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

The following comes from an interesting article by Fr. Robert Taft on eastern & western liturgy. I recommend following the link and reading this article, but for now here is a small excerpt. God bless the Melkites!

This is the intellectual context in which I would like to consider the role of early and eastern liturgy in the Roman rite liturgical reforms carried out under the mandate of Vatican II. Anyone old enough to remember those heady days knows of the role played by the Melkite Catholic bishops at the Council. Courageous, intelligent, innovative leadership was of course not limited to the Melkite bishops.
Two things were, however, peculiar to the Melkites at Vatican II: first, the disproportion between the conciliar leadership they exercised and their numbers--one patriarch and a mere sixteen bishops awash in a Latin sea; second, the truly remarkable imaginative and universal vision they showed.
In addition to being among the first to state categorically that the Council should avoid definitions and condemnations, the list of important items of general import on the Vatican II and postconciliar agenda that the Melkite bishops were the first to propose is simply astonishing: liturgy in the vernacular; eucharistic concelebration and communion under both species in the Latin liturgy; the permanent diaconate; the establishment of what ultimately became the Synod of Bishops held periodically in Rome; the Secretariat (now Pontifical Council) for Christian Unity; new attitudes and a less offensive ecumenical vocabulary in dealing with non-Catholic Christians, especially the Orthodox churches; the recognition and acceptance of eastern Catholic communities for what they are, distinct churches," not just Indian reservations called "rites," an ecclesiology ultimately canonized by the Council documents concerning the eastern Catholic churches.' (2)
The rest is, of course, history.
But it would not have been history had the Council fathers, overwhelmingly Roman, not eastern Catholic bishops, not been receptive to these proposals. How they became so is the result of a long process of maturation, comprising two fundamental phases: a perceived need, and the search for solutions consonant with tradition.
http://praiseofglory.com/taftliturgy.htm

Pax Christi,
John


[This message has been edited by IrishJohn (edited 08-12-2001).]

While I know many Roman Catholics have joined the eastern churches out of displeasure with the liturgical reforms, it has always struck me that much of the reforms are based on wisdom from the east and often with our assitance rather than by accident.

The "crown jewel" of course, of the western liturgical renewal is the restoration of the Holy Week services and thr Great Vigil of Easter. The Mass in the venacular, the free standing altar, the elimiation of private Masses, concelebration, communion in both forms, a fuller Liturgy, pastoral confession, married diaconate, respectable vestments, etc. etc.

K.

Yes and no.

On the one hand, it is clear that *certain* of the reforms made to the Latin rite were apprently "borrowed" from, or at least influenced by, similar practices in the Byzantine rite (among others). That is clear enough, and Kurt is right on target regarding this.

On the other hand, the actual implementation of the reform reveals the problematic nature of that approach when not done in the proper context. In particular, it should be clear enough that what has contributed to the development of a liturgical tradition in one context cannot be very easily borrowed for another context and be expected to function in the same capacity -- the risk is high that the same element will be significantly re-interpreted in a new context, and become something different from what it was intended to be when it was adopted.

Let's take a few examples. The use of the vernacular, which has been common (not ubiquitous) in the Eastern Church for some time, nevertheless led to substantial problems in the Latin Church, which has no vernacular tradition to speak of. The difference lies in the meaning of using the vernacular, and the concomittant different approach to the task of liturgical translation. In the Latin Church, because the switch was accompanied by a host of other changes that *appeared* to be moving in the direction of making liturgy less formal, more open, more people-oriented and "down to earth", the liturgical translations done reflected this perceived trend -- and as a result substantially marred the liturgical language of the Latin Church. The idea of having a vernacular liturgy is a good one, IMO, when based on the idea of comprehensibility of prayer. The problem is that when the translation is done in a manner to reflect a "trend" in liturgics, rather than to express the somewhat austere, simple beauty of the Latin texts of the Latin rite, it goes significantly awry. The context -- namely, a thorough liturgical reform -- lent the act of translation a completely different focus. In the Eastern Churches, translation was, and is, fundamentally a missionary activity -- the idea is to convey the same message in an understandable language. This is to be contrasted with what happened when the Latin Church adopted the vernacular, as was the case with the ICEL translation of the Latin Rite -- and that itself explains the present situation with translations, and why it has worked out so differently in the Latin Church than it has in the Eastern Churches. The context is key -- something that worked very well in one context was approached very differently in another context and worked out rather differently.

