www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News SSPX and the Eastern Catholic Churches

Dear Mike,

We must always remember our rites . . .

But are these monastic liturgical thing-a-ma-jiggers really "Uses" or "variants" of the Roman Rite rather than "Rites?"

Just wondering . . .

Alex

Justin,

Like you, I am too young to ever been exposed to the Tridentine Liturgy as the standard expression of the Catholic faith. Various thought are expressed as to the virtues and shortcomings of both forms. Obviously, it is very hard for us to truly evaluate this without the experience.

However, I think a serious study of the Roman liturgical reform would show it was not only a long, developed movement, but it borrowed heavily from eastern sensibilities. The late Catholic Patriarch of Anitoch made that point on many occassions. My Orthodox pastor tells me he was never so consulted with by Catholics priests as during the Council.

Concelebration, Vigil Mass and particularly the Great Paschal Vigil, the liturgical use of true deacons, conciliarity, venacular worship, communion in both forms, free standing altars, married clergy (at least deacons!), monastic renewal, Mass with a community, the list goes on.

None of these 'gifts from the East' to the Latin liturgical renewal should be discounted, though certain arguable virtues of the former Mass may exist as well. In no other western liturgical reform had their been the awarness of the principles of the East as in the most recent. One simply needs to look at the sale of popular books on liturgical renewal during the 1950's, far exceeding any possible clerical and scholarly audience. Trent, which had many virtues, but clearly was less "organic" and had less education of the laity.

The great Catholic liturgical renewalist, Pius Parsch (1884 - 1954) was a military chaplin for the Kaiser's army. While in Russia, he expirenced the Orthodox liturgy which he found "transforming". After the war, he founded the "liturgical community" of St. Gertrud and devoted himself to the "people's liturgy", stressing the participation of the laity. After much Vatican opposition, he was allowed to publish a German-Latin Missal (previously prohibited).

Even Gregorian Chant, my young friend, is not Tridentine, BUT part of the Roman liturgical renewal. It had been totally forgotten until it was re-popularized by the monks of Solesmes in France in the 19th century (and the discovery of a document in 1847 explainig the notes and tones. We still are not quite sure we sing it the same ways as in the Middle Ages, as we have no unbroken tradition). This actually was the begining of the litugical reform! It was considered very radical and opposed by many. By 1856, the monks were still using a "cut and paste" book to sign from, as no published book existed. By the 1860's, Solesmes had prepared a Gregorian Gradual, but waited until 1880 before Rome allowed its publication. In 1903, Pius X finally approved Gregorian Chant for the whole Latin Church.

I can recommend some books if you are interested in learning more.

In the friendship of Christ,

Axios

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

If what you say is true, wouldn't these be "Easternizations" in the Latin Church? And if so, how would they be different from the ever bemoaned "Latinzations" of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

All one really needs to do is compare the texts of the Novus Ordo Missal and the Traditiional Missal and they can decide which one is more rich in Latin Catholic theology, which is more glorifying to God, which emphacizes Mass as sacrifice.

Good post though.

In Jesu et Maria,
Justin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gregorian:
[QB]>>>If what you say is true, wouldn't these be "Easternizations" in the Latin Church? And if so, how would they be different from the ever bemoaned "Latinzations" of the Eastern Catholic Churches?<<<

Yes, they are. One of the problems with the 1970 Rite of the Latin Church is that it syncretistically abandoned the the organic liturgical tradition of the Latin Church, which has ALWAYS been to have but one anaphora, or Eucharistic prayer, the Great Canon. Also, lack an explicit epiclesis in the old Latin rite was not the result of its deletion (as some Orthodox zealots and misguided Latin liturgists like to think), but simply because it NEVER had one. The Canon was so old (middle 4th century, probably in a Greek original) that it missed out on the pneumatological controversies that led to an explicit epiclesis in the later Eastern liturgies like Basil and Chrysostom. As I noted elsewhere, the oldest liturgies tend to have much more generalized epicleses, and the lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite, with its concomitant Christological focus, is merely testimony to its antiquity. For this reason, I deeply resent the inclusion of an epiclesis in the liturgical recensions of the Latin Rite Orthodox, and especially the attempts of its apologists to justify it by postulating the removal of said epiclesis by the Latin Church. That's on par with the medieval Latins insisting that the Greeks removed the Filioque from the original text of the Creed.

