www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Protected Eastern Catholicism....

...from all the bizarre and often Godless innovations that crept into so many Latin Rite churches, beginning in the 1960's ?

And whatever the answer, I think it has to take into account this phenomenon worldwide, and not just in the U.S.

Alexis

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this but I'll provide a few thoughts, having sang for each of the three sides (1970 missal, 1963 missal, "Byzantine" Rite) for several years.

I think liturgy follows (and is reflective of) our faith. The liturgies (the full cycle) are the whole Church's prayer and praise to God. The books are just the cookbooks; the results of how we assemble (or innovate on) the ingredients therein either creates something that nourishes us or creates something unpalatable. If I can't practice the arts of silence and watchfulness when I sing, I'm not praying propery and as many spiritual fathers will tell you, my prayer is (frighteningly!) useless.

The prayer of the chuch, our praise of God, the liturgical cycle is our re-participation in the events of the Incarnation through Pentecost, which presents the assembly of believers- the Church, the Apostles, the women, the 70, and the other various hangers on - as a liturgical community, praying together, participating in the breaking of the bread and the other sacraments.

The Church continues this today. From our life of worship to God which we cook from these liturgical "cookbooks" comes our theology, it is the leaven which deifies us and from which our love and charity grow. Without these, our work is merely human virtue - which is often great, but which is still limited and is not reflective of Christ's destruction of the power of death, his imminent return and the new life He gives us.

So, how we pray, why we pray, what we pray is intimately involved in what we believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi as they say.

I think many parts of the Latin Church lost much of this at some point (perhaps in the 1700s, perhaps earlier). This is what spurred the liturgical movement of the 1800s onwards, an attempt to find and bring this back in the context of a greater renewal of patristic theology of the same time (proabably partially influenced by Orthodoxy's rediscovery of itself at the same time). We had in some quarters of the Latin Church (but by NO means all) a seperation of theology to its own philosophical system, and good works to something of its own, and liturgy reduced to a sacramental delivery system which also serves as an outlet for popular devotion, and on top of that extra-liturgical devotions serving as a replacement for the individualized Office.

I personally believe that the seeds of "liturgical renewal", though needed in the 1970s Latin Church, were not there in the majority of parishes, and much of the Latin Church not only had divided things into the categories I just described, but also had stopped believing in that system, and only stayed with that system because it was imposed. So once it disappeared.... the 70s took over. And that's what we're left with in many places.

Three factors among (probably) many others kept this out of the "Byzantine" Churches:

1. the fact that their history, culture and development is mostly completely seperate from the Latin Rite; only in places where Latin concepts and methods took strong power do we have these kinds of problems.

2. conservativism: if you play with the liturgy, my impression is that the "Easterners" will be more vociferous than most Latins were. This can be for good reason, but it also can be bad (i.e. a parish does liturgies without any understanding of why or what that particular liturgy means, beyond "that's what we've always done").

3. the renewal of Orthodox theology since the 1800s. Much of these questions were addressed by various groups of Orthodox clergy (the Kollyvades, the Optina elders, even the Paris school theologians) beforehand and their influence, in my view, has given many (but not all!) quarters of both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches a strong understanding of the role of liturgy.

Anyway, a 20 minute answer to a question better addressed by a book, written by someone far more qualified than I (Alexander Schmemann's "Great Lent" is one of many books I'd recommend that touches on these questions).

I think you can credit different rites (not just different liturgical books but different canon law), and Rome dealing relatively fairly and respectfully with those churches, for this, which is why they've been a sturdy Catholic [home.comcast.net] refuge for 40 years, which has even saved/revived a few parishes. For centuries Rome has told them not to latinise and 40 years ago it kept its word and didn't ram something Novus Ordo-like down their throats.

Is there a better way to word this question or deal with this topic than pointing out or alluding to the problems other Catholics have had?

Looking at different situations to compare, would any of us feel comfortable or happy about a Roman pointing at us and saying "Now how did we avoid becoming THAT!?!?"?

Personally I see a parallel with the fact that most Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora were very ethnic, while many of the more ethnic RC Churches in America were resistant to liberalizations. I know that's only part of it though and I'm still looking for a more profound answer.

I take offense at this uncharitable characterization of the Latin Church post-Vatican II. Admittedly there have been abuses in the implimentation of the directives of the Council but I don't think a broad-brush statement like this is either accurate or charitable. This is not a forum for disgruntled people to take pot shots at others. In charity, one commiserates with the faithful who have been scandalized by some of the irreverent behavior and wrong theories that have produced some of the behaviors that might upset others, but one does not pompously make such uncharitable statements about the practices of another Apostolic Church or any ecclesial community for that matter.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob

It was not a broad brush statement, I never said all or most, but "so many churches". I don't see how that was an inaccurate statement. Without going into detail, I think it's fairly common knowledge that alot of unusual innovations found there way into the Roman Catholic mass at that time, and my only question was, what prevented it from happening in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Lawrence,

Bluntly, our people left our church to join those "innovations." So those who remain are either active or passive preservists. Perhaps "preservists" is a poor choice of words; shall we say they keep the Church conservative and are spiritually comfortably nourished.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Perhaps the most innocuous way I could rephrase the question, would be to ask, How did the Eastern Churches keep modern innovations out ?

Certainly not attacking Roman Catholicism, since that's what I am myself.

I think Eastern Christians in general may perhaps have the faith more internalized from the rich liturgical tradition, sort of an embodiment of the received tradition of lex orandi which adds to this natural tendency to be "conservative" for lack of a better term. They may not be able to give a detailed polemic theological response, but they can sing to you beautiful liturgical hymns from memory.

In the UGCC we have parishes firmly holding to the Julian Calendar, and like it or not those people see the entirety of the received tradition (including the calendar) as important and worth defending. I would think it doubtful that wholescale liturgical innovation will succeed in that sort of environment.

"Bizzare and Godless" is beyond common charity. Yes, much of what has occurred in the Latin Church (especially regarding Liturgy) was not good theology. The Roman Catholics are rightly working to correct that with what has been called the "Reform of the Reform". Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)'s book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" gives good insight into this issue.

I apologize to anyone who was offended by the words I used to describe the changes.