www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anyone familiar with "Adoremus?"

+JMJ+

"4) Isn't it true that there are bad liturgics in both camps of the Latin Church (and in our church as well)? Both sides have pros, but both have cons as well!"

I do not beleive that the prevaticanII camp has a bad liturgy. I love the Tridentine liturgy. If you want to talk bad liturgy, I'll be glad to discuss the New Mass. (BTW, the SSPX and SSPV are not a good depiction of the TLM movement.)

Johanam,

I am going to disagree with you, but I hope the fact I disagree will not lead you to confirm your decision to chuck your rite change plans.

As far as I see, the Tridintine Mass as it was practiced in the late 1950's needed to be reformed.

Altars set up against walls, liturgy in a language that people can not actively understand (of course there were people who took the time to learn Latin), 35 minute "low masses" that were whispered while people prayed their rosaries in the pews, priests functioning as deacons at masses... all these things needed to be rectified.

To say the pre-Vatican II mass was perfect ignores the fact that many desired its reform. It was not just "thrust" on them. Unfortunately, the reform went to the other extreme.

If I had been Paul VI, for sure I would have instituted far less changes. I would have left the texts of the Mass as is; I would have put it in the vernacular, moved the altars off walls (but not made the priest face the wrong way), I would ban low masses and institute vernacular gregorian chant, encourage a diaconate, etc. But to say that no reform was needed... I beg to differ.

In many ways our Byzantine liturgy has reached certain stale elements. Being in the vernacular, it really doesn't need an overhaul; but rather a fine tuning. To see what I mean, read "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemmann. Modest changes are in order. But not a "mass"ive change like Paul VI's ordo! Things like psalm verses chanted at the antiphons (lost in many non-Ruthenian parishes), restoration of active congregational singing, encouragement to commune more than 4-6 times a year, etc. etc. etc.

Respectfully yours,

anastasios

+JMJ+

Dear Anastasious:

I wish to respond to your post line by line.

"As far as I see, the Tridintine Mass as it was practiced in the late 1950's needed to be reformed."

I will agree that some tweaking might have been neccessary.

"Altars set up against walls, liturgy in a language that people can not actively understand (of course there were people who took the time to learn Latin), 35 minute "low masses" that were whispered while people prayed their rosaries in the pews, priests functioning as deacons at masses... all these things needed to be rectified."

There is nothing more beutiful and nothing that epitomizes a Latin Rite parish then the High Altar. Somewhat akin to the Iconostasis in the Eastern Rites. Many people could learn Latin but chose not to. At least 2/3 of the Liturgy should be in Latin as this is the universal language of the Latin (thus the name) Rite. Hand Missals with Latin on one side of the page and English on the other were readily available. The Low Mass is a beuitiful celebration of the Liturgy. There are certain prayers that should not be said at every Liturgy. I agree that people should never have prayed the Rosary during the Low Mass. This was a sin on the part of the people not a fault of the Liturgy. The Silent Canon is truly a wonderful thing. For more on the value of the Silent Canon read "The Glories of the Silent Canon" available at http://www.latin-mass-society.org/canon.htm
I agree that priests should not have acted like deacons, although they still are deacons because the ordination to the Diaconate cannot be taken away. They should have offered up the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on a side altar.

"To say the pre-Vatican II mass was perfect ignores the fact that many desired its reform. It was not just "thrust" on them. Unfortunately, the reform went to the other extreme."

To say that the Pian Liturgy needed to be reformed is to ignore the many thousands of people that nearly left the Church because it was reformed. No Earthly Liturgy is a hundred percent perfect, but the New Mass is vastly inferior to the beuty, awe, reverence, and devotion (these four things are lacking at most NO Masses) of the Traditional Latin Mass.

