www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Western students reflect on visit to BC Church

"In terms of language, worship and architecture it is Protestant like so many other Roman Catholic parishes. What a shame."

I would posit such churches don't merit the title Protestant. The Protestant churches around here are tasteful and even the Presbyterian Churches have images: traditional stained glass windows with images of Our Lord, some statuary-usually the evangelists on the Lectern, and, don't faint, even some real Icons, commissioned from local iconographers. These echurches aren't trying to be Protestant, but are simply neo-iconoclasts.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

John,

Your daughter is a wonderful evangelist. All of our people are especially our children. Why, we even had Gabriel calling out to the entire Church throughout most of the liturgy in the guise of a small child.

I think you are onto something when you write of shame. Much of the architecture is simply pitiful. I think nuns refusing to wear the garb is also an expression of that shame.

For everyone's sake I hope the RC's have a thorogoing revival of Spirit in the near future. In fact the Lord can bring revival to us as well, to all of us.

"It was sad. After the wonderful Divine Liturgy and Chrismation at Annunication we endured baptism at a parish that is truly ashamed to be Catholic. In terms of language, worship and architecture it is Protestant like so many other Roman Catholic parishes. What a shame."

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I think its the story of putting the frog in the pot of cold water then turning on the the heat. I didn't notice how far the RC Church has moved toward Protestantism until I when to a Protestant Church for a service a month ago. I when to a RC Church for Liturgy this passed Sunday.When I closed my eyes and listen to the sung responses and hymns I wasn't sure where I was.Catholic Church or Protestant.In design & Liturgy the distinction is gone."Its too distracting" is the mantra of Liturgical committee's across this country in the Roman Churches. I wouldn't care to attend on a regular basis.

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

Frankly, if all we had around here for Catholic Churches was the now typical Protestantized RC version I would go to an Orthodox Church.

Dan Lauffer

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hi Professor!

Considering everything that has been said so far I tend to agree with you. I have a few comments to make concerning the Latin church locally, with respect.

Yes, clearly there is and has been a problem in the way the church generally has been presenting the mass, this is recognized at Rome and probably there will be more action in the future to correct some things.

I really don't have much exposure to the diocese of Joliet but I have been in many parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago, they are not all so bad. And part of it (for us) is that we are less familiar with the spirituality of the western church, and it contrasts sharply with our own experience. I sometimes think easterners can be as shocked about the western approach as westerners can be shocked by the eastern approch, and we might overreact.

Western spirituality often tends to be more of an interior and less expressive nature. Private prayer is common (even in saying the Office) and times of quiet reflection are inserted even in group recitation of the Office (pregnant pauses for reflection). A common posture has been kneeling in reverence with the face buried in the hands, or the hands clutched together in front of the Blessed Sacrament or facing the altar, I have seen (and done) this numerous times. Compared to our singing, chanting, moving and bending, crossing ourselves multiple times, blessings and incense blasts the Latin approach should appear as quite a stark contrast.

As far as architecture goes, there has been a wide range of expression in the west, from the often overdone Rococo style to cavernous barns and dark tombs, if one examines the great old Cistercian monasteries on the 12th century (for example) the simplicity is quite striking, for their massive size and practical arrangement they are impressive even in ruins, but spare and relatively unadorned, nothing like a Saint Peter's basilica. That was in keeping with the spirituality of that group in their age, it was not a universal western approach, and it never really disappeared either. I think that's an inspiration for much of the architecture we find today.

Don't get me wrong, I am personally no fan of the stripped down look of many modern churches, but I see it can work for many people.

Recall Elijah's cave, for sure there was no statue or icon in it, but Elijah found God there in the "still, small voice" the "whispering wind". Hermits have always fled to such places looking for God, simple anadorned places. The abbey I visit is made completely of common brick, all the interior walls! Yet there is an atmosphere there that profoundly spiritual and focused on God. As I recall there is not one statue or icon within the main church (but several tucked away in alcoves and shrines throughout the complex).

