www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal

My Friends,

Missing from this discussion, IMHO, is an emphasis on what the Latin Liturgies are and what they do. Also missing is an understanding of what the novus ordo in particular does and clearly teaches. This is, I guess, to be expected in this forum. It is after all a forum for members of Churches which are Byzantine. It seems, that among its guests are some who have, for some reason, found the Latin Church, its teachings, or its practices wanting. Their views are expressed elsewhere in this thread.

I feel compelled to share some thoughts from one who is not an expert in the correct use of language in liturgy or liturgical history or social development. Though I have studied theology for a long time formally, and informally for a lifetime, and do have some expertise in learning and instruction, it is not on that basis that I want to share my thoughts.

I want to share them as a Latin Catholic man who loves his Church and its Liturgies. All of them. I speak for myself.

The Latin Liturgy recognizes the Christ who is present in the Liturgy in many ways. His is the priesthood made present in the priest. His is the Body made present in the people. His is the sacrifice re presented during the canon. He is the One whom we recognize in the shaking of hands and wishing of peace that some find abhorrent. He is the one whom we receive in the Eucharist. We are His People, His Body, worshipping the Trinity.

The Liturgy was constucted to teach and to be the vehicle of worship for our part of God's people. The gathering and penitential rite at the beginning of the Latin Liturgy is essential. It is what is done in both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Liturgies. It brings us together and emphasizes our need for forgiveness as well as the forgiving action of God in the ministry of the priest.

The Liturgy of the Word presents Christ in the words of His followers. They share the Christ they wanted us to meet and know and love. Through them we learn Whom it is that we love and Who loves us. We meet the One in Three Whom we worship. The priest teaches us how to grow in love for Christ present in His Body, in His priest, and in the Mysteries. He helps us to know how to bring Christ to those who are not with us and even those who are against us, as Christ has brought the Trinity to us. We profess the True Faith in the Triune God.

The bread and wine are prepared to become the Body and Blood of Christ. We are prepared too, readied to become the Body and Blood of Christ present in the world outside this place too. The offertory is made. We ask God to accept the sacrifice at the hands of the priest.

The Great Prayer begins. The body of Christ joins in worshipping the Trinity in the Body of Christ broken for us and His Blood shed for us. We worship in union with our Head made present through the working of the Spirit. We pray that God will accept our offering and make us truly the Body of Christ in union with the saints, in union with our Pope and bishops and clergy and religious, in union with our brothers and sisters alive and dead. We acclaim our Amen to what it is that God is doing.

Then we join in the prayer that Jesus gave us. We acknowledge our sinfulness and recognize the presence of Christ in his priest and ministers and the other members of his Body present. We are ready to share in the Body and Blood which are His gift to His Church.

We thank the Trinity for this gift and then we are sent forth with the sign of the Trinity as a blessing. We carry that blessing into the world which awaits it.

There is a wondrous magnificence in the gathering and upward sweeping movement of the Trinity gathering us together; in the Trinity instructing and feeding us; in God re presenting us as His Church in the world. There is a beauty in the upward swirl of praise and worship made by priest and people in the Sacrifice of Christ. There is an awe at the incomprehensible mystery of all the working of the Trinity which takes place in each act of Liturgical Worship.

There is no horizontal, no vertical. There is the Saving Actions of God in His Grace through His Spirit. His priest offers the sacrifice of Christ for and with the Body of Christ.

This is what the Latin Liturgy is and what it does as I understand it. The Liturgy has been organically renewed to make clear the centrality of Christ and of our worship of the Trinity as His Body. It is the Liturgy that has taught this to me. It is the Litrugy whether of the Tridentine ritual or the novus ordo ritual. I have spent roughly half of my life worshipping in each. What they are; what they do; and the worship they make possible have not changed.

The work of the Body of Christ is done in the Liturgy and the Mysteries. As a result of this the works of the Church bring forth fruit. The poor are fed and housed and clothed. The ignorant are instructed and the weak are strengthened, the sick and prisoners are visited. The Word is lived as well as preached.

Frankly I do not recognize in the words I read here much that reflects the richness and beauty of the Liturgy I know and love.
Roughly half of my life was lived in the pre-conciliar Latin Chruch and half of my life in the conciliar and post conciliar Church.
There was a need for renewal before the council and there is need for constant renewal now.

I lived and live that need like all of my brothers and sisters in the Churches of our Patriarchate. I watched the beginning of renewal and the restoration of the Holy Week and Easter Liturgical Action. I went to the seminary, I learned latin, I learned the Latin Liturgy and love it. I suffered as did the whole of the Latin Church through the changes.

They were excruciatinly slow for some, outlandlishly and unconscionalby rapid for others. They were an act of love. Suffering with the wrenching changes was and is too. Growing and maturing have never been easy in my experience.

There was no hacking of anything. There was a careful, loving, and respectful renewal of the Liturgical life of the latin Church. The parts of the Tridentine Liturgy are the parts of the Novus Ordo Liturgy. The Liturgy is the Liturgy. It is the work of the Church. That has not changed!

