www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Why can't the Church change the liturgy as it sees fit?

So many of the topics in this forum seem to be based on the astonishing fact that the Church is making these changes without asking anyone's permission.

Interestingly enough, there's a letter in this month's issue of "The Adoremus Bulletin", a (Roman) Catholic newsletter dedicated to "the restoration of the liturgy".

Seems there's also a new English translation of the Roman Missal coming out soon. "Adoremus" is all for it because it's a more accurate rendition and encourages more use of Latin, Gregorian chant, etc. But one priest wrote an indignatn letter saying, among other things:

To which the "Adoremus" editor responds:

So I'm putting that question to all of you who are upset about the "secrecy" and "lack of communication" re: the upcomining revised Divine Liturgy - why do you expect anything else from the CATHOLIC Church? That's just how they do things!

I suggest a careful reading of Joseph Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy. He makes it clear that the Church does not have the right or the authority to make arbitrary changes in the Liturgy.

If the bishops (meaning the unaccountable "experts") insist on making arbitrary changes, it is not surprising that their victims insist on being consulted.

Fr. Serge

Key word there being "arbitrary." And once again - who makes the ultimate decision, in the Catholic Church, as to whether or not any given change is "arbitrary"?

(Actually, it's Joseph Ratzinger. )

Incidentally, one of the changes the priest in my "Adoremus" example is protesting is the retranslation of "et cum tu spiritu" from "and also with you" (current) to "and with your spirit". This priest feels it's a mistake to mess around with a tradition that's been around for over 40 years.

Dear Theist Gal,

Think of it this way: could the Church change the Bible?

That's almost the status the Liturgy has: it is a theological source, one of the primary ways that the apostolic tradition is transmitted to us. To change it is to risk losing that apostolic tradition, which isn't something the Church possesses as an invisible charism, but is something that is visibly, concretely transmitted through texts, icons, hymns, and liturgy. To change the liturgy is dangerous, and we should be automatically biased against it.

Can the bishops do this? Maybe they can. But that's not the question. Should they? No, I don't think so, and because I believe it to be a bad translation (in fact, it's not a translation, but a new rite), I am bound to oppose it, to tell my bishop what I think, which I have done. Charity demands it.

If it is promulgated, will I obey? Sure. When I am in a Ruthenian church, I will use the liturgy mandated by Bishop John. But, I might not be in a Ruthenian church as often.

No, but it certainly can - and has - changed the way the Bible is translated. (Not to mention the fact that the Church compiled the Bible in the first place, as apologists are always telling Sola Scriptura types.)

And yet the Church can and has changed its liturgies before, and will do so again. (Just ask any SSPXer, who will be happy to explain it to you in great detail.

But I respectfully disagree with you, because I think that *is* the question - can they? If so, then you and I, by choosing to be Catholics, have given them that power and must live with the consequences - good or bad.

And by the way - I agree with you! I *don't* think they should have that power. But it's important to recognize that, at the moment, they do - and it would take a really major revision to the basic structure of the Catholic Church to change that.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, said Heretic Gal. )

Dear TG,

I didn't deny that they could do what they did. Practically, if they do it, they can. But they shouldn't.

Anyway, to continue my analogy briefly, the new revision of the liturgy isn't simply parallel to changing the translation of the bible, but is more like editing the bible, removing some passages and conflating others together.

I always did like your handle, by the way.

Do you know something we don't or have you stopped liking her handle?

I remember coming across her on the internet as "A Theist Gal", and I thought it was funny. I was just taking an opportunity to compliment her for being clever.

Not to worry, Pseudo, I knew Steve P. was joking. (He's a funny guy - kinda cute too! )

But thanks for coming to my defense!

Anyway, re:

I'm not saying this was done with malicious intent or anything, but that's actually been done -- check out the book of Tobit in a Catholic Bible from, say, the 1940s, then read the same book in a Catholic Bible of today. It's the same basic story, but retranslated from a completely different version, and one of my favorite verses ("and the dog came out to meet them, wagging his tail as though he himself had brought the news") is totally gone from today's version. So it does happen.

Certainly the Church can and has altered the Liturgy previously. But the only example I can think of involving the Church authority attempting to do this by a committee is the Nikonian horror - and we all know what the results of that were.

Normally the liturgy changes organically, slowly. Again, read Joseph Ratzinger's book already referred to.

Before someone says "aha! But the Church authority introduced the Ruthenian Recension Liturgy in 1941!" This was done at the request of the hierarchs, and was an attempt at restoration and repristination, not novelty and innovation.

Fr. Serge

Okay, but what is your evidence, other than your own opinion, that the current revision is being done for the sake of "novelty and innovation"? Is that the actual stated purpose?

My evidence is:

a) the ongoing refusal to accept the 1941 Liturgy and give the clergy and faithful a fair chance to become familiar with it, and

b) the text of the recasting, which I provided in my book.

For more details, read the book!

Fr. Serge

Maybe someone would give me a copy of it as a wedding present (ahem! assuming I ever get married ).

I would not dream of advising you as to whether or not you should get married. But if someone gives you a copy of the book, I'm confident that you'll find it worth reading!

Fr Serge

It's threads like this that make Orthodoxy look really good to me.

Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe we have a fidelity to Tradition and its expressions? It bothers me that some people treat the expressions of Faith (Liturgy, disciplines, devotions, etc.) as something to be changed with no concern by the faithful. It is this attitude that has resulted in the disgraceful, inept state of the Roman Church in the present-day.

We could learn something from our "other lung" - the Orthodox Church - in this area. We need to regain respect for the expressions of our Faith and not change them at whim. And if this is opposed to "how things are done in the Catholic Church" - maybe things should be done differently.

God bless,

Adam