So the all too common happy-dance mass or Protestant-like mass is out there, for sure. But if we look closely that's not all we'll find, there is much genuine personal piety and faith expressed as we are likely to find in the Roman church and nowhere else.

I fear for the church everywhere, millions are sliding into indifferentism and disbelief. We are not immune to it either. I hope and pray that the trends will reverse somehow, so your comments are to the point, I just think it must be worse in some places than others.

Michael

Michael,

Your counsel seems wise and I shall reflect upon it. Thank you.

Dan Lauffer

Allow me to make a comment and then add a story that goes along well with this thread:

Re: architecture - while I agree that many RC churches "run the gammut" so to speak, I also agree that there are some parishes that have gone overboard somewhat on the post-Vatican II "clean-ups." Heck, there are some Ukie churches that we have built ourselves (not purchased, that is) that you could walk in and with some very minor changes make a believable Latin-Rite church out of it.

My next story is one of those visitor stories. Yesterday, two obviously not Ukrainian ladies came to visit. They walked out after the gospel reading and, once outside, were overheard to wonder why the Church looked Orthodox and why everyone was crossing themselves in the Orthodox way. I smiled and let them go on their way.

Yours,

"hal"

Posted by Coalesco:

"Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hi Professor!

Considering everything that has been said so far I tend to agree with you. I have a few comments to make concerning the Latin church locally, with respect.

Yes, clearly there is and has been a problem in the way the church generally has been presenting the mass, this is recognized at Rome and probably there will be more action in the future to correct some things.

I really don't have much exposure to the diocese of Joliet but I have been in many parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago, they are not all so bad. And part of it (for us) is that we are less familiar with the spirituality of the western church, and it contrasts sharply with our own experience. I sometimes think easterners can be as shocked about the western approach as westerners can be shocked by the eastern approch, and we might overreact.

Western spirituality often tends to be more of an interior and less expressive nature. Private prayer is common (even in saying the Office) and times of quiet reflection are inserted even in group recitation of the Office (pregnant pauses for reflection). A common posture has been kneeling in reverence with the face buried in the hands, or the hands clutched together in front of the Blessed Sacrament or facing the altar, I have seen (and done) this numerous times. Compared to our singing, chanting, moving and bending, crossing ourselves multiple times, blessings and incense blasts the Latin approach should appear as quite a stark contrast.

As far as architecture goes, there has been a wide range of expression in the west, from the often overdone Rococo style to cavernous barns and dark tombs, if one examines the great old Cistercian monasteries on the 12th century (for example) the simplicity is quite striking, for their massive size and practical arrangement they are impressive even in ruins, but spare and relatively unadorned, nothing like a Saint Peter's basilica. That was in keeping with the spirituality of that group in their age, it was not a universal western approach, and it never really disappeared either. I think that's an inspiration for much of the architecture we find today.

Don't get me wrong, I am personally no fan of the stripped down look of many modern churches, but I see it can work for many people.

Recall Elijah's cave, for sure there was no statue or icon in it, but Elijah found God there in the "still, small voice" the "whispering wind". Hermits have always fled to such places looking for God, simple anadorned places. The abbey I visit is made completely of common brick, all the interior walls! Yet there is an atmosphere there that profoundly spiritual and focused on God. As I recall there is not one statue or icon within the main church (but several tucked away in alcoves and shrines throughout the complex).

So the all too common happy-dance mass or Protestant-like mass is out there, for sure. But if we look closely that's not all we'll find, there is much genuine personal piety and faith expressed as we are likely to find in the Roman church and nowhere else.

I fear for the church everywhere, millions are sliding into indifferentism and disbelief. We are not immune to it either. I hope and pray that the trends will reverse somehow, so your comments are to the point, I just think it must be worse in some places than others.

Michael "


Dear Michael,

Thank you for your balanced comments in the posting above.

Sometimes it it hard to maintain a sense of balance in a thread like this one.