There is personal preference for latin expressed here. There is a preference for the Tridentine Liturgy expressed here. There is a preference for a ritualized language here. Everyone has a right to his or her own preferences. We can nit pick; we can agrue; we can talk endlessly.

We can talk as experts in the effects of change in a religious culture on language in the liturgy, whether we are or not. We can bemoan the loss of the austere beauty of a language. Perhaps it is valid perception.

What I believe is that we cannot do so with out always making clear the beauty and greatness that is present in the liturgies of the Latin Church. Perceptions of the posters here about those liturgies are part of reality and need to be respected.

The decisions and teachings of the Latin Church through our bishops in union with our Patriarch and the resulting practices are also part of that reality. Surely they are worthy of the same respect as the teachings and decisions and resulting practices of our Sister Churches. The Liturgical actions of the Churches are not randomly assembled; nor should they be gratuitously thrown onto a table for tearing apart. They are the reflections of the traditions and the Tradition of God's People. They deserve respecful treatment.

Perhaps it would be better if someone else had written about this. That lacking, I am sure that the pain caused by mocking language and uninformed and unintended slighting or belittling of the Liturgy that I love must come through.

Thank you for your patience and your understanding. I offer my apologies in advance if I have offended anyone by my words. It is not intended.

I think that the article written by Fr. Taft is a real contribution to the understanding of how the East has influenced the West and vice versa without belittling either.

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!


[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

You go!

K.

Dear inawe,

I am "in awe" of your spiritual insights and your religious sensitivity.

You have written one of the truly great posts of this Forum!

Alex

�It seems, that among its guests are some who have, for some reason, found the Latin Church, its teachings, or its practices wanting. Their views are expressed elsewhere in this thread.�

That is true, but my principal issues with the Latin Church were never liturgical, ironically (and unlike many who have followed the same path that I have).

I think that much of your post relates to the structure of the Latin liturgy, whether N.O. or Tridentine. AFAIC, the �structure� or �ordering� of both of those liturgies is sound and �orthodox�. So, to that extent we are in agreement. Where we disagree is in our assessment of the way that structure has been executed � the leaves on the tree � in each case � and that�s a significant matter, ISTM, because that impacts the way that liturgy is experienced, which in turn impacts its catechetical nature. It saddens me deeply, in particular, that the liturgies of the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church have become so different in character, in experience, in nature � much more so than they ever were previously � and not because of the faulty structure of the Latin rite liturgy, but because of what was, IMO, the clumsy handling of the liturgical reform. It is truly sad, IMO.

�The Liturgy has been organically renewed�

Actually, it was rewritten by a liturgical committee � not very organic, ISTM. What has been organically developed, unfortunately IMO, are the Protestant-style trappings, the banal liturgical music so often heard � both mucisally and lyrically--, the poor architecture bordering, in some cases, on inonoclasm, and the like. Those are the organic developments and they are, IMO, much to be regretted.

�It is the Litrugy whether of the Tridentine ritual or the novus ordo ritual.�

The basic movement and structure are the same, but the atmosphere is very, very different � and, again, in a sad way, much more different from the rituals of the other particular churches of the Catholic Church than it used to be (never mind the churches that are not in communion with Rome).

�There was a need for renewal before the council�

Yes, but what happened was not renewal, IMO.

�and there is need for constant renewal now�

There is a need for supression of abuses now � I think that�s the first step. The next one is a gradual restoration of practices that never should have been suppressed � informal as that suppression sometimes was. That is happening in some places, thank God.

�The parts of the Tridentine Liturgy are the parts of the Novus Ordo Liturgy.�

Yes, the tree is the same but the leaves are diferent, and that makes a significant difference, ISTM.

�There is personal preference for latin expressed here.�

No I think vernacular is a good idea � just translate it (1) accurately and (2) with beauty.

�What I believe is that we cannot do so with out always making clear the beauty and greatness that is present in the liturgies of the Latin Church.�

I agree. The Latin Church doesn�t need to be Byantinised � it needs to rediscover the beauty of its own tradition, a beauty which far exceeds the liturgical aesthetic commonly practiced in the Latin Church in this country.

�Surely they are worthy of the same respect as the teachings and decisions and resulting practices of our Sister Churches.�

I think that if there were to be reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy the liturgy of the Latin Church would be greatly helped by that.

�That lacking, I am sure that the pain caused by mocking language and uninformed and unintended slighting or belittling of the Liturgy that I love must come through.�

No intent to belittle, but constructive criticism seems to be in order, IMO. The Latin rite and the Byzantine rite are intrinsically equal � but the present articulation of the Latin rite is, IMO, inferior. Sorry to say that, but that�s my opinion. It doesn�t HAVE to be that way, there is nothing intrinsically inferior about the Latin rite. But the infamous felt banners, the nearly statueless churches, the banal/unedifying music and lyrics, the suppression of devotional life, etc. have denigrated the true patrimony of the Latin Church and obscured the intrinsic beauty of her legitimate rites and practices. Too much of the Latin tradition has been compromised and/or scrapped � it needs to be restored � not wholesale, but carefully.

