Former Catholic: Eastern Orthodox

[ICXCNIKA]

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Before going on with my question it would probably be prudent to tell you all a little bit about my background. I was raised as a cradle catholic, and being born after Vatican II I never had the privilege of going to a Tridentine Mass. While I had respect for the N.O. Mass, I somehow felt as if I was missing out (much less deprived) on something as I fondly remember my grandfather telling me about how they celebrated masses in his day. Over the years, especially after my grandfather died, I became knowledgable about the Tridentine Rite, and somehow I felt I was forced to settle for something less in attending N.O. Masses. To be honest, I felt spiritually robbed of my religious heritage.

When I entered High School, I discovered the Orthodox Church. Immediately the emphasis on liturgical tradition orthodopraxis caught my eye. I was received into the Orthodox Church Holy Saturday of 2004.

I would like to take this time to discuss with fellow Catholics if they have qualms with the Novus Ordo? I sometimes find it amazing how my Catholic colleagues can claim such a string of traditions and theological beauty, which is simply not expressed nor relflected in the Mass anymore. I know that there are provisions such as indults and FSSP, which I believe are fantastic outlets for traditional Catholics - but they are often too difficult to procure. I find it quite disappointing that the church I once loved is now faced with increasing pressure to modernize: tear down those altar rails, omit invocations to the Virgin Mary, and create a liturgy and church architecture inspired by minimalism.

Any thoughts?

In Christ,

Michael

[Monoxide]

Have you ever considered the Eastern Catholic faiths? I am Ukrainian Catholic, who were at one time apparantly Orthodox, but rejoined the Roman Church. We hold the Catholic views, but have the beautiful archaic Divine Liturgy .

[ICXCNIKA]

Yes I have considered. Unfortunately, there are no Eastern Rites in my area. But first, I would first need evidence of Papal Supremacy throughout the ages. But how does one justify leaving one Rite simply because the former is spiritually unsatisfying? In my opinion, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are next to "modernized." They've already Novus-Ordized the Maronite Rite.

In Christ,

Michael

[Monoxide]

I am not familiar with Novus Ordanize, could you elaborate? I do not think you are justified in abandoning the one right for the other, mabye you could try to help nourish your life at home through prayer? Mabye a latin mass? Where abouts to you live? I will try to refer you to a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

[ICXCNIKA]

Well I shall not bother the forum in giving the details of my whereabouts, as I cherish my anonymity on the internet. First:

Novus Ordanize-Soon, the entire Roman Catholic Church will be faced to modernize. It is only a matter of time. And I don't see myself leaving the Church, Mono. Rather, I left an organization which in all respects has a forked tongue: professing tradition while on the other side modernizing because of ecclesiastical critics.

I've already done extensive research in my area. There is not an Eastern Rite in my area. And the indult mass here in my city is so pitiful that they might as well practice the Novus Ordo Missae.

In Christ,

ICXC

[Monoxide]

I guess it depends how far you are willing to travel to pray,

[ICXCNIKA]

Being a college student I neither have the finances nor the mode to travel very far, Monoxide.

Besides, with that respect - I certainly think God hears my prayer in an Orthodox Liturgy. Same Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom...just that we don't pray for our Supreme Pontiff in our ektenias,

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Monoxide]

Neither do we --- [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja][/color]... yeah. Well if you decide to go orthadox take this advice, Orthodox [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja - be nice][/color] they all know how to use guns and organize crime, so be careful not to insult any of them. Good friday is coming up too, so good luck.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Kilroy the Ninja

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 01:26 AM'] But how does one justify leaving one Rite simply because the former is spiritually unsatisfying? [/quote]
You not only left a rite, but the Church as well when you became orthodox, so why are you asking us that question?

[ICXCNIKA]

I simply wish to know that rationale. Obviously you can't blame people when they leave the desert when they can't find any water. And Monoxide, I'm very active in my parish. So far I haven't encountered any organized crime (well, if you count women who get together and make bad baklava. That in itself should be a crime!)