It is hard to maintain balance and allow others to choose to build Church buildings that are not to our taste. It requires understanding to accept that other Apostolic Churches can worship using liturgical rites which are different from those rites that we see as the right way to do it. It requires patience to learn the reasons for change and to endure it.

Thank you for your comments about the Western Church. We are, with all of our follies and foibles and faults and mistakes, working our way as we believe God wants us to in our part of God's Church.

It is good to know that there are those in our Sister Churches who know that we are like them in this.

Steve

Hello,

Wow! How could you possibly know? How do you know what's going on inside the hearts of a community of praying people?

Do you judge by what you see? Do you see with the eyes of God?

Again, what is the basis for you to pass such a harsh and definitive judgement?


You are wrong. Ultimately, Christ promised to me in our midst, amongst us. Not in front of us. Having the priest lead the prayers in front of the people, facing the same way makes sense.

But it also makes sense to make a circle around the altar. Honorable as the icon of Christ in the sanctuary might be, it pales when compared to the Christan Community as the Mystical Body of Christ Himself.

We Latins are not turning our back on Christ, we are simply finding Him whenever He is.

Just as us westerners acknowledge our difficulties to understand the depth of the Eastern spiritual traditions, we also urge you not to haste in your judgement of our own traditions and practices.

Shalom,
Memo.

I will simply respond by saying that I am not ignorant of what it is like in the Latin Church, having been raised there and being a former seminarian for a Latin religious congregation. I have only been worshipping in the Russian Byzantine Church full time for about a year, but I still frequent Latin churches. I was not speaking of any particular person's or community's faith, but of a general sense by the celebration of the Mass in many communities. I can certainly think of some exceptions.

Moreover, you will find my statements on the lack of the conciousness of transcendence in liturgy and the theological and historical problems with versus populum liturgy to be quite in line with such Latin theologians as Cardinals Ratzinger and Arinze, cf. Salt of the Earth , The Spirit of the Liturgy , and their respective interviews with EWTN in the past month.

Posted by jbosl:

"I will simply respond by saying that I am not ignorant of what it is like in the Latin Church, having been raised there and being a former seminarian for a Latin religious congregation. I have only been worshipping in the Russian Byzantine Church full time for about a year, but I still frequent Latin churches. I was not speaking of any particular person's or community's faith, but of a general sense by the celebration of the Mass in many communities. I can certainly think of some exceptions.

Moreover, you will find my statements on the lack of the conciousness of transcendence in liturgy and the theological and historical problems with versus populum liturgy to be quite in line with such Latin theologians as Cardinals Ratzinger and Arinze, cf. Salt of the Earth , The Spirit of the Liturgy , and their respective interviews with EWTN in the past month."

Dear jbosl,

I read your comments and those of others in the thread about the Latin Liturgy with interest.

Like you I am not ignorant of what it is like in the Latin Church. It is still my Church. I appreciate that your comments reflect your experiences and that your conclusions are similar to those of some theologians. They represent a portion of theologcial thought in our Church.

My experience in the Latin Church is much like yours in some ways. About half of my life was spent in the pre-conciliar Latin Church and the rest in the post-conciliar Latin Church.

I have always been taught and have always found that the Transcendent is at the heart of our Liturgy. The Liturgical rite of the Eucharistic Celebration in its words and its actions have this at their core wherever and whenever it is celebrated.

I have heard the point that you make about the lack of a sense of the transcendent in our liturgy many times.

It strikes me that that observation deserves a greater response than I have time for now. Suffice it to say that even the theologians whom you cite do not say that the Liturgy obscures the Transcendent to darkness or that the Liturgy does not emphasize any sense of the Transcendent, at least as I read it.

A beauty of the Liturgy of the Latin Church in my understanding is that it does highlight the reality of the Transcendent. Its focus is Incarnational, the Transcendent and the Transcendent in the immanent. In fact, it is quite representative of the focus on the incarnational aspect of our Faith that is a hallmark of the Latin Church, it seems to me.