Brendan

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion, particularly on subjective matters like beauty and taste and prose. All in all, however, the Latin reform seemed to be a great and positive acheivement.

Rather than doen by a liturgical committee, it was the culmination of almost a century of the liturgical movement. As I pointed out elsewhere, the conservative elements stood apart from this movement, and that may be a factor as to why, to them, it seemed sudden. But most of the major features, the laity seemed well prepared for and, in fact, anxious for.

The Latins restored the altar was the focal center of the Liturgy, rather than those aweful fireplace mantles. The fuller reading of scripture during the Mass certainly can be called "Protestant", but that, along with more frequent communion and the Holy Week service is one of the great glories of the reform. (I would have no trouble seeing it in our own Liturgy).

The allegation of "abuses" seem more a accusation by certain reactionary elements within the Latin Church than a real, pervasive problem. Again, the worst problems are lazy conservative pastors, not the conduct of the Mass in progressive parishes like Corpus Christi in NYC.

[This message has been edited by Kurt K (edited 08-14-2001).]

>>>
It should be remembered, no one ever composes a Liturgy in archaic language, it simply become archaic over time.<<<

An interesting hypothesis, Kurt, but one I think could be disputed, particularly in regard to the Roman rite. Originally, of course, the Church of Rome celebrated in Greek, not Latin; and by the end of the 4th century, Greek had become so uncommon in Rome that the liturgy was becoming incomprehensible to the people. So Pope Damasus mandated the celebration of the liturgy in Latin (a language apparently in use in the Church of Africa from before the time of Tertullian), thus beginning the process that would see the full development of the classic "Roman rite" as it was known by Pope Gregory the Great.

However, Latin had a certain peculiarity at that time: there was a marked difference between written and the spoken forms. This was due to the fact that only the upper classes were truly literate, and they were educated using classical texts (Ovid, Virgil, Cato, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, etc.) whose style was already antique by the fourth century. On the other hand, the lingua vulgaris, the common tongue, was already well on the way to becoming proto-Romance. This divergence would become more pronounced over time. By the sixth century, classical Latin would have been almost incomprehensible to the ordinary person living in Italia, to say nothing of Gaul, Hispania or Britannia. Yet the Latin of the sixth and seventh century Sacramentaries is of the most pure classical type. Obviously, since the Church was in the hands of the educated upper classes, when they composed prayers for the liturgy, they used the classical forms in which they had been trained. But that severely limited the ability of the people to respond, which may be why the responses in the classical Roman rite are so terse and epigrammatic as compared, say, to the more prolix (and Eastern-derived) Gallic and Celtic rites. Nothing to do with the "noble simplicity" of the Roman rite at all--just a matter of necessity created by the fact that the Roman rite was in fact written in an archaic language.

2. easterns are in no position to obejct to mulitiple Anaphoras."

If the east has a tradition of multiple anaphoras then let them be used. But let me ask the Byzantine Catholics in
this forum if they would like to introduce some freshly composed Anaphoras into the liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom.<<<

The Latin Tradition is not the Eastern Tradition (which itself is many Traditions). The East has always had multiple fixed anaphoric forms; the West has had only ONE anaphora, but that one having a multitude of variable prefaces. The Roman Canon to a great extent defines the outlook of the Roman Church. It is almost exclusively Christological in outlook, which testifies to its antiquity (it predated the pneumatological controversies that divided the East at the time of Basil the Great); it lacks an explicit epiclesis, because it follows the older Tradition that saw the entire Eucharistic prayer from beginning to end as a single consecratory act (this is one of my major beefs against the Western Rite Vicariate--it's Byzantinzation of the Roman Canon is just as bad as the latinization of the Byzantine liturgy among the uniates).

The reformed Roman Missal is an anomaly because it follows neither the Roman nor the Eastern useage. As noted, the West had just one anaphora, the Great Canon; the East had multiple anaphorae, but their use was regulated by the liturgical calendar. In the new Roman rite, the use of the various Eucharistic prayers is left entirely to the discretion of the celebrant--something absolutely sui generis to the reformed Roman rite, and a source of much abuse.

>>>" 3. The Roman canon is commonly used today, to about the same degree any other. Sadly, conservative priests have
the bad habit of announcing the canon being used, which is not part of the Mass and an interuption."

I rarely hear the Roman canon. And I live in a rather conservative diocese.<<<

In this, I believe Edward is absolutely right. The Roman Canon is seldom used, even in the Diocese of Arlington, and even within conservative parishes of the Diocese of Arlington. Which feeds back into my comments above: the Roman Canon is the one Traditional Eucharistic prayer of the Church of Rome; as such, it occupies a unique place in establishing the Latin spiritual and liturgical identity, and its de facto suppression represents a marked departure from, not a restoration of, the Latin Tradition.

>>>Those raggy fiddleback vestments could not have been more abbreviated. The fuller, gothic vestments, which the
conservatives once persecuted progressive priests for wearing, are much more in line with our beatiful Byzantien
vestments."