Also, out of curiosity, I just have to mention this. I find it strange that Catholics are already beginning to call John Paul II 'Magnum' (Great). From my understanding, the Cardinals have not even beatified him yet, let alone bestow him with any titles. Weird.

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

First, regarding the Tridentine Mass versus the Pauline Mass; I've attended both, and can tell you that both have their highlights, and both have things I wouldn't mind tweaking. But I enter into the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in both of them (I do so more easily and fruitfully at the Pauline rite, but that is my personal preference). The rites of the Church should not be set against one another. I don't feel like I'm in Heaven at any Liturgy. They're all human Liturgies, and will only benefit insofar as you can transcend them and truly enter into the Eucharistic mystery that is celebrated.

Here are a few articles that defend the Pauline rite of Mass with much documentation.

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html[/url]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixa.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixa.html[/url]

Regarding Papal Primacy, I would point you to St. Maximus the Confessor (not to mention the Fathers themselves), who is honored by Catholics and Orthodox alike:

[quote]For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. (Seventh Century)[/quote]

I would highly recommend you read "The Russian Church and the Papacy", written by the great Eastern thinker Vladimir Soloviev, currently published by Catholic Answers. You might also consider "Upon This Rock" by Steve Ray, which provides copious documentation of papal primacy from Scripture and the Fathers. Here, also, is a website which records the ancient Eastern witness to Papal primacy (it is by no means exhaustive, obviously. For an exhaustive treatment, you would have to see a volume such as "Upon This Rock"):

[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl.../patriarchs.htm[/url]

[quote]Also, out of curiosity, I just have to mention this. I find it strange that Catholics are already beginning to call John Paul II 'Magnum' (Great). From my understanding, the Cardinals have not even beatified him yet, let alone bestow him with any titles. Weird.[/quote]

Sainthood by popular acclamation is an ancient tradition of the Church. It was not weird then, and it is not weird now. Today, however, our acclamation is always submitted to the final judgement of the Church. But the Church always takes into account the "Sensuus Fidei", by which God speaks to his Prelates.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[ICXCNIKA]

How convienent for you to be able to enter into a rite which is a) Avaliable to you and b) One that you can "Get in to". I never had that luxury.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 11:10 AM'] How convienent for you to be able to enter into a rite which is a) Avaliable to you and b) One that you can "Get in to". I never had that luxury. [/quote]
I could get into any rite, whether it was born in Greece, Rome, or Timbuktu. Liturgical rites are simply meant to help facilitate your enterining into the Eucharistic mystery. Undue dependence on them to that end is spiritually dangerous, because ephemeral rites can never satisfy you.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[ICXCNIKA]

Ephemeral? Are you claiming that the Mass is ephemeral? Sometimes I wonder about the modernity of the Catholic Church. Most churches in my area which are of the Catholic persuasion don't even appear to look like Churches, but more or less undefined modernist buildings which look like a Bauhaus nightmare.

You seem to quote Catholic Canon Law and doctrine well, but I would suggest that you read St. Gregory the Great's treatises on the concept of cosmic liturgy. The liturgy is primarily a sacred act before God, which means, in the words of St. Gregory, that at the hour of Sacrifice, in response to the priest’s acclamation, the heavens open up; the choirs of angels am witnessing this Mystery; what is above and what is below unite; heaven and earth are united, matters visible and invisible become united."

But, from my perspective traditional Catholics are referred to as effete and modern because they prefer to worship in a traditional manner. In times past, Masses were celebrated accompanied by orchestral music, in the glow of countless candles and wafting incense, today, following the dictum, "Get rid of all signs of triumphalism!" the celebrant stands before a bare altar, saying his prayers and addressing the faithful through a microphone. We have now simply eliminated an essential part of the liturgy: that of worshipping God. To worship is an obligation of man than can never change.

Shouldn't you offer a fitting Mass bent on praising God? Not to appease some standard of modernity?