"If I had been Paul VI, for sure I would have instituted far less changes. I would have left the texts of the Mass as is; I would have put it in the vernacular, moved the altars off walls (but not made the priest face the wrong way), I would ban low masses and institute vernacular gregorian chant, encourage a diaconate, etc. But to say that no reform was needed... I beg to differ."

some reform was indeed needed, but these were very minor and did not require the major overhauls of the 1969 Missal which has done more harm then good.

"In many ways our Byzantine liturgy has reached certain stale elements. Being in the vernacular, it really doesn't need an overhaul; but rather a fine tuning. To see what I mean, read "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemmann. Modest changes are in order. But not a "mass"ive change like Paul VI's ordo! Things like psalm verses chanted at the antiphons (lost in many non-Ruthenian parishes), restoration of active congregational singing, encouragement to commune more than 4-6 times a year, etc. etc. etc."

Since I am not a Byzantine Catholic, I cannot comment on the liturgy of that rite. I can only offer my humble opinion of what I saw when I attended a Byzantine Liturgy for the first time. I saw at that point the Byzantine Liturgy as being the best Liturgy I had attended that was not a Traditional Latin Mass. Reverence and Devotion were present.

in the IHM,
Joe Zollars

As I read this thread, I cannot help but saying that the Latin Rite does not whatsoever grip me. I have talkied to Roman Catholics who feel numb during their Mass. Can anyone explain to me this numbness and I wonder if it is due to the Mass? Many have expressed to me that their liturgy does not do anything for them. What could be the probable causes for the thousands who have left their church or simply become numb in mind, body & soul?

+JMJ+

The cause in my humble opinion is the horizontalizim that is so grossly present in the Novus Ordo Mass. No longer does the Mass seek to raise the heart and soul to God, but now the Mass seeks to become a purely social oraganization that no longer beleives in Sacrifice and in Penance and in the neccesity of the Sacraments.

Joe Zollars

Robert,

You say "As I read this thread, I cannot help but saying that the Latin Rite does not whatsoever grip me. I have talkied to Roman Catholics who feel numb during their Mass. Can anyone explain to me this numbness and I wonder if it is due to the Mass? Many have expressed to me that their liturgy does not do anything for them. What could be the probable causes for the thousands who have left their church or simply become numb in mind, body & soul?"

I would venture to guess you feel the cause is that Catholics are without grace. Interestingly enough I have heard the same comments from Orthodox about their liturgy. One gentleman I know splits attendance between his Greek Orthodox parish and a Presbyterian Church becasue "he gets more out of service he can understand" and "feels the same after either service."

How people "feel" or what the liturgy "does for them" is a poor way to judge any liturgy. I was raised Latin and the Latin Rite is beautiful in many ways that are different from the Byzantine. Historically, the Latin Liturgy is more simple and austere though no less solemn. However, at a very early age my heart turned to the Byzantine Church. It spoke a spiritual language that I understood more clearly. However, I feel no reason to denigrate the Latin Church or its liturgy.

My parents and other relatives are Latin. They all love the Novus Order Mass and are quite happy with the reform and they are very conservative and loyal. They have been blessed with good parishes and priest who celebrate properly and reverently. I do sympathize with those who must endure abusive practices. If every parish celebrated as they do on EWTN then their would be no (or very few) Latins upset with the reform like our friend Joe.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Joe,

While I respect those who are attached to the Tridentine Mass, there are some theological underpinnings I see present in some arguements.

The Liturgy should be in the Venacular. This does not mean that some parts can't be done in a Liturgy-only tongue but the majority should be in a language understood by the people. The half and half missal or the people just need to learn a Latin (or Greek or Slavonic) are not solutions nor inline with Christ's commnad. We are to take the Gospel to every nation. To facilitate this, on Pentecost the Apostles were given the Gift of Tongues so all could hear the Gospel in his own language. The Gospel and the Liturgy are one so both need to be in the venacular. The Eastern Church once new this, some still do, and the lAtin Church finally recognized this at Vatican II. Why are so many opposed to one of the really needed reforms? Who are we to contradict the Holy Spirit? The Apostles spoke the language of the people. They didn't expect those they went to to learn Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek.