It seems rather unfair to conclude that we in the West have lost the sense of the Transcendent because it is not expressed in the same way that it is in the Liturgies of other Churches.

There are other streams of theological thought about our Liturgy in the Latin Church. That there are reflects the seriousness and respect that is present in our Church in regard to the celebration of the Liturgy.

The Latin Bishop of Erie, Donald Troutman recently accepted an award from liturgists. In his remarks to the liturgists assembled, he showed I think great insight about the ripples of change and resistance to it that exist in the Latin Church. He does so by presenting a view that differs from that of the theologians whom you have cited.

Here's part of what he said:

....

"Today Liturgists face major challenges. The euphoria of Vatican II has ended. As the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy fades in time, is it also fading in influence? Do we recognize a pullback from the liturgical principles, a lessening of collaboration, a return to devotionalism rather than Eucharistic celebration? Is there a liturgical backsliding that causes us to be discouraged dejected, disheartened? We need to recall the founders of the American Liturgical Movement. These liturgical pioneers did not give up and we must not give up. We must not surrender the progress made at Vatican II."

"St. Paul once told his parishoners: While you are waiting for the Lord to come, 'Do not quench the Spirit.' Do not stifle the Spirit. These are words for the Church today. When we encounter those who advocate a 'reform of the reform,'
we must say, 'Do not quench the Spirit.' The Holy Spirit was present at Vatican II and gave us new liturgical direction. When we encounter people who harken back to rigidity in rubrics, we must say, 'Do not quench the Spirit.' When inculturation is denied and one liturgical form is forced on all, we must say, 'Do not quench the Spirit.' When the Scripture translations in our lectionary are flawed and not proclaimable, we must say, 'Give us the richness of God's Word: Do not quench the Spirit.' The Holy Spirit prompted the renewal and reform of the liturgy. Now more than ever, we must say, 'Do not quench the Spirit.' ...."

...

A recent draft of a forthcoming Vatican instruction included several problematic elements - elements which were neither pastoraly sensitive nor liturgically correct. While we are thankfully reassured that more competent and more sensible judgements have prevailed, we need to ask how could such proposals be drafted and approved for submission in the first place?"

"When such Roman Liturgical drafts call us to return to a liturgical mentality prior to Vatican II, we need to say to one another: Keep up your courage...."

Bishop Trautman' full presentation can be read at: http://www.fdlc.org/McManus%20Award/TrautmanAward. htm

( I tried the link and it doesn't seem to work. The speech can be found by doing a search for the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions. Then click on Bishop Trautman's name. Sorry for the inconvenience.)

I think his comments help to put the discussion of the Latin Liturgy taking place here into a bit more of a balanced perspective. There is a working out of the teachings of Vatican II in our times. Perhaps it is most clearly apparent in the effort to ensure proper celebration of the Liturgy.

I believe that this is a sign of a vital Faith and vibrant Church. The real problem, it seems to me, would be if either those theologians whom you cite or those whom Bishop Trautman represents were to forget that the main participant in their efforts is the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Steve,

Your comments are well taken. I don't mean to condemn the Latin Church as a whole, nor to condemn the Novus Ordo entirely (thugh I do think there are some problematic departures in some of its rights).

I can think of many times in my past where I have perceived to a great degree--as much as my sinful perceptions allow--the transcendent presence of God in the Mass. On the other hand, I think that in the experience of the average parishoner there are some road blocks to experiencing the transcendence of the Liturgy, that while not necessary, are more common in the majority (if only a simple majority) of Latin parishes. I'm sure that most Latin Catholics know of what I speak. I think it need not even be specific practices, but just the overall impression that I have gotten in many parishes, even those that are obstensibly orthodox. It is a result of the 1950s/1960s emphasis of rite as an expression of the faithful's community, rather than an emphasis on handed down orthodox faith, orthopraxy, and transcendent worship above all. Hopefully, with the new generations this will be eventually reversed. An inspiring book I'm reading now is entitled "The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Turning to Christian Orthodoxy."

Justin