For all that, there are organic "Easternism" in the Latin rite, the result of the 10th century merger of the Old Roman Rite (the one known to Gregory the Great) with the Gallic rites (which were of Eastern origin) in order to create the hybrid Romano-Frankish rite. This was adopted in all the Frankish lands because the semi-barbarous Franks found the pristine Roman rite (imposed by Charlemagne in his domains) to be, well, colorless and boring. They like the pomp and prolixness of the Gallic rite, and elements of the latter soon began to infiltrate the Roman rite as used by the Franks.

Meanwhile, the Old Roman Rite died out in Rome and its suburbicanian dioceses because of the 10th century decadence of the papacy. When the Gregorian reformers came "over the mountains" in the 11th century, they brought their hybrid rite with them, and it became the basis for the medieval Roman liturgy, which in turn begat the Tridentine rite.

>>All one really needs to do is compare the texts of the Novus Ordo Missal and the Traditiional Missal and they can decide which one is more rich in Latin Catholic theology, which is more glorifying to God, which emphacizes Mass as sacrifice.<<<

For all that, the Tridentine rite is deeply defective, because it encapsulates some of the worst liturgical abuses of the medieval Latin Church--abuses which totally contradict the liturgical understanding of the Fathers, both East AND West. Undoubtedly the proper approach for the Vatican II liturgical commission to take would have been a total reform of the Tridentine rite. That would have required the restoration of the roles of the people and the deacon; removal of a number of late excressences and restoration of some things which appear to have dropped out; use of the vernacular; suppression of the "Low Mass" and of private celebration by the priest alone; and a reform of liturgical music (including the arrangement of the Gregorian chant repertoire for English and other vernacular languages).

Instead, the Commission chose to "go back to the sources", but many of its assumptions appear to have been deeply flawed, and there was another agenda (cf., Aidan Nichols, "Looking at the Liturgy", and Serge Kelleher, "What Happened to the Liturgical Movement"). As a result, the Missal produced by the commission and widely used by the Latin Church today is an "artifact", not really connected organically to Latin liturgical tradition except in an intellectual sort of way.

So, the problem is that both the old and new Roman rites need continued renewal, but partisans on each side refuse to recognize this fact, or to concede that liturgical renewal is a constant, ongoing requirement for all rites if they are to retain a proper liturgical consciousness and avoid falling into ritualism.

Dear Stuart,

I would love to have a separate place for commentaries, such as yours, on liturgics!

Perhaps you could try and bend the Administrator's ear with some of your Miltonian magniloquence in this respect?

The issue of the ongoing ritual development you raised is an important one.

If the Latin Church, NO or Tridentine Rites, is against such development and reform, what can be said of our dear Eastern "resist-to-the-death-every-last-change" churchmen and liturgists?

For now, I was wondering if you could comment on a point that you've made frequently having to do with being guided by the Fathers and the early Church in liturgical reform and development.

In order to follow through with this, must we not need some sort of interpretive framework that lays bare some basic principles here?

How does one arrive at them?

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Stuart,

>>>If the Latin Church, NO or Tridentine Rites, is against such development and reform, what can be said of our dear Eastern "resist-to-the-death-every-last-change" churchmen and liturgists?<<<