So, basically what you're saying is that the Byzantine tradition is the norm which we Latins ought to follow. <<<

The fiddleback was an innovation that allowed the priest greater freedom of movement for celebrating the Mass solo. Kurt is correct in stating that the fuller vestments are more in line with the LATIN Tradition. I also think that you are mistaken in accusing Kurt of wanting to Byzantinize the Latin liturgy. I suspect that what Kurt wants is something akin to Elkoization for everyone.

>>>"I have no problem with the free-standing altar so long as the priest remains oriented"

Ed, I hope I am not being presumptive, but no you don't. ORIENTED? We have two, somewhat conflicting traditions in
both the Latin and Greek Church. One is that the priest faces the altar, the center focus of our worship. In the
Byzantine Church, as the priest circles the altar he remains facing it, regardless if he is north, south, east or west.<<<

Celebration ex oriente, or versus apsidem, is the norm in all Apostolic Churches. Remember that while churches are supposed to be "oriented", in point of fact, many are not, but liturgical "East" is the apse end of the building. The priest and the people all face East together, for the Church has always professed ex orientale lux, and Christ is the Light and the Life. In his recent book on liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger notes that versus populum--celebration facing the people--serves to clericalize the liturgy by making the priest, rather than God, the focus of attention. All that has happened in the reform, therefore, is that one form of clericalization (the priest as one-man-band) has been replaced by another (the priest as MC). In reviewing the book for Eastern Churches Journal, Gregory Wolfenden mentions being at a chapel with some Chaldean Catholics, all of whom turned spontaneously to the East when praying, in a room totally devoid of liturgical furnishings. There are, therefore, no divergent or competing "traditions"--there is only one Tradition: that the entire Body of Christ faces East--either geographic or liturgical--when worshiping as a community.

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for your response to my posting. I respect your opinions as always. However, I do disagree with most of them.

I purposefully did not address my comments to any one person. Nor was I addressing the issues raised by only one person. From your comments it appears that you have taken some of my comments, at least, personally and that certainly was not my intent.

I know nothing about your personal spiritual journey and certainly would not make the reasons for it or anything in connection with it the topic or part of the content of any posting here or elsewhere.

In my posting I tried to share what the Latin Liturgy is and what it does in my understanding. If I led you to conclude that I was speaking only of some kind of abstract construct called liturgy, I have communicated poorly and have done our Liturgical practices an injustice.

The Liturgical life of our Church consists of Words and sounds and gestures and symbols and a myriad of concrete elements which attempt to express and make real the incomprehensible in a structure, your tree. The words and the music and the gestures and the sights and the vestments are included in what I was talking about. These are, I assume the leaves of which you speak.

The leaves are part of the tree! The
composite experiences I described in my postings did not happen despite the leaves. It was not some abstract "tree"(liturgy) that I see. The leaves help me; they do not inhibit me or misdirect me. They help me to focus and to be aware of the truth and reality that they describe and convey. The leaves make clear the structure and the meaning and reality that underlies them. Most important is the fact that they are tools used by the Triune One Who lifts us up through the Liturgy.

The value statements of magnificence, awe, and awareness of beauty grew out of my experience with the Latin Liturgies. They did not refer to an abstract construct. They refer to what grew from the concrete reality in its many dimensions that I experience in our Liturgy. In my case the catechesis of the Liturgy worked.

Respectfully, I point out that you do not share the life of the Latin Church. I find great value in the Liturgical life of the Church. You find sadness that its leaves are not more like that of the Orthodox Church. It is this which you choose to highlight. I find sadness in that.

We have discussed before the topic of the organic or lack of organic nature of the renewal of the Liturgy of the Latin Church.
If I am understanding correctly, you are equating the Fathers of Vatican II, including the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Fathers with a committee. If not, then perhaps you refer to the various bishops committees in the conferences around the world. If not them, perhaps you refer to the committees appointed by them to work on plans for implementation of renewal. It is our bishops in union with our Patriarch, not some secretive cabal, who promulgated the renewal.

It is they, not some committee, who approved its implementation each step of the way. It is a messy process, but they are the official teaching organ of our church. In that sense the change is clearly organic.

Having watched the steps of the implementation of the renewal, I can personally verify that it was a slow and careful process. It was this because the emphasis was on protecting the continuity of teaching and practice with the traditions and practices of our Church. The renewal was done to make clearer our Faith and emphasize it in our practices. The modifications were carried out with the direction of our Patriarch and bishops.

We were told that the liturgical renewal was done to clarify the meaning of the liturgy and to make it easier to include the People of God in work of the Church, the Liturgy. This appears to me to be an example of organic growth, too.

The leaves on the tree are carefully nurtured and grown from the tree; they were not pasted to it. We can discuss whether this leaf or that is the healthiest example of leaf, but it is a leaf. It does the job of leaf. The leaf of the maple is not exactly the same as the leaf of the oak, it is not less of a leaf. It is different, but it is still leaf with the same value.

