Poll: Which ancient Liturgy do you prefer
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
13
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Ancient Liturgy Preference (only respond if you have attended both)
#51
I chose DL.  In my opinion, it is far superior in evoking love of and zeal for God.  The TLM is beautiful as well, but it seems to be beautiful for beauty's sake alone, whereas the DL seems to just be the liturgy and in so doing is beautiful naturally. 
Reply
#52
(08-22-2011, 11:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 06:12 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I hope not.

When holy Communion is distributed under both species to the people, it is easy for the ill-informed to conclude that it is necessary for salvation that the laity receive under both species, or that the whole Christ is not received under either species.

Hogwash.  This has never been an issue in the East.  Do you in the West have difficulty catechizing your faithful?  If people in the West think they need to receive both species in order to receive the Body and Blood, then the only reason is because your Church has failed to catechize them properly.  One could just as easily say that it is bad to only receive under one species because it will make the ill-informed think that receiving both is somehow polluting the Host.  Your concern is both absurd and unrealistic.  Don't hold onto bad tradition because you think people are too stupid to understand, man up and ^&*%ing catechize your laity properly!

Your continuous jabs at the Church are unbelieveable, Melkite.

Unfortunately, you continue to value your "easterness" over your catholicity.
Reply
#53
(08-23-2011, 01:04 AM)Melkite Wrote: The TLM is beautiful as well, but it seems to be beautiful for beauty's sake alone

LOL!
Reply
#54
(08-22-2011, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 05:48 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.

Not really. I would have opposed the translation of the liturgical texts into Latin from Greek then, as well. I don't think that's exactly what happened, though. In the first couple of centuries, the liturgy was in a state of flux (though obviously the essentials and basic pattern remained constant). The change seems to have been less one of translation than it was one of the bishop needing to be able to understand the texts he was more or les ad-libbing. The strict formalization of the liturgy seems to have taken place after the transition from Greek to Latin.
Thanks R.  This is exactly the point I was attempting to make.  Standardization of the Liturgy, whether in East or West didn't occur until after Latin became the Liturgical language in the west.  Most of the collects and antiphons in the Western sacramentaries were actually composed in Latin rather than translated from Greek.  The western liturgy is simply NOT a translation the way the Liturgy of St John Chrys. is translated into Russian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, etc.  It is an entirely independent liturgy.  On top of this wherever the Western Liturgy went - whether Ireland, Germany, or other non Romance language regions, Latin was preserved, in the case of Ireland for centuries of only loose ties with Rome.

As you point out Silouan, the principle of translation into the vernacular is ancient, as is liturgical conservatism.  In the West however, liturgical conservatism was closely linked with conservation of the Latin language.  This was not so in the Greek East.  That's ok.  Different situations obtained in different parts of the Church.  In the West in the past half century we have seen the disastrous effects of translation into the vernacular when coupled with an innovative mind set.  Hopefully you'll understand why we're reflexively suspicious of the vernacular.  At any rate only the Syrians can claim to have a liturgy in the original Aramaic. :)
Reply
#55
(08-23-2011, 01:07 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 11:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 06:12 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I hope not.

When holy Communion is distributed under both species to the people, it is easy for the ill-informed to conclude that it is necessary for salvation that the laity receive under both species, or that the whole Christ is not received under either species.

Hogwash.  This has never been an issue in the East.  Do you in the West have difficulty catechizing your faithful?  If people in the West think they need to receive both species in order to receive the Body and Blood, then the only reason is because your Church has failed to catechize them properly.  One could just as easily say that it is bad to only receive under one species because it will make the ill-informed think that receiving both is somehow polluting the Host.  Your concern is both absurd and unrealistic.  Don't hold onto bad tradition because you think people are too stupid to understand, man up and ^&*%ing catechize your laity properly!

Your continuous jabs at the Church are unbelieveable, Melkite.

Unfortunately, you continue to value your "easterness" over your catholicity.

It's really impossible for you to see any reality once someone suggests the East is doing something better than the West, isn't it?  In fact, what I said only pits East against West circumstantially.  The flaw is not inherently Latin, it could just as easily have been a problem in the East.  The main point, which has nothing to do with East vs. West other than in circumstances, is that saying reception of the Eucharist under one form so the less educated won't fall into heresy is nothing but a cop-out.  Pure and simple, undeniable cop out.  It would be just as much of a cop-out if the East were doing it instead of the West.  It is in no way difficult to educate someone that the Body and Blood of Christ is fully present in either form and that it is not required to receive both.  That's not difficult at all.  The ONLY reason the heresy could even have developed in the West was that the West failed to catechize the faithful on this point.  It likely would have developed in the East as well if Easterners weren't catechized properly (seeing infants only receive the wine being the large part of that catechesis, probably).

The Pope and the Church are well within their authority to restrict reception to one form or the other.  I wasn't questioning that at all.  It may not be the most practical way to do it, but that is irrelevant in terms of papal and ecclesial authority.  Anyone the Pope chooses would be canonically bound to receive under one form, in this case, those attending a Latin liturgy.  To say that it is better to receive under one form and that it really should be this way because the dumb in the Church can't understand that Christ is fully present in either form, though, is SO FAR from intellectually honest it is laughable.  It is so laughable, in fact, that you have to be looking at my post irrationally, and only irrationally, to perceive it as a jab against the Church as a whole (it could only be a jab against the Catholic Church if one sees the Latin Church as being the Catholic Church) or an example of valuing easterness over catholicity (since there is no condemnation of the Church as a whole, but rather merely a criticism of one practice justified by flawed reasoning, when there is nothing inherently Latin or Western in the flaw).
Reply
#56
I have heard (perhaps someone here can confirm this) that the original reason for withholding the cup from the faithful was to prevent the spread of disease.
Reply
#57
(08-23-2011, 10:43 AM)Peter J Wrote: I have heard (perhaps someone here can confirm this) that the original reason for withholding the cup from the faithful was to prevent the spread of disease.

I don't know how it was in the west, but in the east, only the priests' and deacons' mouths touch the cup.  The laity receive by intinction only.  I was under the impression that laity approaching the cup in the west only took place after vatican 2.
Reply
#58
(08-23-2011, 10:57 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 10:43 AM)Peter J Wrote: I have heard (perhaps someone here can confirm this) that the original reason for withholding the cup from the faithful was to prevent the spread of disease.

I don't know how it was in the west, but in the east, only the priests' and deacons' mouths touch the cup.  The laity receive by intinction only.  I was under the impression that laity approaching the cup in the west only took place after vatican 2.

The laity did drink from the cup in the ancient church, but the  cup was withheld to combat the heresy that the consecrated bread only became the body of Christ and the consecrated wine only became the blood of Christ. 
Reply
#59
This portion of the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Communion under Both Kinds" sheds some light on the matter:

Quote:... It is abundantly clear from this brief survey of disciplinary variations during the first twelve centuries that the Church never regarded Communion under both kinds as a matter of Divine precept.

Since the twelfth century

The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur", he says "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
Reply
#60
(08-23-2011, 01:04 AM)Melkite Wrote: I chose DL.  In my opinion, it is far superior in evoking love of and zeal for God.  The TLM is beautiful as well, but it seems to be beautiful for beauty's sake alone, whereas the DL seems to just be the liturgy and in so doing is beautiful naturally. 

No one is surprised at your choice, haha. I agree that DL is my favourite but only in opinion, not by any arguments of which form is superior. Both are of course substantially superior to the novel ordo. I have preference to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil with its trove of extended eloquent prayers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)