There are numerous other examples of this as well -- from ecclesiastical architecture, to liturgical music, etc. -- where the ideas were not necessarily bad, but the execution was, at best, middling if not downright bad, and precisely because the emphasis was, in many corners, on a break with tradition, rather than a fulfillment of it. This was a gross misinterpretation of what was intended by the proposals made at Vatican II -- but because it was wrapped in such a liturgical revolution, the approach taken to these things was itself nothing short of revolutionary, which led to substantial problems. The context of what was happening in the Latin Church at the time led to these similar elements working out in remarkably different ways in different contexts -- and not to the overall benefit of the liturgical experience in the Latin Church, IMO.

Again, to me, this highlights the danger of importing one practice from one rite into another rite of a basically different liturgical tradition -- in many cases, it will have an effect on the latter that is unpredictable, and perhaps undesired. I think this risk is heightened when the changes come as part of a comprehensive liturgical reform package, because this can inform the approach that may be taken regarding implementation of these changes, magnifying the effect of them. I can imagine, for example, that if the liturgy of the Latin Rite had remained rather more similar to what it had been, and the language was simply vernacularized, that the translation used would bear little resemblance to the translation of the reformed rite that was adopted by ICEL.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Your post is remarkable for a number of reasons, but, for me, what is most unique about it is the ingenious way you have linked language with the culture of the Latin liturgies, both old and new.

I think you could not be more correct in your conclusion.

The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition of using an understandable, yet liturgically dignified, language that could reach out to the people is underlined here.

Ultimately, I see this as a collision between the vertical and horizontal approaches to the liturgy. Christ has "bent the Heavens" and has come down to earth as Man, but He is still the Lord of Glory, first and foremost. Language that is bereft of the experiences of awe, glory and wonder serves no one well in the liturgical endeavour.

Why are you so wise, Friend?

Alex

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

K.

"Why are you so wise, Friend?"

Hardly. It's just fresh in my mind because I had the unfortunate necessity to attend a Roman Catholic requiem Mass yesterday(unfortunate not because of the rite, but because of the requiem!), so it's a little fresh in my mind, that's all. I'll also note for the record (hate to cross-reference conversations), that while I refrained from communicating, two persons whom I personally know who are Lutheran and Episcopal, respectively, approached the chalice and communicated, with no further ado.

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

Actually, I think that the Latins compose their own rite in Latin and translate it.

Brendan

Dear Kurt,

You are right.

However, there is a difference, I believe, between a liturgical language and a vernacular language.

The two concepts often get confused in discussions on the subject today.

Cyril and Methodius created a liturgical language for the Slavs that was intended for ALL Slavic peoples of the Byzantine Church.

The Slavs had their dialects and languages then as now. But they used the liturgical language of Church Slavonic which also underwent changes at the local church level nevertheless.

The idea that Cyril and Methodius EVER promoted the "vernacular" in the liturgy is wrong. That does not mean that the vernacular should not be a pastoral goal, only that this was not the intention of the Thessalonian brothers.

The idea of a separate vernacular language for each national/cultural group throughout Europe of either the Latin or Byzantine Churches is a modern one.

Hope you are having a great summer.

Alex

Brendan,

No, I meant "in archaic language" not "in an archaic language.". My point beignthat those who like the prose of of former time should remember that these were prayers written in standard language of their time.

Totally aside, I had heard that contrary to traditionalists who demand the use of "Thees and "Thous" to affirm the majesty and awe of God, these archaic terms were adopted to affirm the familiarness of God. If I understand correctly, like German and Freanch which as familiar and formal usages, English did also at one time with Thee/Thou being the familiar, not the formal. Over time, the familiar was dropped.

K.

Dear Kurt,

I may have misinterpreted you, but the Thee's and Thou's of Shakespearean times was the vernacular then - agreed.

This matter is different from that of the liturgical language construction of Cyril and Methodius' time. It may have been close to the Slavic dialects of the time, but it was a formal liturgical construct intended to withstand the test of time as much as possible, very much like Latin and Greek.

You are too smart to have to deal with someone like me, just ignore this . . .

God bless,

Alex

Kurt wrote:

"The "crown jewel" of course, of the western liturgical renewal is the restoration of the Holy Week services andthr Great Vigil of Easter. The Mass in the venacular, the free standing altar, the elimiation of private Masses, concelebration, communion in both forms, a fuller Liturgy, pastoral confession, married diaconate, respectable vestments, etc. etc."