At no point in the discussion above was any negative word presented about the liturgy of any of Church, Eastern or Oriental Catholic or Orthodox or even of other Western Churches or ecclesial bodies. It was not necessary to make comparisons which might be odious.

I find it particularly sad that you find it necessary to discuss the Litrugy of the Latin Church in terms like "inferior." There is no Latin Liturgy besides the current articulations of the Latin Liturgies. They are the ones celebrated in our churches and our abbeys and our convents.

The subtle distinction in your words simply does not exist in reality. Despite your words to the contrary, the reality expressed is that the Latin Liturgy is inferior to the Byzantine Liturgy. What purpose, other than a rhetorical one, does that serve?

I think that it is fair to say that the current liturgical language and some of the liturgical practices of the Latin Church are not to your liking. Our Liturgy does not conform to your liturgical aesthetic.

For you personally the Latin Liturgy is not doing what a liturgy should do. For me personally and for the hierarchy and ISTM most of the people of the Latin Church, the Liturgy of the Latin Church is working and being renewed.

These statements are not colored to discredit the Liturgy under discussion. They simply state your position and mine without adding words loaded with other meanings.

I am glad that you recognize that the process of renewal in the form of correction of abuse is continuing. I find it sad that you equate music that is banal and the type of church architecture in particular places with the totality of organic change in the Latin Liturgy and say so.

I do not say this lightly or in a mean spirit. I am beginning to conclude that the only changes in the Latin Liturgy that could be considered organic, in your view, would be those which would make our liturgy Bzantine.

I conclude this despite the assertion to the contrary in your posting. I think it appropriate that you hold that opinion. Your religious mindset is, of course, Byzantine. It is a most beautiful and most treasured mindset. It is not the only mindset.

I simply disagree. I cannot agree with your assertion that the Latin Church has wandered from from its Patrimony. I believe that the Latin Church has examined that Patrimony and highlighted its teaching and practices from that wellspring. Different perceptions, different words, same reality. Neither demeaning.

In regard to liturgical language or preference for rite, I was merely using the points of view expressed in several posts to illustrate the various viewpoints present in this thread. I was not responding to a particular statement on your part or highlighting a poster.

I think it fair to say that you believe that the current translations of our Liturgical texts from the latin are inaccurate and less than aesthetically pleasing. I think that they are accurate. We would probably agree that they are not the most aesthetically pleasing rendition of liturgical prayer in some aspects, at least not in my opinion.

Brendan, you are a skilled advocate. You are well schooled in the rules and uses of rhetorical tools, of statements made and later retracted for example. You understand, I think, that such statements leave the impression to support a position even if subsequently withdrawn or denied. It is a valuable tool in discourse.

Constructive criticism that is fairly stated and clearly stated is of great value. I have no objection to that.

I do object to the use of words and images which project the Latin Church, Latin Liturgy, and Latin practices as deficient. It is not deficient in its essence or in its ritual incarnation.

There are abuses and these are part of the reason for continuous renewal. They are not a reason to condemn a whole Liturgy IMHO. The particular abuses should not be equated with the totality of the reality.

It is a rhetorical device to use particulars to justify negative or positive statements about the whole. It is a rhetorical tool to use words to attach negative or positive coloration to the whole when particular instances are the source of the coloration.

Infamous, statueless, banal unedifying suppression of devotion are words and terms loaded with multiple layers of negativity. They are apparently drawn from your perception about a number of instances and then used subtly to color the perception of every instance of the thing under discussion and to justify a negative or positive judgement of the whole.

Not all banners are infamous; most Latin Churches have statues; most Latin Liturgical music is at least good; few devotions are prohibited with armed force or coercive power.

IMHO the use of such tools are not constructive! They belittle.

That is sad, IMHO, of course.

I respect your knowledge and insights, Brendan. I read your postings with great interest and I learn much. Thank you for sharing that with me. I disagree with most of your opinions on the Latin Liturgy. I offer my comments on what I percieve to be subtle belitting of that litrugy in your posting with great reluctance in the spirit of constructive criticism.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning or the love.

JOY!








[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-14-2001).]

The Germans have a proverb: "Andere Laender, andere Sitten". (Other Lands; Other Customs)

I am old enough to remember the 'old' Latin liturgy. And I remember kneeling in the pew while the organ played and the priest and acolyte did the dialogue of the Mass. And we said the rosary or followed in the book -- sorta kinda. I also remember the "High Mass" when we sat in the benches and listened to the 'choir' sing the Gregorian chants in response to the priest. I also remember getting smacked upside the head by Sister Mary Valentina when I started to chuckle when the priest was being exceedingly tone deaf. It was 'spiritual'; there was organ music (I'm a sucker for pipe organs); candles, incense and bells. And I said my prayers. It was good, and sometimes VERY good.

After Mass, I went to the Greek Orthodox liturgy. Priest chanting in Greek, psalti responding in those haunting plagal tones. It was 'spiritual'; there was music, candles, incense and bells. It was good, and sometimes VERY good. (But in the Greek church you got to kiss the priest's hand and he gave you some bread and a few nice words.)

