ok, back to OP. By all means. If "tradition" Catholics believe V2 was an error or see other errors than they should indeed go Eastern Orthodox if it is geographically feasible. Bit i do not see "wokeness" as liturgical dumbing down. perhaps some examples other than Clown and puppet masses which are aberrations and not the norm.
that it exists at all shows a dumbing down. I am sure my Coptic friend would agree, liturgical abuse would be more akin to doing a vesperal liturgy (which is a thing) apart from your bishop’s blessing. the fact that something this extreme has been done by multiple priests multiple times shows a dumbing down has occurred.
of course He hears them. that’s not the issue. the issue is whether or not they should be welcomed and done in Christian churches. Church history says no.
it’s in the approach to the service. the vernacular is actually the more ancient approach, so that’s not dumbing down. the clown mass existing at all wouldn’t happen unless a dumbing down already occurred.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but can you say more about "dumbing" down the liturgy and give examples?
big one is the priest facing the people during the service. there is a huge theological reason the priest should face the same direction as the people.
I don't think that is dumbing down. Rather, it is emphasis on a different aspect of theology, such as God in our midst., just as in the early church. And maybe this then brings us to the immanent/transcendent paradox. God is both/and, not either/or. Ad Orientem and Ad Populam are both acceptable. No dumbing down going on, in my opinion. Just theological preference when there should not ne one.
what is the reason that priests face the same direction as the people?
The result of a "dumbing down" of the priesthood and their seminary formation for sure. But not the liturgy, since those things are not part of the liturgy but an abberation of it. Your examples do not accurately reflect a "dumbing down" of the liturgy since they aren't a legitimate part of the liturgy at all.
I ran into a lady one time at a monastery who had been a practicing Buddhist. She said that one day while doing her daily meditation as a Buddhist, Christ showed up and told her that she was his. She became a Christian because of that experience and calling. .
As I said, one reason is acknowledging God in our midst, immanent. God is not just out there but also in here...on this altar...in each of us, especially as a community. We are sharing a meal.
I was using hyperbole. If the liturgy is being brought down to "meet us where we are", then it cannot be elevating us to a higher position.
It wasn't in the Liturgy though, was it. There is an implied suggestion that perhaps we could introduce Buddhist elements to the Liturgy to "meet Buddhists where they are". I hope you agree that such an implication is blasphemous.
No, it wasn't during the Liturgy. Neither did the example Fr. Matt gave about the Buddha and JPII (although not accurate) occur during the Liturgy.
It certainly can be elevating us. The liturgy is a representation of the entire Paschal mystery including the incarnation. But now that I think about it, it seems the dumbing down was done when the priest turned his back. It was is if saying God is out there and we need the priest in between us. Let him do the Latin prayers and we can do the rosary. That happened.
you can’t dumb down seminary formation and not dumb down the liturgy.
not the same thing as inviting pagans to pray their prayers in Christian Churches. Abraham being called by God as a pagan isn’t the same as Israel setting up an idol of Baal in the Temple.
irrelevant. nowhere in Church history is it ever okay to let pagans do their own thing in Christian Churches
that still doesn’t justify why the priest’s position moved. we have that understanding without the priest being moved as did Rome prior to the change.
that’s actually not what happened. the priest facing in the same direction is from the Temple and Tabernacle. the priest facing the people is the more recent innovation.
What about the last supper and early church? I mean, I don't know. When did the calibrant start facing "East"?
praytellblog.com
The change better symbolizes that theological point, God in our midst, not just up there somewhere.
read the OT and how the Temple and Tabernacle worship was done. that formed the basis for Christian worship since the first Christians were Jews.
if that were true, it wouldn’t have taken 1900 years to realize that point.
you also have not answered my question.
With all due respect to the learned Rev. Paul Bradshaw, the celebration of the Eucharist was never in the form of a meal with everyone reclining, nor did it resemble the iconic representations of the last supper, which are not intended to accurately portray the physical, but rather to teach the spiritual truth. From the little I know of Church history, I find his claims unrealistic and would not consider him as a reliable source."Contrary to the usual depictions of the Last Supper, there would not even have been a central dining table, but small low tables set within reach of each diner. So orientation at the Eucharist would not have entered the picture until Christians abandoned the meal and moved the celebration from evening to morning; and in spite of claims to the contrary by some, there is no firm evidence for that transition taking place until the third century, and even then none of the evidence says anything about the direction that the presider faced."
Did the Presider Face East in the Early Church? - PrayTellBlog
In the absence of explicit evidence, history is unable to settle the matter.
Well until we can come up with a source clearly indicating Ad Orientum or Ad Populum in the early church we will be uncertain of the earliest practice. So it comes down to what the Church decides now. Again, if someone takes great issue with the Novus Ordo and Ad Populum a conversion might be in order. As a Roman Catholic, I prefer Ad Populum in vernacular and don't think there is anything dumb about it.