Some of the changes were undeniably necessary. But to argue as you seem to that what we have now is a "renewed" liturgy flies in the face of the facts. Let's look at what actually happened. The Traditional Roman liturgy was hacked to pieces. The prayers at the foot of the altar were taken out. The Roman Canon (which is the most ancient canon of all those in use today dating back to at least the time of St. Gregory the Great) has become only one of many Anaphoras, some of which were actually composed in our own time. Needless to say the Roman canon is rarely used. While the Vatican Council called for the restoration of the High Mass as the norm and of the singing of Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony, we now have Mass generally recited and accompanied by folk hymns or "rock" hymns with little or no relation to the liturgical texts. The traditional Offertory prayers were gotten rid of "in toto." The Confiteor was drastically altered. You talk about a free-standing altar. I'm not certain what particular advantage you see in it. The main purpose of it now serves in the Latin rite is to allow the priest to say Mass facing the people thereby turning the Holy Sacrifice into a "community" celebration rather than the offering of ourselves in union with Christ to God the Father. You speak of respectable vestments. Just what are you talking about? The polyester ones that are worn today? When I was growing up in the 50's and early 60's, the priest wore beautiful vestments much like those still worn by Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests.
It seems to me that Eastern Catholics seem to have an either/or mentality concerning what has happened in the west. Either we support the liturgical changes or we want to go back to everything as it was pre-Vatican II. I would support what the documents of Vatican II state. But any objective reading of those documents would make very clear to anyone that what we have now in the west is not what the Council envisioned.

Ed

I've never been to a pre-Counciliar Mass. I'll repeat however, what I've heard from others and you can correct me if this is mistaken:

1. Prayers at the foot of the Altar were properly pre-Mass private prayers of the priest, and para-liturgical.

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

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.

4. The Council did not call for the restoration of High Mass, but the principle of progressive solemnization.

5. In the pre-Counciliar period, High Mass and the singing of Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony were not the norm. They were in fact rare and disfavored by liturgical conseratives.

6. folk hymns with little or no relation to the liturgical texts are a Ruthenian invention, not Latin.

7. Those three inch by six feet fireplace mantles pretending to be an altar -- what were they thinking?

8. 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.

9. But the Liturgy IS a community celebration.

Kurt,

You wrote:

6. folk hymns with little or no relation to the liturgical texts are a Ruthenian invention, not Latin.[.b]

Not a challenge. Just a question. How are folk hymns a "Ruthenian invention"? I've never heard that before.

[b]9. But the Liturgy IS a community celebration

Yes, it is a community celebration. It would seem that by facing the congregants the priests is elevating himself above the people and destroying its community sense. I much prefer the priest leading us as a shepherd and facing the altar the same way we do.

Dan Lauffer

"I've never been to a pre-Counciliar Mass. I'll repeat however, what I've heard from others and you can correct me if this is mistaken:

1. Prayers at the foot of the Altar were properly pre-Mass private prayers of the priest, and para-liturgical."

I've heard this argument before. It is wholly unconvincing. The prayers at the foot of the altar are not simply the private prayers of the priest. They involve responses, usually given by the server. These responses could have been made congregational. Here is a sample:

Priest: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Priest: I will go in unto the altar of God.

Server(Congregation): To God who gives joy to my youth.

Priest: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

Server: For Thou, O God, art my strength: why has Thou cast me off? and why go I sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicts me?

etc...

The point here is that, while it is the priest who personally goes up to the altar, we all are represented in his person. Hence, this prayer of preparation is not simply a private prayer.
Perhaps the Ceremony of Preparation in the Byzantine Liturgy which, by the way, includes the silent recitation by the priest of Psalm 50, should also be excised. After all, it's only his private prayer.

"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.


" 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.

" 4. The Council did not call for the restoration of High Mass, but the principle of progressive solemnization."

The term for "High Mass" in Latin is "Missa Solemnis." In fact, the High Mass is sometimes called a Solemn Mass even in English. The High Mass is the norm. The problem is that it involves a priest assisted by a deacon and a subdeacon. In parishes where the clergy were insufficient, the
"Missa Cantata" ("Sung Mass") was to take the place of the High Mass.

" 5. In the pre-Counciliar period, High Mass and the singing of Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony were not the norm. They were in fact rare and disfavored by liturgical conseratives."