Andere Laender; andere Sitten.

My point is: the personal/spiritual value of the liturgical celebration is in direct proportion to the ability of the celebrant to 'stage manage' (wrong term, but I can't think of another) the celebration.

I have also been to some liturgical celebrations in Episcopal churches that were very moving. Apart from the validity of sacraments, etc., the experience was very spiritually uplifting.

The key factor is: the emotional and spiritual effects of liturgy are the direct result of the priest's ability to make use of the sacred texts, the environment of the church building and furnishings, and the musical and artistic resources available.

One can't 'blame' the texts; you can't blame 'contemporary' music; you can't blame the vestments. It is the composite whole of the liturgical action -- including the actions of the people.

AND -- the people have to be educated and prepared for the celebration. Do ANY parishes provide education for the congregants on the liturgical form and -- God help us!! -- the music? Are most priests able to either do this personally or to organize this? Too often, liturgical celebrations are haphazard.

Most priests have more training in Canon Law than they do in liturgics. (Usually, 1/3 of one semester is devoted to 'practice' of the sacraments.) Is it any wonder that the celebrations oftentimes reflect the personal capabilities of the celebrant? If the celebrant has an 'artistic' bent and loves music, then things will go beautifully. If the priest is the typical 'confirmed bachelor' and worse -- if he is tone-deaf -- then we're in deep trouble.


The Byzantine Church is more or less fortunate in having everything "set" in the books. No room for 'interpretation'. In the West, there is room for interpretation, and this has raised the shackles of the 'purists'. Unfortunately, the "Golden Age Theory" has raised its ugly head and has elevated the "old forms" to Golden Age status. Unfortunately, many of the adherents of this perspective never actually lived through the "old forms".

We need a lot more education for our priests (both East and West) and we need to bring them to a 'higher' social and cultural level so that the celebration of the liturgy is not just a pedestrian celebration, but rather the culmination of the best that is available in music, art and theater.

Blessings!

"However, I do disagree with most of them."

That is expected, and accepted.

"it appears that you have taken some of my comments, at least, personally"

Not at all. I do have rather *strong* opinions on this matter, however -- as do you. That is fine.

"Respectfully, I point out that you do not share the life of the Latin Church."

That is true, but I spent almost thirty years in it, including 12 in Catholic schools and several years as a Latin Catholic CCD catechist. I know the Latin liturgy thoroughly -- and not from a book, but from the inside, as a worshipper. I simply do not share your opinions.

"You find sadness that its leaves are not more like that of the Orthodox Church"

What I actually said was that it saddens me that the present form is less like the other liturgies of the church -- including the Orthodox/Byzantine liturgy -- than the older form of the Latin liturgy was. There has been a movement away from the other liturgies of the church decidedly toward the Protestant liturgies. In my opinion, this was a mistake.

"you are equating the Fathers of Vatican II, including the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Fathers with a committee"

No, because the council fathers did not implement the reform -- a post-conciliar committee did. That post-conciliar committee -- and, local dioceses and parishes as well -- mishandled the matter, IMO, and there are countless RCs who agree with me on that. As I wrote above, what happened was a gross misinterpretation of what the council fathers intended, in my opinion.

"I find it particularly sad that you find it necessary to discuss the Litrugy of the Latin Church in terms like "inferior.""

I accept your opinion, but I hold to my statement in that regard, as it was worded.

"I find it sad that you equate music that is banal and the type of church architecture in particular places with the totality of organic change in the Latin Liturgy and say so."

I can only speak from my own experience, which I don't think, fairly, can be construed as limited geographically.

"I am beginning to conclude that the only changes in the Latin Liturgy that could be considered organic, in your view, would be those which would make our liturgy Bzantine."

Honestly, I don't know where you are getting that from. I have taken great pains to state that the Latin Church does not need to be Byzantine, but that it needs to be true to the best of its own tradition -- it needs to be more traditional, in my opinion and in the opinion of millions of Roman Catholics. I think that adopting some of the Byzantinisms such as what has happened was a not so excellent idea, and I have pointed that out above as well. How you can take from my statements that I wish that the Latin Church were more Byzantine in liturgy is frankly puzzling to me.

"I do object to the use of words and images which project the Latin Church, Latin Liturgy, and Latin practices as deficient"

Fair is fair. Dominus Iesus clearly views Orthodoxy as being "deficient" or "lacking". I accept that as the legitimate fruit of Catholic theology, although I am disappointed by it personally. However, I disagree with you regarding the nature of the present Latin rite -- it is quite problematic to me.

"IMHO the use of such tools are not constructive!"

I guess we're going to *strongly* disagree. I can only speak from my own experience -- and that is what informs my opinions. It is not a rhetorical tool as much as it is an honest expression of my opinions based on my own experiences as a Latin Catholic for 30 years.

I understand where you are coming from, but we simply disagree.

Brendan





[This message has been edited by Brendan@Home (edited 08-14-2001).]

