www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latin Rite Post-Vatican II

What are your opinions of the Latin Rite liturgy post Vatian II and what could be done to make it more acceptable from an Eastren standpoint?

Christ is Risen
God Bless
In Jesus and Mary,
David

When I read Sacrosanctum Concilium, I see the Council calling for the Latin Mass to be reformed in the direction of the Eastern liturgies. When I walk into a typical Latin Rite church for Mass, I experience a protestantized service.

In a way the Council ratified the insights of the liturgical movement but the liturgy was reformed by people who either did not understand the liturgical movement or opposed it and consciously sought something different.

For me personally, the greatest mistake of the reform was to provide a vernacular Mass without a suitable system of chant to accompany it.

The liturgical life of the Latin Church needs desperately to be restored and reformed but this will not be accomplished by mandates from Corporate HQ.

It would be helpful to see the following:

1) ad orientem consecration
2) restoration of altar rails
3) more fasting and abstinence at the community level
4) routine chanting of the ordinary of the Mass by the priest and the people, with chanted propers at major celebrations
5) confirmation before first communion
6) a less laissez faire attitude toward sacred music, art and architecture
7) a litany more like the Litany of Peace in the Byzantine Rite versus ad hoc compositions
8) restoration of minor orders of the clergy to perform liturgical ministries
9) exclusive use of the Roman Canon, in particular eliminating masses composed for children
10) parish celebrations of lauds and vespers, possibly combined with discontinuing anticipated Masses
11) restoration of a more traditional offertory

"When I read Sacrosanctum Concilium, I see the Council calling for the Latin Mass to be reformed in the direction of the Eastern liturgies."

No, that was never the intention. Sacrosanctum concilium aimed for the restoration of the authentic Latin Rite as it was known before certain developments in the Middle Ages, most especially the emergence of "private Mass" and the "low Mass". That this might look like a movement towards "Eastern" liturgies is due to the East not having followed the same path as the West, maintaining an older conception of liturgy that is the common patrimony of all the apostolic Churches.

Your eleven helpful steps include some that are pertinent to the liturgy, others which are disciplinary in nature, and one (No.7) which would be the imposition of an "orientalism" upon the Latin rite, since such a fixed litany is not part of the Latin tradition. Exclusive use of the Roman Canon is, I think, of the utmost importance, as most of the Eucharistic Prayers composed for the New Mass are out-and-out innovations. Moreover, historically, the West has had just one anaphora (the Roman Canon) with variable prefaces, as opposed to the East, in which multiple anaphorae are maintained. That some of the new Eucharistic Prayers include an explicit epiclesis is another "orientalism", since the Roman Canon never had one--a sign of its great antiquity, contributing to the Christocentrism of the Roman Mass.

If we believe in unity through diversity, then we have to respect the integrity of all Traditions, even when they differ from our own. Those who know the Tradition of both the Latin and the Eastern Churches should see no need to make one or the other "acceptable" through the importation of alien usage from one to the other. We did not like it when the Latins tried to change our liturgy to make it more "acceptable" to Roman sensibilities; why should we do the same thing to them?

I agree an most of your steps ecept (no. 7) which would not go
and just as clerification what do you mean a traditional offatory ?

David

CR,

The liturgical movement in the Latin Church, begun by Abbott Prosper Gueranger in the 1870s and endorsed by Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII, originally focused on the beauty and doctrinal richness of the Latin Liturgy as it already existed. In the 1950s, there was a branching within the movement, and in the new branch people like Annibale Bugnini began calling for wholesale changes to the existing liturgy, purifying it of all "medieval accretions" and returning to the liturgy of the "Early Church." This branch also favored every innovation in art, architecture and music.

In the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, one can clearly see concessions to both branches, but once Bugnini was put in charge of the Consilium that was to produce the revised liturgical books, there were no more concessions and the second branch was completely in charge.

I have often wondered why Bugnini was put in charge like that, but obviously it has to do with the mystery of Divine Providence ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Post Vatican II liturgy wasn't awful (look at the Missal of 1965).

Post-Bugnini/1968/1969 liturgy is a whole other story.

Alexis

I have in fact been to a number of exemplary Roman Masses celebrated according to the Novus Ordo, in both English and Latin. They featured celebration versus apsidem (which is in fact allowed) as well as chanted prayers and responses, in a totally dignified and reverent atmosphere. One place was St. Catherine of Siena Church in Great Falls, VA, and the other was Brompton Oratory in London.

