians-learning-thomas-mass
There are Protestant books that make this clear: http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Confirmation-American-Lutheranism-University/dp/0810848791
The simple fact is that Catholic and Protestant liturgical reformers were talking to each other quite a bit from the 1940s until now. https://archive.org/stream/protestantliturg013165mbp/protestantliturg013165mbp_djvu.txt
Why do you post protestant links to defend Paul VI’s protestant Mass?
“Why do you post protestant links to defend Paul VIs protestant Mass?”
That’s not what I did.
1) Only two out of three of the links were to Protestant works.
2) None of them “defend Paul VIs protestant Mass”.
3) There is no such thing as a “protestant Mass” - even if some Protestants claim there is.
4) Paul VI never issued a “Protestant” liturgical service. This is not a matter of opinion.
5) The Catholic source I posted a link to was published in 1963 but given an imprimatur and nihil obstat in 1961 - thus meaning it was written in or before 1961. Thus, it cannot say anything about Pope Paul VI since he was not yet pope.
Why do you post comments accusing me of things I didn’t do?
In my home LCMS parish, the altar was against the wall behind the communion rail. The Catholic churches had the altar away from the wall and no rail. Many other LCMS churches I have been to have the altar placed off the wall, but I can count on one hand the Catholic churches I have been to with a communion rail.
As for the service, both changed about the same time. The old Lutheran service was NOT like it is toady. In fact a great many of my older relatives complained about the change in the 1960’s or so.
Funny thing is the old services also were very close.
Gotcha! So that's how we ended up with VCII and Bugnini's "mass"!
Check you first point.
My first point is correct - while you accusation is false. None of the links I posted are to works which defend Paul VI or any liturgy issued by him. You’re simply wrong. That’s not unusual.
Birds of a feather.....
Rather be Christian Catholics.
You quoted two protestant threads and I called you on it. It’s shameful that novus ordo catholics have to resort to such sources.
You claim I’m wrong which is not “unusual”, yet you have shown no evidence of such.
Please do so. Where have I been wrong?
And what about Christian non-Catholics? Are they in your slap-happy group of a “church”?
Me too. I like the Latin Mass.
“You quoted two protestant threads”
I quoted NOTHING. I linked to three works only two of which you can read online. Only one of those was Protestant. I quoted nothing.
“and I called you on it.”
You called me on something I never did? I QUOTED NOTHING.
“Its shameful that novus ordo catholics have to resort to such sources.”
I attend the Latin Mass. I have since 1995. Can you get anything right? You’re really embarrassing yourself.
“You claim Im wrong which is not unusual, yet you have shown no evidence of such.”
You make errors again and again. You made at least three errors in your last post to me. I quoted nothing. I did not quote any “protestant threads”. I linked to one Catholic book online, one Protestant book for sale, and one Protestant article online. Even the link contains the word “article”. I attend the Latin Mass. That’s three errors you made right there. You post erroneously like that again and again.
“Please do so. Where have I been wrong?”
I just showed where you made three errors. Case closed.
Where have I heard that childish retort before?
Why did you twice mention that you attend the Latin Mass? Are you trying to prove something? Are you better than others?
“Maybe you didn’t “quote” protestant articles, but you sure did link to them, which is much more than quoting them.”
One thing at a time. Did I or did I NOT quote any “protestant threads”? And yes, I noticed you have now started saying “articles” instead of “threads”. Did I quote ANYTHING PROTESTANT AT ALL TO YOU?
Answer that question.
Why do you post links to protestant articles and books?
Answer that question
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.