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my last posting. I really appreciate the direct statement of position and the recognition that much of what you say is based on your own preferences and opinions. This posting displays the clarity and balance which I have come to value in your writings. I'd like to share a few thoughts in reply.

Your experience of 30 years as a member of the Latin Church is of course a basis for building opinion and for choosing preferences. I recognize that.

In turn I must act from the close to 60 years of my life spent as an active member of the Latin Church in various roles during the pre conciliar, the conciliar, and the post conciliar church. It is the basis for my preferences and opinions and positions. This basis is expanded by my years of seminary education, my contact with periti and bishops who were present at Vatican II and my study of theology and Church history.

Neither your experience nor my experience is geographically expansive enough nor are they temporally long enough to be catholic in the most general meaning of the term. We must depend personally on our lived experience for the time we share life in the Latin Church and our study and prayerful reflection to inform our perceptions and our opinions and our conclusions. It is my belief that for me the historians of the period and the theologians and the bishops of my church are also souces to which I must turn when I form opinions and make conclusions.

I experienced and studied the renewal in all of those periods of the life of the Latin Church mentioned above and simply do not agree with your perceptions and description of what happened. My lived experience and my ongoing study and my prayerful reflection does not allow me to concur.

The purported movement to more Protestant liturgies that you assert, is not in my recollection, a perception supported by the facts of the time. At the time of the council and for a great part of the time during the implementation of the renewal, most protestant churches proudly referred to themselves as non-liturgical churches. They had no liturgy toward which the Latin church could move. The growth of the liturgical Protestant Churches was spurred by their witnessing of the work of the Council and the Church in implementing the renewal.

You repeat your statement, "It saddens me that the present form" (of the Latin Liturgy - words mine) "is less like the other liturgies of the church -including the orthodox/Byzantine liturgy than the older form of the Latin liturgy was." Is there a reason that an authentic Liturgical Action embodying the Faith of the Patrimony and lived experience of the Latin Church should be more like the liturgies of Chruches growing from other Patrimonies?

In your first response you said, "It saddens me deeply, in particular, that the liturgies of the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church have become so different in character, in experience, in nature... because of what was, IMO, the clumsy handling of the Liturgal renewal." These Churches have different patrimonies and lived experiences. It appears to me that differences are expected as a result of both. The supposed clumsy handling of the Liturgical renewal is as you note your opinion.

These statements of yours were what led me to conclude "that the only changes in the latin liturgy that would be organic, in your view, are those which make our liturgy Byzantine." Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you said or drew an unsubstantiated conclusion from what I read.

The renewal was guided after the council and is guided even today in many instances by leaders who were Council fathers and by bishops who were periti. There was and is no committee which ran amuck and operated outside the perview of John Paul II and the synod of bishops or national conferences of bishops. John Paul II and many bishops (as well as some cardinal heads of dicastaries also) were Council Fathers and operate from concern for authentic renewal. This is to the chagrin of some theologians and translators in the Latin Church.

With your experience of ecclesial life in the Latin Church, I honestly cannot understand how you arrived at the determination that some committee absconded with the power to undo the wishes of the Council or of the leaders within our Patriarchate. I know some bishops who would like to know the purported committee's secret.

Of course there are a group of Latin Catholics who agree with you. I know that they love the Latin Church and at least one of its liturgies. The negative opinions of the liturgical renewal expressed by many in this group of Latin Catholics are not the opinions of the vast numbers of Latin Catholics, including our Patriarch and bishops.

Nor, ISTM, are the opinions you express concerning the Latin Liturgy consonant with the opinions and teachings and discipline of the leaders and members of the Latin Church on these issues. Nor should they be.

I have no problem with anyone expressing opinions as long as he or she identifies his or her opinion as opinions not as truth supported by objective data and historical fact. It would help if the reasons underlying the opinion could be shared with the opinion when it is asserted.

I do object and will object when these opinions are used as objective evidence in an arguement to make the liturgical practices and liturgical life of the vast majority of the memebers of the Latin Church appear to be inferior to those of our Sister Churches. This is upsetting when the point to be made can be made with out such odious comparisons.

I think all Latin Catholics, Bishops, priests, religious, monks, nuns, and lay people would agree with your concern for the preservation and authentic liturgical expression of the Patrimony of our Church. At least the ones I have known during my mature lifetime would.

I appreciate that about your position. I (and I believe, they would) however disagree with you about your assessment of the value of the Liturgical expression of that Patrimony. I must cast my lot with my bishop and his brother bishops in union with our Patriarch and my brothers and sisters in Faith.

We hold strong views on the issues we talk about here. Honest expression of differences in the search for the unity behind the differences is important. I will disagree with vigor when I feel that it is important to do so. I will do so in good will and with love and integrity. I know that you will too.

By the way, thank you for your reminder about Dominus Jesus. You are right. Fair is Fair. A similar view of the Latin Church as deficient is shared among many Orthodox. I guess that we are both pained as a result of the teachings of the Churches to which the other belongs. It is sad.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning or the love.

JOY!



[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-15-2001).]

Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I simply disagree with your opinions on this matter.