At the latter the Mass being celebrated in Latin, and some American tourists who came in during the liturgy (Catholics, judging by their actions and demeanor) whispered to each other, "It's so good to see the Old Mass being celebrated again". I did not have the heart to tell them that this was the dreaded "New Mass".

I find this very true among many Roman Catholics. They beleive that the Novus Ordo is just a translation of the Old Mass. Especially, those who were born after the reform and have had no exposure to the Old Mass. They don't realize that the Novus Ordo is a very different Liturgy from the Tridentine Rite Mass.

Prosper Gueranger was no friend on the Christian East!

Fr. Serge

I have been told that the missal of 1970 was published with all the rubrics for the priest to turn and face the people intact, and that these have actually never been removed!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Stuart,

With respect to V2, my comments were more personal impressions than scholarly knowledge. If the liturgical movement wanted to restore the liturgy as it was in 750 AD, I imagine that this would look in some respects closer to the Eastern liturgies.

Yes, the Latin Rite liturgical books permit much that is on my list. The primary issue is liturgical life as it exists in parishes in much of the world. I do believe that this reality is a barrier to unity.

With respect to the "prayer of the faithful" in the NO, my issue is with the fact that the prayer is not fixed with the result that it's content is often problematic or trite. I am not proposing that the Latins incorporate the Litany of Peace although I consider it to be a great treasure. They could do worse than to imitate it.

charles

This cannot be stressed enough. The theology of the Novus Ordo is to bring the faithful into a more active participation of the liturgy, in which they participate with the presider, just as in the Eastern liturgies. The Tridentine Rite placed the role of the laity in a very submissive role, in which they did not participate in very much at all except during the elevation of the consecrated host.

The reforms in the liturgy are meant to return the liturgy back to a more original form that captures the theology to a fuller degree.

In trying to restore the more ancient praxis of the Church, some of the items in this list are later additions to the oldest Traditions.
The earliest euchastic feasts new nothing of these. They were memorial meals that celebrated the breaking of the bread.
I would agree that these would be beneficial to the spiritual life of the community.
It depends upon the Church on a case by case basis. Liturgy is done right when liturgists understand what the liturgical reform calls for. Any liturgical book worth its salt recognizes the boundaries between minimalism and triumphalism when it comes to both liturgy and architecture.
These were later additions, and while this would probably be beneficial, the lack of ordained and the numbers of people available makes this difficult from a practical point of view.
Not quite sure what the problem is with other canons. There are quite a number of them, and there is a risk of having priests doing their own thing. The Roman Canon is very old, and it should have a place of prominence. But again, the Roman canon was a development of the early practice of the Church before the 5th century, in which there were variations.
There is a movement to try to restore lauds and vespers, but there is an inherent problem in Western Catholicism that these are the prayers for the clergy. It’s been that way for so long now (many centuries), it’s hard to get that ship turned around. I think that’s the result of our liturgy being in a language that the common person did not know or understand.
Personally, the only problem I see with the anticipated Mass is that it is sometimes celebrated on Saturday afternoon (the 4 PM Mass). For pastoral reasons this is done. It isn’t perfect, but it has become a way for Catholics to get to Mass, especially when many have to work on weekends. I have a second job with a professional sports team, and there is an Augustinian who is friends with the radio production crew, who says mass on Saturday at 3 PM before the game at the stadium. It isn’t perfect, but it allows many of us to get to Mass when we wouldn’t be able to, because we work all day on Sunday.

I'm sorry--but up through the mid 60's at least in my area of NE, Sunday vespers were regularly celebrated and well attended in Polish parishes, primarily because they were sung in Polish and everyone could sing along--and quite heartily.

A visit to the 4PM "vigil" mass at a local parish church in my town will prove that very few folks there are going to work on a Sunday morning. Yet, it is top grosser in collection and attendance of the 5 weekend masses based on their bulletin figures.

Go figure.

I don't know how one could determine whether these people are or are not working on Sunday. In either case, one can make an appeal for pastoral reasons for continuing this practice. If there is a choice between those people not going to Mass at all or getting them there for the Saturday vigil, then this looks to be a case of oikonomia on the part of the Church. Perhaps it isn't the ideal, but it just a recognition of meeting some people where they are at in their spiritual journey.