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living", in the words of Jaroslav Pelikan. Liturgy being the most perfect expression of the Church's sense of self and of what it believes, it must like the Church constantly be subjected to a process of metanoia. Not everything that we do is in fact really "Tradition". Much is later accretion and some of that is due to false understandings or reactions to culturally and temporally contingent issues. Always we must refer back to the Fathers and their understanding of what liturgy is and does--not, as Fr. Taft tells us, so that we can engage in blind imitation, but so that we can see if what we are doing now is in fact consistent with the faith that we received from the Apostles through the Fathers. And where we have strayed, we must go back. Two perfect example of that would be congregational singing and the chanting of the prayers of the Anaphora aloud by the priest. I have heard Orthodox Traditionalists condemn the former as a latinization--which in fact absolutely reverses the truth: congregational singing was the norm in Orthodox Churches through the 15th century (17th century in Russia) and it was the introduction of complex Italiante polyphony that caused its decline and eventual demise (except among the poor, unenlightened Carpatho-Rusyn, who never got the word, and thus retained their beloved Prostopinje unchanged). As for the Prayers of the Anaphora, it is clear from an examination of the ancient liturgical texts that they were indeed originally read aloud, and that this practice began to fall into desuetude in the 6th century, when Justinian legislated against it. That prayers began to be recited silently reflected the development of an extreme clericalization of the liturgy, always a distortion when one considers what liturgy means. And thus, the restoration of the practice of reciting the Anaphora aloud is not an innovation, as many Orthodox traditionalists insist, but a restoration of an ancient practice with profound theological and liturgical justifications.

>>>For now, I was wondering if you could comment on a point that you've made frequently having to do with being guided by the Fathers and the early Church in liturgical reform and development.

In order to follow through with this, must we not need some sort of interpretive framework that lays bare some basic principles here?

How does one arrive at them?<<<

I believe that Father Robert Taft has enumerated these in many of his essays and books. Far be it from me to trespass on his prerogatives. But there is now a column in Eastern Churches Journal in which he answers questions such as that, and I think it would be a very wonderful thing for you to submit it for his response.

Dear George-Stuart,

I will definitely do that and will get a subscription to that learned journal together with back issues.

I attended a lecture by Fr. Taft and, in an all too brief conversation with him afterwards, mentioned your name to him.

You are well known and well respected.

And that's just by me. Fr. Taft respects you too!

Alex

I have always been told that Vigil Divine Liturgies are a latinzation but here Axios says that the Vigil Mass is an "Easternization" as Justin would put it.

So whats with this?

David

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear David,

First of all, thank you for you know what!!

Fr. Taft also writes about the Vigil and its place in both East and West.

He decries (which Stuart is also known to do at times ) the jettisoning of the Vigil in the modern Latin Rite, especially when it comes to the funeral liturgy.

The Vigil services, whether done in conjunction with the Divine Praises or Horologion, or the Divine Liturgy, is truly Eastern.

The All-Night service often involved the recitation of the entire Book of Psalms and this is still done in Vigil-like fashion in many monasteries, including the Divine Liturgy.

Thank you for your gracious kindness, charity and overwhelming amicability!!

Alex

David,

Prior to VC2, Masses other than in the morning were prohibited. East and West have a common patrimony, which is a gift to us from the Jews, of starting the Day of Our Lord on Saturday evening. The Council reminded the Latin Church of this tradition (never denied, just short of forgotten). Clearly, the Latin Church still has a way to go. I have personally begged some conservative priests to stop advertizing (and celebrating) their Saturday evening Masses as if this was some 'concession' ("Fullfills Sunday Obligation!"). It should be, as some more liturgically advanced RC parishes tell you, an evening, Vigil celebration. Note -- it also should not be celebrated before twilight).


Yes, Justin, an out and out easternization would be inappropritate. It might be better said these were all matters shared in the patrimony of east and west but which the West had abandoned over time. The East gave the West a living example of these practices.

I want to stress the importance of living examples. I don't think you can simply compare texts of liturgies. For you and I who have not participated in the former Latin liturgy, reading the text is not really adequate. This is the cotnribution the East made. The west could have (and did) read books about practices they once had, but we have them living examples. For a pastoral church, this is key.

From my understanding and what Alex said, I believe that it is Vigil Vespers that should be celebrated on Saturday evenings, not a Divine Liturgy.

Vigil Divine Liturgies are improper for our tradition.