"Is there a reason that an authentic Liturgical Action embodying the Faith of the Patrimony and lived experience of the Latin Church should be more like the liturgies of Chruches growing from other Patrimonies?"

I think a strong case can be made that the liturgies should be rather similar, with local variations. I think that is the case when one compares the Byzantine liturgy with the Assyrian, the Armenian, the Coptic. All of them are different in some respects, and yet all of them are very similar. It is striking in this regard that the Latin Church, alone among all ritual churches, has chosen to reorient the priest, to adopt contemporary musical forms, etc. The older Latin tradition was distinctively Latin but, in my opinion, in these and other respects, much more similar to the other "apostolic" liturgies than the present version is. In my opinion, that is unfortunate because it widens other differences between us. That is the grain of truth that underlies what Frank Schaeffer wrote, in my opinion.

"Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you said or drew an unsubstantiated conclusion from what I read."

The sense of what I have been saying is that the Latin Church should be more true to its own legitimate traditions -- in my opinion. I have said three times that it should not be Byzantinized. The only way you can draw the conclusion you seem to have drawn is if you equate "traditional" with "Byzantine" -- which would be unfortunate, in my opinion, because I think that the Latin Church at least used to be as traditional as the Byzantine Church is -- in my opinion.

"some committee absconded with the power to undo the wishes of the Council or of the leaders within our Patriarchate"

Some of the most significant changes (such as the orientation of the priest, the use of sacred music, art and architecture, inaccurate translations like the beginning of the Creed, for example) do not appear to have been mandated by the council.

"I do object and will object when these opinions are used as objective evidence in an arguement to make the liturgical practices and liturgical life of the vast majority of the memebers of the Latin Church appear to be inferior to those of our Sister Churches."

I'm sorry if you took offense, because that was not intended, but that is my sincere opinion and I stand by it -- not with joy, but with sadness.

Brendan

Actually Brendan is fairly far off the mark. All one hasto do is pick up one of the "advanced" liturgical studies from the 1950's or even earlier, and you see the basic outline of the Latin liturgical reform already in place. Either these scholars and pastors were evil men practicing the occult with an ability to predict the future, or the liturgical reform was something that developed and not crafted on the back of a napkin by some committee while having lunch at the Casa de Gustibus.

But for the ultimate proof, let me refer to one of the great theologians of the Church -- Stuart. Just as Stuart speaks of the reception of doctrine by the faithful, we must look to the issue of the reception of the liturgical reform by the Latin faithfull.

It seems self-evident that the faithful were well prepared for these reforms and they have been widely accepted. Sure you have little convecticals of whiners, sometimes assembled into pressure groups. But it clear that 90% plus of the Latin laity have received the reforms. While pre-counciliar Masses are not celebrated everywhere, where they are, they are hardly busting at the seams.

K.

>>> I think a strong case can be made that the liturgies should be rather similar, with local variations. I think that is the case
when one compares the Byzantine liturgy with the Assyrian, the Armenian, the Coptic. All of them are different in some
respects, and yet all of them are very similar.<<<

Yet, Brendan, the similarities you cite are all among the Eastern liturgical traditions, which share a common origin and which borrowed extensively from each other. The Byzantine rite, in particular, is a mongrel, having borrowed from the Church of Antioch, the Church of Alexandria, and finally, from the monastic useage of the Church of Jerusalem. One would expect, then great similarities in form and even in substance. To the extent that the Gallic, Mozerabic and Ambrosian rites were all derived from Eastern models, they would also show some similarities.

But the Latin rite, or more properly, the Roman liturgy, developed independently of these and thus, aside from the general "shape" of the liturgy, had a very different "texture". Whereas the Eastern rites are rather prolix and ornate, the Roman rite was rather spartan. While the Eastern rites are typified by multiple fixed anaphorae, the Roman rite had but a single anaphora with multiple variable prefaces. In other words, the Roman rite per se was never all that similar to the Byzantine or other Eastern rites, and much of what similarity there was in the Medieval Roman rite came from its hybridization with the Gallic rites in the 9th-11th centuries.

[This message has been edited by StuartK (edited 08-15-2001).]

No surprise here � I�m with Brendan. The problem is obvious and has been pointed out by others, including Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Michael Davies, Thomas Day, Fr Serge Keleher and yes, Frank Schaeffer.

Davies: �Sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the fact [that most of the innovations forced onto the Roman Rite] are in fact a harsh and even offensive condemnation of the practices of Eastern Christians.�

Day: �[The American Novus Ordo church] and the Ukrainian Catholic church down the street... seem to belong to two different... contradictory religions.�

Keleher: �[The innovations are] a moving away from the Christian East.�

Token Byzantinizations like an epiklesis can�t mask the fact that the mauling of the Roman Rite was Protestantization and secularization.

Yes, other lands, other customs... but analogous customs. All traditional rites have a family resemblance that is obvious.

And of course I agree with Brendan that the solution is not for Romans to turn Byzantine, but rather to restore the traditional Roman Rite, which clearly is of the same faith as the Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Assyrian and Malankara ones.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>