Low Mass, could there be a more contradictory term? Every Liturgy is nothing less than Heaven on Earth, Christ made real in a unique way to His people. This is why every Eastern Liturgy is sung and uses incense. Liturgy is never high or low it is simply Liturgy. It may be solemnized by additional rituals, but never is it or should it be considered okay to dispense with dignity or say things secretly in order to rush througha "low" Mass. This was often done in pre-Vatican II, as many Latin priests I know attest to it.

Silent prayers. Aside from personal prayers of unworthiness said by the priest in preparation of his aawesome duties, no parayer should ever be said silently, especially the Anaphora. This is nothing but clericalization and has no place in any Church, East or West. How can the priestly people affirm the actions of the priest if they don't hear what they are affirming? This problem exists in both the East and West and I have heard all the weak arguements for secret prayers and I find them all bs. Thankfully, the Byzantine (at least Pittsburgh Metropolia) and Latin Catholic Churches have discarded this clericalization of the past.

Joe I intend no disrespect but the above issues both I and the Church perceive as wrongs that needed righted. Why labor to restore the Tridentine rite which can only have limited success in my opinion because of the above issues. Why not work with Adoremus to reform the current LAtin liturgy to the status we find on EWTN? Surely, I can't beieve you find anything wrong with their liturgy, can you?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I think Lance hits the nail on the head. A major promblem with the NO is that it is rarely executed properly, i.e. the rubrics are often blatently ignored. Part of this is due to clerical laziness. When i read the Latin version of the NO, i did not observe that many difference between it and the Pian Liturgy, other than NO is a simplification of the latter. The overbearing horizantal aspects have little to do with the Liturgy itself, but with the liturgists, whoo seem to know nothing of devotion, piety, ascethetics, and mystery. They tend to want to put on a good show (a "glorified jamboree as one priest put it).

Lance,
I think that there are very few among us who do not believe that some reform of the pre-Vatican II Roman Liturgy was required. Nevertheless, the sweeping changes to the liturgy approved by Pope Paul VI seem to me to be antithetical to the traditional Catholic approach to the Sacred Liturgy. Any reform of the liturgy should have started with the liturgy as it came to us from our Fathers. This is why I think it is important for us in the west to return to the Traditional liturgy, so that a true organic reform can begin to take place.
At the same time, I think we must always be very cautious in criticizing practices that have had the sanction of the Church for centuries. You criticized, for instance, the altar against the wall and the silent canon. The great liturgical scholar, Fr. Joseph Jungmann, writes the following concerning the altar:

"The line of separation between altar and people, between clergy and laity, between those whose duty it was to perform the sacramental action and those who formed the celebrating congregation -- a separation which was always taken for granted as essential to the Church's constitution, and which was never really forgotten -- was now made into a broad line of demarcation, not to say a wall of division. This had its effect even on church architecture. The altar was moved back to the rear wall of the apse."

Now one could argue from this that since the change in the location of the altar was a result of an exaggerated notion of the distinction between clergy and laity, one could rectify the situation by going back to the free-standing altar. Unfortunately, I don't think that the situation was rectified by this move (clericalism of the worst sort still exists in the western church). If anything, the change in the position of the altar has made possible many of the abuses that we have seen in the last 30 years or so. This is not the fault of a free-standing altar of course. But it is all part of a mentality which feels free to make liturgical changes willy-nilly. It is interesting in this regard that the same Fr. Jungmann mentioned above says the following concerning the Eastern Liturgies:

"....And already in Basil the sentiment towards the Eucharist is altered. The pertinent chapter in his Shorter Rule is entitled: 'With what fear...we ought to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.' The same attitude towards the Blessed Sacrament, even aside from the thought of communicating, is noticeable in various parts of the eastern world. It is especially strong in Chrysostom, who time and time again talks about 'the terrible sacrifice,' about the 'shuddering hour' when the mystery is accomplished, and about the 'terrible and awful table.' This attitude left its mark not only on the character of the oriental liturgies, but on the peculiar form of oriental piety. Even Chrysostom gave vent to the complaint that few dared approach the holy table for Communion. The decline in the frequentation of Communion in the East was already remarked by the Latin Fathers of the fourth-fifth century."