Going on to what Axios said;


I do not know where he is attending these Vigil Masses but they are "billed" as fulfilling one's Sunday Obligation here.

And I must disagree that any RC parish would call it an evening vigil celebration when it is exactly the same Mass as is done on Sunday morning. It is no different at all.


David

I've had that experience with Tridentines, some of them can be a bit reactionary, but that's because many people think that the Traditionalist Movement is just related to liturgy, and the tridentines defend a complete philosphy, a religious life. They also defend the Divine Office (supressed in the new mass).

A relative told me that she attended mass in a Traditionalist parish and she said that the priest said lots of things to her and embarrased her in front of all the people there (and at that time she was 75).

The fact is that despite the wonderful things of the Latin Rite, people here seem to be very happy with the new mass and it's liberal things. My mother loves to go to the church and the mass with instruments, folk music, dancing...

The fact is that most catholics prefer the New Mass, but Bishops should try to be more generous with the Traditionalist minority.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:
[QB]>>>I've had that experience with Tridentines, some of them can be a bit reactionary, but that's because many people think that the Traditionalist Movement is just related to liturgy, and the tridentines defend a complete philosphy, a religious life.<<<

Unfortunately, it's a way of life completely hostile to the notion of the Catholic Church as a communion of Churches, and thus to the ecclesial reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Moreover, they really ARE "traditionalists" in the strict sense of the word--they are wedded to a particular ritual, stuck in a particular time. For them, the Church is the Church of 1950, not the Church of 1650, 1550, 1050, or 550. Their understanding of their own legitimate Tradition is shallow at best, and their understanding of the very concept of Tradition as we understand it is nil.

>>>They also defend the Divine Office (supressed in the new mass).<<<

Actually, that's not true at all. Under the Tridentine regime, the Office was reduced to a private prayer book, mainly for clergy and religious (and some of the more devout "lay people"), but it was hardly ever celebrated liturgically. Sacrosanctum concilium called for the restoration of the Divine Praises, or Liturgy of the Hour, or the Holy Office (whatever!) as part of the liturgical patrimony of the entire Latin Church. The Liturgical Instruction for the Latin Church calls for the restoration of the Hours as a liturgical service, but in this, as in so much of the Vatican II reform, all talk, no action.

>>>A relative told me that she attended mass in a Traditionalist parish and she said that the priest said lots of things to her and embarrased her in front of all the people there (and at that time she was 75).<<<

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Good thing none of these folks were around when that woman was taken in adultery. Lots of people seem to think they are without sin.

>>>The fact is that despite the wonderful things of the Latin Rite, people here seem to be very happy with the new mass and it's liberal things.<<<

As I said, the real problem is that people on both sides have drawn lines in the sand, and refuse to admit that either rite may be in need of further reform.

>>>My mother loves to go to the church and the mass with instruments, folk music, dancing...<<<

Ewww. Icky. But, chac'un a son gout.

>>>The fact is that most catholics prefer the New Mass, but Bishops should try to be more generous with the Traditionalist minority.<<<

The ones who do, often do so to ghettoize the pain-in-the-butt traditionalists, without whose intereference the bishops have free reign to do all sorts of liturgical naughtiness. In the Diocese of Arlington, the late Bishop Keating refused to issue the indult, a policy followed by his successor, Bishop Paul Loverde. As a result, these people tend to stay where they are, and provide a leavening to the parish mix. Thus, in Arlington, one can find the Novus Ordo celebrated quite nicely, according to the rubrics in almost all cases, and in some parishes, you can even find it celebrated in Latin and with the priest versus apsidem. On the other hand, the ga-ga Kumbayah types have been isolated in a couple of parishes in Arlington and Alexandria, where they can do all sorts of feel-good things without being a danger to others.

For those really interested in the Ancient Roman Mass I would suggest checking out www.unavoce.org/ [unavoce.org]

Also, two of the very best books on the Roman Mass are...
1.The Mass- A study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortescue.
2.The Reform of the Roman Liturgy By Msgr. Klaus Gamber