Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza  (Read 11683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2019, 11:46:15 PM »
Here's a pic of the decree for the US

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2019, 12:08:30 AM »
Apparently the last liturgical revision was 2005. It was promulgated in the English eparchies in the US in 2012.

The missal has no direction of orientation of the priest for the liturgy in it. The Patriarch has no authority over the diaspora and the crap about the bishops making decisions about orientation is blatant falsehood because the oriental congregation would have to approve it. No such docuмent exists. They choose to ignore whole bits of inconvenient law. They move Peter and Paul  and Holy Cross obligations to the Sunday. This is forbidden by eastern canon law. The problem is that the bishops ignore what they want to


Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2019, 05:58:39 AM »
Apparently the last liturgical revision was 2005. It was promulgated in the English eparchies in the US in 2012.

The missal has no direction of orientation of the priest for the liturgy in it. The Patriarch has no authority over the diaspora and the crap about the bishops making decisions about orientation is blatant falsehood because the oriental congregation would have to approve it. No such docuмent exists. They choose to ignore whole bits of inconvenient law. They move Peter and Paul  and Holy Cross obligations to the Sunday. This is forbidden by eastern canon law. The problem is that the bishops ignore what they want to
Thank you, CC.
So here’s the big question:
Would this version of the Maronite Rite be considered to be a “Novus Ordo of the Maronite Rite” in comparison to a Maronite Rite Mass of, say, 100 or 600 years ago? 
Are there “striking departures from the theology of the Mass as defined at Trent” or any substantial changes?

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2019, 10:31:46 AM »
That's a difficult question to answer for two reasons
First the theology of Trent in an eastern liturgy is problematic since in some aspects the liturgical theology is different but I'm guessing what's referred to is sacrificial language. That is explicitly mentioned at least three times in the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles also in the hymns. I attached one to the post.
There were substantial changes, the liturgy had a period post VII where everyone experimented and multiple versions of actual stuff worse than the NO was done wherever they wanted, the oriental congregation stepped in and demanded that the commission enforce the books in existence and do the actual reforms that were required.
The reforms removed from the liturgy Latinizations that were placed in at the synod of Mt Lebanon in the 1760s. This was a good thing. The problem is this was done by a group of bishops who were now NO in mindset, they made two glaring errors
1-the transition was made from Arabic. The liturgical language is Syciac/Aramaic this  is like making a new Latin mass from the 'original' English.
2-the biggest problem is that when they removed the Latin accretions they didn't replace them with Syriac liturgical practice.
3-This makes up a very uncomfortable liturgy especially for tradition minded Byzantine and Latins. To see a good translation for liturgy in the Syriac Tradition the new Chaldean translation, examples are available at the eparchy on the west coast. Just be prepared east Syriac and Armenians still have deaconesses

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2019, 10:35:49 AM »
Also they had a crap book for music the first edition had all kinds of NO crap in it. One hymn we refer to as I been working on the railroad because they adapted all kinds of folk tunes to hymns. Fun times