www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Fr. Taft on Liturgical Renewal

This article by Fr. Taft which someone posted in another thread has insights into the liturgical renewal we are about to experience.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009165606/praiseofglory.com/taftliturgy.htm

Here are a couple of interesting quotes:






It appears that Fr. Taft has conflicting principles. Can we actually be rooted in the past and NOT reject modernity? That is the essential question. I suggest that modernity and the authentic tradition of the East are incompatible. The solution to the crisis of modernity is to discover our roots (in authentic liturgy and theology), water them and see if they grow. If not, then we can tweak things to fit modernity.

Christianity a "viable lifestyle"? Now that's a worth a discussion all by itself...

I also found some of his statements about the "reform" (destruction, rather) of the Roman Rite in Fr. Keleher's book really upsetting. I don't have the book with me now, since somebody
borrowed it from me.

Is it just me or does Fr. Taft, S.J. have a penchant for overstatement? I certainly found many kernels of truth in his article, but it seems to me that Fr. Taft is too willing to have strong opinions based on forced dichotomies (high and low Christology, etc.) and sweeping generalizations. The article did remind me how dangerous systematic theologians can be with their use of history.

Of course, Fr. Taft is right that we tend to romanticize the past. But, does that mean we shouldn't aspire toward the ideal, simply because no age has reached it?

Also, what is modernity? "Modernity" is such a generic and nebulous label. There are many things I appreciate about "modernity," if we mean by that, the Lockean/Kantian tradition of natural rights and representative democracy. But, if we mean by "modernity" the secular-atheistic aspirations of modern man, then I hardly think that we need to adapt to them (unless adaptation means resistance).

The problem, it seems to me, is that genuine inculteration of liturgy is something that must occur naturally. It can't occur through a committee. the beauty of the ancient liturgies comes from the fact that they developed out of the life of ancient Christian peoples with properly Christian sensibilities. The current "modernization" experiment with the liturgy, is the attempt to impose consumerist, "rock'n roll" culture onto a stream of tradition that is fundamentally alien. When the values of a culture are greed, murder, selfishness, and atheism, then it is the culture that needs to be changed, not the Church. God bless

Joe

I note that in Fr. Taft's article he refers to one of the founding members of ICEL:



In an address to the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, McManus said:


http://www.adoremus.org/1205NewsViews.html

Joe,

You ask what is modernity? I am glancing at "On the Doctrines of the Modernists" by Pope Pius X. It is a little unnerving to read Fr. Taft's article along side this Encyclical which is available here:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

I can't put my arms around anything in this short time, but I think there is something to be seen in comparing the two.

For the modernist, knowledge is simply phenomena. History becomes, thereby the ultimate "science". This of course makes the historian the wisest of men. Theology is reduced to historical understanding of all phenomena, rather a knowledge of God.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but what I sense when I read something like that is how disconnected that might be from the thoughts or concerns of the average parishioner in regards to the liturgy.

Aside from that, I find statements like this


hard to comprehend. It seemed the Bishop of Parma was saying something similar in regards to the changes to the liturgy in his letter posted recently. I honestly really have to wonder who it is that advocates of this line of thinking are targeting. Who are these people that want an accessible and contemporary liturgy? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who I have ever talked to who has converted to Orthodoxy (and it may be a different type of person that goes that direction) has a completely different viewpoint. It's the fidelity to tradition, and the stark contrast with modernity, that they find attractive.

The only conclusion I can come to is they are gearing this primarily at drawing in disaffected Latin Catholics, or if not disaffected then just those seeking something a little more traditional that what you find in most Latin Rite parishes.

You raised some really good questions (as usual). They in turn re-engaged questions of mine. Are we (that is, the Orthodox-Catholic) reaching people for Christ? Or, are we reaching people who already know Christ but want a deeper knowledge of Him, or a more traditional setting for worship, etc.?

Now, of course, there is nothing wrong with the latter but is it really evangelism? It seems more like spiritual growth/discipleship, etc. But what about the call of the Gospel to reach the unchurched and those who have no faith?

For example, here in the state of Kansas, many scholars estimate that close to 40% of the population have no church home (I know that probably shocks some people). In the classes that I teach, I am shocked at how few young people know the basics of Christianity -- many don't even know what Easter is all about. The vast majority could not tell you what the doctrine of the Trinity means to save their lives (or their souls). I am reminded constantly that a large number of these young people have never been in a Church and have no knowledge of the saving truths of the Gospel.