As Fr. Jungmann explains, this exaggerated view of the Holy Eucharist came about as a result of a greater emphasis in the East on the Divinity of Christ over His humanity.
Fr. Jungmann goes on to explain the effect all this had on the celebration of the liturgy:

"It is therefore no mere accident that precisely in the Orient the celebration of the mysteries took on an ever greater splendor. The activities at the altar became the object of the awesome gaze and wonder of the assembled congregation. The clergy appear in splendid vestments, lights and incense are introduced into the service, an external ceremonial with bowings and 'proskunesis' is gradually evolved. Forms broaden out, following the pattern set by the Emperor and his highest officials on festive occasions. The bearing of gifts to the altar and, of course, the procession for their distribution in Holy Communion are turned into solemn parades of the clergy, who appeared like the legions of the heavenly spirits.
In addition the line of demarcation between the altar-sanctuary and the people became more and more pronounced. The railings which lay between the two grew higher until at last they became the ikonostasis, the picture wall which fully hides the sanctuary from the gaze of the people. Thus the action at the altar is all the more raised in dignity. It is enveloped in an atmosphere of holy awe."

Should modern Byzantines then get rid of their beautiful ceremonies and tear down the iconostasis because these developments came about as the result of a view of the Sacred Mysteries which kept people from approaching the altar to receive our Lord? I don't think so. And neither do I think this should be the case in the west. Most major developments in the Church have been somewhat lop-sided reactions to the heretical tendencies of some of her members. This doesn't mean that we need to rid ourselves of these developments. We can certainly get our balance back in other ways (good preaching is certainly one way).

With regard to the silent canon, I am non-committal on this. I think it is very beautiful when it is sung. On the other hand, the silent canon has a certain contemplative beauty to it. It is as though we have been taken up into heaven, into the presence of Almighty God and can now only speak in hushed tones. This may seem a rather gratuitous interpretation of the silent canon, but it does truly resonate with me ( I am reminded of the Book of Revelation where there is silence in heaven for half an hour--the silence of adoration, no doubt).

Lastly, with regard to the use of Latin. I generally agree that the vernacular is helpful and good. Vatican II allowed for the use of the vernacular especially in those parts of the Mass that pertain to the people (you wouldn't need the vernacular in the Ordinary since people had come to fully understand the text of the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei, and Sanctus). I see no real problem with that. Nevertheless, I think the use of a liturgical language has its place. Our Lord, no doubt, went to Temple services and celebrated the Passover in Hebrew, which was a dead language in His day.

In Christ,

Ed

Ed,

I have no problem with an altar against the apse and had no criticism of it. Perhaps someone else's post?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Just a comment.

Many of the elements underdiscussion here were discussed at length in a previous thread in East-N-West begun as an examination of some thoughts by Fr. Taft. The discussion took place btc (before the crash)! I do think that the thread contains information about areas such as the meaning of the Novus Ordo, the process of Liturgical renewal in the Latin Church, its relationship to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, and other issues . Various Orthodox posters posted as did as Eastern and Latin Catholic posters present and past. I think that it is worth the read.

The title of the thread was:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal.

It can be accessed by clicking on page 3 at the bottom of the screen containing the contents of East-N-West. Click on the name of the thread to access the postings.

In that thread are some statements of position similar to some being made in this thread about the history and meaning of the Liturgical Renewal in the Latin Church. Some of the statements here are incorrect or misinform. Others misrepresent what the Novus Ordo is about or how it came to be. In my opinion, they are making a second appearance when they have been dealt with already!

