Going through some old papers, I found something by Timothy Ware, otherwise known as Metropolitan Kallistos of Diocleia (Tablet. 17 January 1998). I offer you a couple of selected extracts ... since today is the Feast of our Lady of the Seven Sorrows.
"With the greatest frequency in Orthodox worship we say to the Virgin Mary, 'Most Holy Mother of God, save us.' In our invocations to other members of the Communion of Saints, including St John the Baptist, except on very rare occasions we never say more than '... pray for us'. This is not an isolated example. ...
"Such language is not new. It has been used by Eastern Christians for many centuries, and scarcely ever has it given rise to scandal or controversy. The phrases are thoroughly traditional ... we Orthodox will continue to address Our Lady with the time-honoured invocation, 'Most Holy Mother of God, save us'."
Until the pontificate of Pius XII, the Western Collect on Assumption Day was: Famulorum tuorum, quaesumus , Domine, delictis ignosce: ut, qui tibi placere de actibus nostris non valemus; Genitricis Filii tui Domini nostri intercessione salvemur. Lord, we beg thee to forgive thy servants' offences:and since we are unable to please thee by our own deeds, may we be saved through the intercession of thy Son our Lord.
Thus the Latin Church confessed the understanding which it shared with Byzantines: that our very salvation comes through the prayers offered on our behalf by the Mother of God. Notice the word salvemur.
Papa Pacelli sent out his minions and they destroyed the old Propers for August 15.
9 comments:
through the intercession of thy Son our Lord.
through the intercession of the Mother of thy Son our Lord.?
I believe, Fr. John, that you have inadvertently omitted translating the word "Genetricis" from your Engliosh translation.
Dear father, I believe you have inadvertently omitted part of the translation of the Collect: instead of "through the intercession of thy Son our Lord", it should read "through the intercession of the Mother of thy Son our Lord".
Sanctissima Deipara, salva nos.
Your post reminds me of Bleeding Heart Yard in London, named for a pre-reformation image depicting Our Lady, with her heart pierced by swords. A pub sign, actually. Many pub names originally had a religious connotation. After the "Reformation" a series of stupid stories were concocted, trying to explain the name.
Thank you so much for your discussion of these changes in the liturgy.
I have what I think is a very serious question. Since before Vatican I popes appear to have been quite reluctant to impose substantial changes in the liturgy, could it be that the formal definition of papal infallibility has caused the popes of the last 120 years to believe they have “magical” powers to to change things in whatever way they wish?
Dear Ancient Professor,
maybe. We are not required to believe that the dogmatization of the Papal infallibility was a wise decision, only that what it dogmatized is, in fact, true. St. John Henry is a good example of believing the latter without the former.
That being said, I think the correlation is a bit more complex. After all, Catholics never had an Eastern-Orthodox-style "freezing in" approach to liturgy. A rather interesting example for that, in which the Papacy was just about entirely right, by which I mean both the initial reluctance and the eventual adoption of the I believe Gallican practice, was the Filioque matter. (Well, maybe Rome was a bit too slow; a not entirely unknown thing.) There were other things, like the adoption of the priestly blessing after Mass, feasts like the Immaculate Conception, and to allow the obvious heir to the Imperial throne who nevertheless was formally only a "ruler of Austria with the mere title of 'Emperor', and Apostolic King of Hungary, etc" to use the old Imperial prerogatives in the Canon.
What sparked the liturgical innovations was, I believe, something else that also happened in 1870, but not on July 18 but on September 20: the Pope suddenly lost his as-it-were "side job" of actually governing the secular affairs of a major country... and so had time for things to do, and perhaps also felt a need to do things. (Also, there may have been at exactly this time an accomulation - Rome is, as we say, sometimes slow - of things that, despite our sadness at the overdoing, actually ought to have been done, such as tackling the abundance of doubles in some way.)
And coincidentally, the wish to protest against the loss of the Papal States may have been a human factor in the some Cardinals' yes vote.
Dear Ancient Professor,
maybe. We are not required to believe that the dogmatization of the Papal infallibility was a wise decision, only that what it dogmatized is, in fact, true. St. John Henry is a good example of believing the latter without the former.
That being said, I think the correlation is a bit more complex. After all, Catholics never had an Eastern-Orthodox-style "freezing in" approach to liturgy. A rather interesting example for that, in which the Papacy was just about entirely right, by which I mean both the initial reluctance and the eventual adoption of the I believe Gallican practice, was the Filioque matter. (Well, maybe Rome was a bit too slow; a not entirely unknown thing.) There were other things, like the adoption of the priestly blessing after Mass, feasts like the Immaculate Conception, and to allow the obvious heir to the Imperial throne who nevertheless was formally only a "ruler of Austria with the mere title of 'Emperor', and Apostolic King of Hungary, etc" to use the old Imperial prerogatives in the Canon.
What sparked the liturgical innovations was, I believe, something else that also happened in 1870, but not on July 18 but on September 20: the Pope suddenly lost his as-it-were "side job" of actually governing the secular affairs of a major country... and so had time for things to do, and perhaps also felt a need to do things. (Also, there may have been at exactly this time an accomulation - Rome is, as we say, sometimes slow - of things that, despite our sadness at the overdoing, actually ought to have been done, such as tackling the abundance of doubles in some way.)
And coincidentally, the wish to protest against the loss of the Papal States may have been a human factor in the some Cardinals' yes vote.
Sorry for what may have been double post.
Post a Comment