To make matters worse, for many (most?) of my students, Christians are bigotted, arrogant people who judge others and are quick to send anyone who disagrees with them to hell. (I know this because I have asked them.) (They often seem surprised when they find out how I am and what I believe -- "But you seem so nice," one student said to me in shock "How could you be one of them?")

The mission field of the Church has to be these young people and the thousands upon thousands like them. Are we reaching them with the Gospel? Are we even trying? This is what I am constantly asking myself.

People who are fleeing the NO are not looking for inclusive language.

People who want the church to "step into the 21st century" are not the same people who want a more traditional worship.

I don't see the situation in such contrasting terms. It is certainly better to seek those with no faith and bring them in to the church, but the fact is Protestants of all stripes lack the sacraments (at least beyond baptism from a Catholic standpoint). Some Protestant groups (such as the mainline liberal denominations) besides lacking the Eucharist, Absolution, etc. have adopted gravely sinful ideas as being acceptable. In other words I think it is just about as imperative to bring the "churched" in to the apostolic faith as well. I don't consider that merely spiritual growth.


I know of Orthodox groups that are trying, and I have been surprised to find that a number of young people have responded. It seems to me they are usually as drawn to the traditions of the church as those who come from churched backgrounds. I'm 36, from an unchurched background, and my first real experience with Christianity was in the Orthodox liturgy when I was in college. More can certainly be done, and I don't want to overstate the impact of Orthodox evangelism on younger people (because numerically speaking it probably isn't spectacular), but some success is being had.

I guess it's a matter of outlook. To me, I would think if young people are attracted to faith because it addresses and meshes with modernity, they will probably choose one of the Evangelical Churches. So the risk I guess is you will not attract these people, and at the same time turn off your own people and turn away other people who are interested in tradition. I would be interested to see what the evidence is that the young and unchurched will come in, because that seems like quite a gamble to me.

Wondering


So is it the unchurched that is the target group as seems to be implied above? Is this really the nexus of the reforms?

For an introduction to the religious perspectives of the young people of today, see the NPR stories at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6811573

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june07/religion_01-03.html


Just to clarify: I was not trying to comment on the intent of the translators in my post; I was trying to remind myself (and by virtue of this forum, my brothers and sisters) of the Gospel call to reach out with the Good News of God's Love in Christ to the people of this world who do not know it because they have not heard it -- and, because this is where my heart truly is, especially reminding us of our need to share this news with the young people of today who are truly searching. My comments were related to Fr Taft's comments about "modernity" and the Church's need to speak with clarity and force to modern people. I do think that how we do this is very debatable and good God-loving people can disagree -- but I don't think any of us can disagree that the Church has to speak to the generation in which it lives.

As a historian, I also note with interest that God-loving people throughout the ages have been frequently been tempted to condemn their "modern" world as being graceless, beyond hope, etc. As American historians have noted, this is especially true of religious people in the New World. I share the following as an example of the insights drawn by historians:

"Characterizations of Americans as apathetic, indifferent, or complacent are older than the Republic, of course. Before Jeremiah was a bullfrog, the jeremiad was a staple of Puritan sermons. When drought or disease descended, or when Indians attacked, ministers found evidence that God had withdrawn his favor from "the chosen people" because one or more of them had failed to keep His commandments. In times of prosperity, they rang the alarm bells, too, indicting the inhabitants for forgetting their "errand into the wilderness." Long after Puritans became Yankees, the jeremiad retained its cultural power, invoked by pious prophets and secular reformers, anxious about the state of souls or the fate of a nation. Whether in support of an embargo on imports from Europe during the Revolutionary War, or warnings that the Civil War was divine retribution for the sins of Americans, North and South, the jeremiad became part of the civil religion of the US." See http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access....iterary_history/v015/15.1altschuler.html

Very well put!

Father Taft is an incredibly talented liturgical historian. He knows (and says he doesn't know) anything about fixing cars. That's ok because fixing cars is not his gift. Bob Taft is also not a theologian. Neither is he a pastor of any experience. To state this not an insult. Those are not his best gifts. His best gift is his history.

A Church should not base a liturgical reform based only upon the ideas of historians. Historians often can't see beyond the history books. They attempt to recreate the perfect liturgy by choosing bits of historical practice that appeal to them. That is exactly what is happening with these reforms. The pastoral dimension has been totally ignored. Everywhere these ideas of historians are implemented they are rejected by the faithful. The faithful leave and the liturgical historians blame them for not understand what they are trying to accomplish. The people know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They want none of it.