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

"I have no problem with an altar against the apse and had no criticism of it. Perhaps someone else's post?"

Sorry Lance. Looking back at the posts, I see that it was Anastasios who made the comment about altars against the apse.

Ed

Lance,

I agree that EWTN is a beutiful Liturgy, but I am not fully satisfied with what is on EWTN. For instance, the Priests on EWTN face the people instead of facing God who is present in the second Person of the most adorable Trinity in the Tabernacle. There are minor liturgical abuses in the Liturgy on EWTN. Certainly nothing like is in my home parish wherre the priest will switch the order willynilly as if he were the pope and could determine the order of the Mass.

I can be satisfied only, at least in terms of the Latin Rite, by a Pian (Although the slang for the PreVatican II Liturgy is Tridentine Mass, the proper name is Pian) Mass. The Pauline (the proper name for the postVatican II Mass) Mass has many signifigant problems.

Even the pope says that those of us who wish to attend the PreVatican II Mass are to be respected by our Bishops and an Indult parish has been ordered for EVERY Latin Rite Diocese in the world.

BTW, has anyone heard of the alleged agreement between the SSJV in Campos Brazil and the Vatican? What I have read so far on the agreement, says that the Vatican has set up a sort of Trad-Diocese in Brazil. If this is true, I will soon be moving to Campos. I will teach myself Portugeese, but I will no longer have to live with the Pauline Mass.

Joe Zollars

Joe,

I do feel for what you are going through. I only attended 2 RC masses last year in America (I did in India as there was no Syriac Orthodox Church close to me).

I will stick by what I said about reforming the Pian Liturgy. But remember that I did say that I would not have overhauled it--like I said, I would have only 1) done away with the silent canon and Low Mass, preferring instead a fully chanted Mass with Gregorian, Mozarabic, or Ambrosian Chant, 2) put the liturgy in the vernacular, and 3) moved the altar out a little, 4) stopped priests from functioning as deacons. Well even #3 is not something I would have done in old churches, but rather just said new churches will be done that way.

On your suggestion that the mass be offered up on a side altar--well I don't agree with that either. One liturgy, on one altar, in one day, under all possible circumstances. The Church is made present through the Eucharist, since the Church is the Body of Christ. We "realize" it in this sacrifice. To make multiple sacrifices on multiple altars either at the same time or at different times destroys this notion. Concelebration of priests, which the Pian liturgy did not allow for, shows the unity of the Eucharistic sacrifice and our unity as a local community being formed around it. This was a good thing of VII in my opinion. But I don't expect you to agree, and the Latin Pian rite is was you are inculturated in, so I don't want to "take that away from you." This is just my observation, so please don't take it like I am trying to say the Pian Mass was bad or you are bad for liking it. I would still take a Pian Mass any day over Pauline.

I agree 100% that priests in the NO should being to face east again. This is the common way for all rites and churches for all time. I remember some "renovators" trying to argue that early latins actually faced towards the people based on St. Peter's first basilica. But that was I belive shown to be a lie as the people would actually face east anyway, even if they were in front of the priest, to watch the sun rise and illuminate the basilica.

To the other poster, whose name I forgot,

I don't advocate tearing down iconostases. I agree with Fr. Schmemmann, however:

Paraphrase: "Icon screens started out as a row of icons to draw the people into fuller participation, that needed a support wall. They instead became a wall of separation that needed icons to decorate the temple."

anastasios

It is very interesting to read what Byzantine Catholics think about the western rites. I would have to agree with Joe's statements 100%. In my experience and in study I find the "tridentine" mass is far superior to that which was formulated after Vatican II.

Anastasios,
I understand why you use the term "Pian Liturgy", however it would be more proper to call it the "Gregorian Liturgy". Pius V did not in any way formulate this mass, instead he codified it for use throughout the West. The "tridentine" mass goes back essentially un-changed to the reign of St. Gregory the Great and should bear his name and not the name of St. Pius V.