But they are favoured by the Vatican Council which states that they should have "pride of place" in the liturgy. I agree with you that things were not great prior to the Council. But things were improving slowly but surely. What occurred after the Council was a break in the progress not an advance.

" 7. Those three inch by six feet fireplace mantles pretending to be an altar -- what were they thinking?"

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

"8. 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.

"9. But the Liturgy IS a community celebration."

I would have to disagree with this. The Liturgy is a Godward celebration in which perfect worship is given to the Father in and through His beloved Son Jesus Christ. There is "koinonia" or communion which takes place in the Liturgy. But this communion with others has Christ at its centre. It is because and to the extent that we are focussed on Him that we find communion with each other. The manner of celebration in most churches in the west today takes the focus off of Christ and places it on the people. Simply ask yourself why most bishops in the west got rid of orientation. Heck, the priest had his back to the people. How rude!

Ed

Dan,

Well, maybe a little bit of an overstatement on my part. I'm sure other groups have folk songs, just not as good as ours! But certainly our people invented on our own (though others may have also) the practice of spontaneously signing folk songs at the opening and closing of Liturgy with no particular emphasis on coordinating it with the Gospel of the Day.

I understand your preference Dan, for the priest's position, but the question always is to do most Roman receive the symbolism the way you do? I think their is a stronger sense of the priest as a member of the community leading it today, than in pre-Counciliar times, when the priest often was viewed as elevated above the people. Certainly the reforms were wise to eliminate elements of court ritual in the Liturgy and episcopal ceremonies.

To Ed, I understand you are not convinced but a lot of other people are, right? The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are a bastardized entrance psalm. They don't have responses is the strict sense; it's a psalm said antiphonally.

If it is meant to represent the priest personally going to the altar, why does the server/congregation share the prayer? It is one prayer/one psalm said by alternate lines, not a "response" by the congregation.

2. I've got no problem with new Anaphoras.

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

YES ED!!!!!!! You have stumbled on to one of the great hidden truths of the Latin Rite. It is the conservative priests like in your diocese who are the laziest and worst liturgists. I think it is because they are stuck in the mind set of "let's fulfill Sunday obligation" rather than "Let's truly celebrate the Eucharist." A minor example (you have your pet peeves, I have mine). every year I look in the paper around Easter for the service schedules. It is the conservative Roman parishes that announce (ugh!) "Easter Vigil: 4:30 PM" (maybe 6:00 if your are lucky, but generally the same time as the regular Saturday evening Mass). The progressive parishes have the Vigil at a more proper time (after dusk, at a minimum). The most recent Roman Mass I attended was at the very liberal St. Joseph's Parish in Washington, DC. Beautiful, solid, meaningful Liturgy. The music, the presidency, homily, was all top rate in a 70 minute service. Much better than the 45 minute "get em in get em out" Mass I once attended on Pentecost Sunday in a right wing parish (principle service, no choir, servers in mis-matched and mis-sized outfits, inane but "pro-magisterial" sermon).

4. "The High Mass is the norm. The problem is that it involves a priest assisted by a deacon and a subdeacon"

Given the Council abolished the office of subdeacon in the Latin Church, you are obviously incorrect that this is the direction the Council gave.

5. "I agree with you that things were not great prior to the Council"

I'm too young to remember and too Greek to be personally involved, but based on my reading, I think you are right. The conservatives in the Latin Church fought tooth and nail all of the developing liturgical reforms put forward in the pre-Counciliar period. They were absolutely cruel to the monks of Solesmes and Maria Laach and the Benedictines here at St. John's and Mt. Savior. They were nasty in their suppression of gothic vestments. They were misguided in their indifference to the congregational Mass. They were gratefully overcome on the issue of frequency of communion and, after much struggle, the restoration of the Holy Week ceremonies.

I am sure today's conservatives are quite regretful that the previous generation was so difficult, obstinent, and moss-backed. Maybe if they had joined in the Liturgical Movement rather than opposed it, things would be different nowadays.

Well, their mistake.

7. "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.

The secondary tradition in the east and now very minor in the west is the eastward direction. Well, Eddie boy, wake up an get out your compass. You Latins haven't been building churches facing east in a long time. If your going to go with the eastward direction over facing the altar (from whatever side) GO FOR IT. If not, quit your yapping.

K.



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