Nothing really that surprising to me there. Some things that stood out among the individuals that probably represent wider trends are a belief in religious pluralism (i.e. a relativistic view of faith), movement from Catholicism to Evangelicalism, and the "spiritual but not religious" thing.

I still have trouble believing that making the liturgy accessible, gender neutral or engaged with modernity will do anything to attract these people. I would think if that worked, the Episcopalians or Methodists would be reaping the rewards of such a trend. They're not, though. They're steadily declining.

"Married to the spirit of the age, widow to the next"

This brings up a perennail and enigmatic conundrum for any doing evangelical work. I think there is a temptation to empiricize most things down to an either-or, A or B sort of dualistic derivation. I say neither is really separate or totally divorced from the other. Every soul is unique, and responds to the utterances of the Spirit each in a totally independent manner. It would be difficult to draw any hard and fast lines between evangelism and anything else, spiritual growth, discipleship, etc. We are constantly being evangelized and (hopefully) spiritually growing all simultaneously.

Getting to the comment about Kansas, I can only offer my own observations (I've lived here now over half of my life, ever since college). There is a sense of reality here, as well as a sense of transcendence that is seemingly innate, even in the younger people (they often don't know or realize this, but they do indeed have it). Taft makes some comments about the people of Rus' in his essay "Russian Liturgy: Mirror of the Russian Soul" about the physical relation of home and land to the spiritual nous of the people.

I find these to be very much parallel here in the ol' Midwest. After all, we have the same state flower as the national flower of Ukraine... Seriously, living in a wider and vast land does influence the spiritual aspect.

The sense of reality also is innate - even college-age kids want something real, and something solid. While their lives are turblent whirlpools, they usually want something in terms of worship and spiritual environment that is peaceful, but solid, consistent, and objective. Even those who have never been churched have those innate tendencies, and often these make ferocious (I use that in a positive sense) converts - and very often disposed towards a more traditional observance of their faith.

When I taught at an SSPX school, I would say perhaps as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of the families were not RC at all before coming to the SSPX - and the great majority of these converts, with few exceptions, were college-age or just beginning new families. Sure there were many fleeing the Novus Ordo, but that was not anywhere near the only prompting for those coming to the school or the Masses. While I disagree with many aspects of the SSPX I can't overlook the factual. I keep in touch with the ROCOR ponomar in Kansas City at their little mission; as I recall only one of their families in the entire mission is cradle Orthodox. In teaching my classes on Eastern Christianity in the RCIA, I am not dealing with those who have been in the Church for very long (they aren't even Catholic yet) but I see the yearning for that objective truth, the reality, the thing that is solid.

In the 1970s the Roman Rite had every opportunity to be relevant to the kids - music, liturgy, it was all there, all modernized, all accessible. It did not work very well - in fact there was quite a large exodus out of the Church. Now those dioceses and religious orders that have recent growth in vocations are largely those that would be considered "conservative" or "traditional".

At some point, mass inculturation has to be balanced with fidelity and integrity of the mother tradition. Again, where that point is, is not clear. But in "reaching out" as those involved in evangelism we always have to also be "lifting up" at the same time.

Excellent point and very well expressed! Thanks!

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

"In the 1970s the Roman Rite had every opportunity to be relevant to the kids - music, liturgy, it was all there, all modernized, all accessible. It did not work very well - in fact there was quite a large exodus out of the Church. Now those dioceses and religious orders that have recent growth in vocations are largely those that would be considered "conservative" or "traditional".

At some point, mass inculturation has to be balanced with fidelity and integrity of the mother tradition. Again, where that point is, is not clear. But in "reaching out" as those involved in evangelism we always have to also be "lifting up" at the same time."

But was it relevant? As a person who grew up in 70's and 80's I don't think those who thought they were relevant were relevant at all. They were stuck in the 60s and tried and continue to try and perpetuate it. Thankfully, I grew up in a Benedictine parish staffed with old timers and was spared all but the Glory & Praise hymnal and even that was relegated to the one guitar Mass.

On the otherhand honest efforts at relevance that most here would agree with, like Mass in the vernacular and the people responding to the priest rather than just the server, are denounced as vociferously as are true abuses by those opposed to any change, like the SSPX.

Fr. Deacon Lance