Question on Eastern Rites that use Versus Populum
Nov 21, 2023 11:41:13 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski and John Lewis like this
Post by Pacelli on Nov 21, 2023 11:41:13 GMT -5
Recently in a discussion I was asked my opinion on whether the Maronites use of versus populum, (priest faces the people at mass), rather than altar is such a grave reason to not attend there that one must avoid attending the mass. I will also say that the Maronites are not the only rite affected by this, as the Chaldeans and the Syro-Malabar have also adopted this practice.
Obviously, I don't support any post Vatican II changes to the eastern rites, as these changes have yet to receive papal approval, so with that said, we must look at he liturgical changes they have made individually and make judgments on them, and from those judgments decide if we can in good conscience attend the mass.
I have always equated the eastern rites to the Roman rite of the 1960's in which liturgical tinkering was going on under the direction of the undeclared antipope, but there was no essential defect yet, and Catholics universally held their ground in their parishes. The Catholics of the Roman Rite through their decision of remaining in their parishes demonstrated that one must be prudent and not abandon your pastor and parishes unless absolutely necessary, which in my opinion set a precedent that is safe to follow, as the entire Catholic Church universally remained in their lawful and canonical parishes in the late 1960's despite novel doctrine being taught from Rome, and the endless liturgical innovations going on throughout the Roman Rite. The status quo did not change until the Novus Ordo was implemented in 1970.
Could the entire Catholic Church have been led astray by remaining in their parishes during this time period? I say, "of course not, and furthermore, I believe it heretical to assert it." The situation in the east, unlike the Roman Rite, has remained stuck in time, as though they never moved past 1969 or so, with some eastern rites, stuck in 1963, some in 1965, some in the late 60's, depending on how close they remain to the sect and the sect's level of influence on them, but none have reached 1970, when the Novus Ordo reached the parishes.
There has never been a "Novus Ordo" in the East and even the one detection of an essential defect brought to my attention a while back in the Coptic rite is still not confirmed as far as being a local problem in England or something universal throughout the Coptic rite.
With that said, let's look at the specific issue of mass versus populum. Is it a novelty with no basis in Tradition, and something evil or which may lead to impiety, or is the practice found in use in the Catholic Church, therefore an approved practice, which then by definition must be a good practice, as the Catholic Church cannot use evil practices or those which are an incentive to impiety.
I have researched this matter, and there is no doubt that the Catholic Church has used the practice of versus populum, and the practice has been used regularly in Rome itself.
My conclusion is this: as the practice is an approved practice of the Catholic Church, one is not bound to avoid this mass. I am only here answering the specific issue of whether this practice is a ground to avoid the mass, and clearly one must look at other things going on at these parishes, but as far as this issue, it is not in my opinion a reason why this mass must be avoided.
I will be linking a good source on this soon once I finish putting it into PDF.
Obviously, I don't support any post Vatican II changes to the eastern rites, as these changes have yet to receive papal approval, so with that said, we must look at he liturgical changes they have made individually and make judgments on them, and from those judgments decide if we can in good conscience attend the mass.
I have always equated the eastern rites to the Roman rite of the 1960's in which liturgical tinkering was going on under the direction of the undeclared antipope, but there was no essential defect yet, and Catholics universally held their ground in their parishes. The Catholics of the Roman Rite through their decision of remaining in their parishes demonstrated that one must be prudent and not abandon your pastor and parishes unless absolutely necessary, which in my opinion set a precedent that is safe to follow, as the entire Catholic Church universally remained in their lawful and canonical parishes in the late 1960's despite novel doctrine being taught from Rome, and the endless liturgical innovations going on throughout the Roman Rite. The status quo did not change until the Novus Ordo was implemented in 1970.
Could the entire Catholic Church have been led astray by remaining in their parishes during this time period? I say, "of course not, and furthermore, I believe it heretical to assert it." The situation in the east, unlike the Roman Rite, has remained stuck in time, as though they never moved past 1969 or so, with some eastern rites, stuck in 1963, some in 1965, some in the late 60's, depending on how close they remain to the sect and the sect's level of influence on them, but none have reached 1970, when the Novus Ordo reached the parishes.
There has never been a "Novus Ordo" in the East and even the one detection of an essential defect brought to my attention a while back in the Coptic rite is still not confirmed as far as being a local problem in England or something universal throughout the Coptic rite.
With that said, let's look at the specific issue of mass versus populum. Is it a novelty with no basis in Tradition, and something evil or which may lead to impiety, or is the practice found in use in the Catholic Church, therefore an approved practice, which then by definition must be a good practice, as the Catholic Church cannot use evil practices or those which are an incentive to impiety.
I have researched this matter, and there is no doubt that the Catholic Church has used the practice of versus populum, and the practice has been used regularly in Rome itself.
My conclusion is this: as the practice is an approved practice of the Catholic Church, one is not bound to avoid this mass. I am only here answering the specific issue of whether this practice is a ground to avoid the mass, and clearly one must look at other things going on at these parishes, but as far as this issue, it is not in my opinion a reason why this mass must be avoided.
I will be linking a good source on this soon once I finish putting it into PDF.