More Good News: Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
jwinch2 said:
After reading multiple defenses of both the TLM and the OF I am completely convinced that the OF is much more Biblical and much closer to how the Liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians.  
First, please explain why you think the new Mass is "much more Biblical" than the traditional Mass. Exactly what does this mean?

Second, "how the liturgy was celebrated by the first Christians", in other words, liturgical archaeologism, is not what we are aiming at---not to mention it being impossible to accomplish because so much of it is speculation for lack of surviving evidence.

Here is Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.

Venerable Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.


(the last sentence of this encyclical is also translated in English thus: It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father).
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
jwinch2 said:
As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us?  
Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?

-

 

jwinch2

Sr. Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas, USA
lubeltri said:
jwinch2 said:
As for the Priest facing away from the people, to me that is hogwash.  We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ.  God is not in the alter, nor in the crucifix behind it.  He is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of [?] the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration.  "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there, with us? 
Well, since God is present everywhere, why should we bother even going to church to worship? He's present here right at home, gathered here with my family.

Don't you see that your argument against ad orientem worship above makes it seem that you think Christ's presence in the Eucharist is just like his other "presences"? That his Eucharistic presence is not something altogether different?
Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no. 
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
jwinch2 said:
Considering that I have already stated that I don't believe they are the same, no.  
Well, since you admit that Christ's Eucharistic Presence is something altogether different from the other presences, do you agree that it might be good to give particular emphasis to this during the Mass, which is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary to the almighty Father?

It is an offering, an oblation, not to ourselves, but to the Father. We unite our hearts with the priest in presenting this offering.

Where should the emphasis of the Mass be, on the congregational meal or the offering of the supreme Sacrifice? That is the question of the liturgy today.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.







 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

lubeltri said:
As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
lubeltri said:
Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.
I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.

 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
elijahmaria said:
As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

lubeltri said:
As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.
Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?

The examples pictured are some more extreme examples, but I'm afraid they still occur under diocesan auspices. And less extreme examples, which no less obscure the liturgy's sense of sacrifice, are quite common.

I have to deal with them all the time, unlike you who go Orthodox.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
elijahmaria said:
lubeltri said:
Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.
I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.
In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Maria said:
elijahmaria said:
lubeltri said:
Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.  

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.
I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.
In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.
Indeed, "clown Masses" are not common, but the banal "community meal" Mass is all over the place.
 

SubdeaconDavid

High Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
504
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tasmania Australia
Website
orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com
lubeltri said:
Melodist said:
FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.
Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east.  This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in  a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass.  That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.

Look at the Orthodox liturgy and you will see the right amount of facing the people - when blessing them , when proclaiming the Gospel, when giving a homily, when censing them or the church.  Apart from that everyone faces together to the east. 
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
lubeltri said:
elijahmaria said:
As far as I am concerned it is indicative that you must reach for the fringe that has separated itself from the Church to make your point.  I cannot take you seriously now at all.

lubeltri said:
As Cardinal Ratzinger says, liturgical orientation is very important.

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.
Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?
I am exceptionally serious.  One of the closest priests and parishes to me is, for lack of a better word, a Novus Ordo parish where the pastor made it his life's work to give to his people a liturgy that is reverent, Scriptural, and reflective of the realities of the Second Vatican Council.  It is a powerfully cohesive and faithful community that he has built upon the Novus Ordo liturgy and those principles.  This is the parish and priest who brought me back into the Church.  His funeral is today....BTW.

You presume that I do what I do because I have rejected the ordinary liturgy of the Roman rite.  You presume far too much that is not real.

 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
SubdeaconDavid said:
lubeltri said:
Melodist said:
FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.
Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east.  This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in  a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass.  That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.
This is myth and I am not even sure that it is a pious myth.  Yes, indeed.  It can be taken this way but it is not the intent at all and need not and ought not be experienced this way in a reverent Novus Ordo.

M.
 

jamesdm49

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
Irish_Melkite said:
Maria said:
Hamartolos said:
I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.
It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?
Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.
I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.
All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
jamesdm49 said:
Maria said:
Irish_Melkite said:
Maria said:
Hamartolos said:
I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.
It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?
Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.
I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.
All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James
Actually by your own criteria the Novus Ordo is beautiful liturgy.
 

jamesdm49

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
jamesdm49 said:
Maria said:
Irish_Melkite said:
Maria said:
Hamartolos said:
I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day.  Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it.  It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.
It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?
Interesting you mention the older liturgy there.  Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were.   Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054.  The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old.  But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation.  This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.
I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.
All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James
Actually by your own criteria the Novus Ordo is beautiful liturgy.
Do you mean to imply that, since Catholics are obliged to accept the Novus Ordo as licit liturgy, then, according to Keats' logic, it is beautiful? But that would be Orwellian, sir!
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
jamesdm49 said:
In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music.
Well you're a downer!

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Peter J said:
Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.
I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.
 
Top