I often wonder what it would be like for St. Gregory the Great to step into a Catholic Church today. I doubt he would probably even recognize what he is seeing, thinking that perhaps he has just stepped foot in some anathematic Church. He will think that he must have come to the wrong address and that he has accidentally ended up in some other Christian religious community.

The accustomed sacred art in the church has disappeared. Instead of a cross hanging over the altar there now is some often indefinable work of art; the altar itself being a bare slab of rock, akin to a barrow. In vain will he look for the tabernacle on the altar; nor will he find the communion rail. He will miss the smell of incense that he remembers to have always lingered after Mass.

In short the Roman Catholic 'reformers' of the liturgy have failed to consider adequately and address the issue of how the traditional forms of liturgy inspired among the faithful a sense of belonging, of feeling at home. They also failed to consider and deal with the Issue of the extent to which simply abolishing these forms of liturgy would also result in a loss of faith among the people.

Again as I said, don't blame someone when he gets thirsty and goes off to seek water when there is none in the desert. This modernity frightens me, and I do not wish to be apart of it, or sully myself with it until Rome begins to consider the needs of those who feel attached to the old rites. And no, indults are not enough. A priest should have every right to celebrate a fully licit Mass.

In Christ,

ICXCNIKA

[Guest JeffCR07]

ICXCNIKA,

Maranatha, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be with you!

It seems to me that some of my Catholic brothers and sisters have gone about this discussion in the wrong way. If you will allow me, I would like to discuss the points that you have raised and perhaps shed some insight into your question.

I also, like you, have been raised catholic and have never been to a Tridentine Mass, which I greatly regret. Within the past two years, I have really started to care about the Faith, and I have been reading the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians ever since. Moreover, the Liturgy is one of my chief loves, and it is one of the things which I care the most about. Like you, I have been appalled by liturgical abuse, and I have a burning desire to restore othropraxis to the faithful. Finally, my home parish is notably unorthodox, and I can certainly sympathize with your feeling that something is lacking.

But my brother, I do not think that a move to Eastern Orthodoxy is the wisest move. I look at it in the following way:

The faith and the practice, should, ideally, come hand in hand. However, at all times, the faith is more important than the practice. This does not degrade the practice, but in reality, lifts it up. For the practices of our faith are the service of our faith to the Almighty. The Divine Liturgy has never been, nor ever will be, ephemeral. Take the following example:

There is a man with a deep devotion to the Blessed Theotokos. He has been stranded on an island, and is without an icon of our Mother to pray before. Surely his faith is still upright before the Lord, but, at the same time, this man has surely been deprived of something wonderful.

But what if that man were to sacrifice some of his faith in order to gain for himself an icon of the God-bearer? I tell you, for that man it would be to no avail for him to do so - for the Mother of Christ loves the Faith, and interceeds for those who keep and bear it, but for those who leave even a part of it behind, she will only plead that they return to it.

Now imagine that this man has arrived on an island without an icon of the Theotokos, but that he is not alone. Instead, imagine that he is surrounded by other faithful, but none of whom bear with them an icon.

Again I tell you that such a man does not leave the people because they do not possess an icon, but rather he sees that they are as deprived as he is, and he endeavors to join with them in community and faith and to make such an icon for all to pray before.

I use this example to illustrate how I look at the problem. Certainly I am deprived, even now, of the glory of what the Litgury could - and should - be. But if I am deprived of it, then so too are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and my first concern is for [i]them[/i] even above my concern for myself. Thus, I see God calling me to instill in my catholic brothers and sisters a love of orthopraxis, a love of deep, rich, and reverent liturgy.

But always I remember what the purpose of such reverent and deep liturgy is: the Faith. Orthopraxis teaches us that we should be gladly willing to die before renouncing even an ounce of our faith.


For this reason, I would like to turn our discussion to what I think is a deeper question: in joining the Orthodox Church, you have renounced your faith that Peter was the head of the Church, and that his Successor retains that divine authority and role. Why are you willing to let go of that aspect of the faith?

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff