www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Liturgy to be freed?

Alex,
How did they worship in the catacombs? Did the priest face the people? Or, in homes, before churches were built?
I know for the Our Father the faithful raised their hands, which many NO churches do today.
I'm sorry, but I am rather ignorant in these matters.
A` Bientot, Wolfgang

Daer Wolfgang,

As am I, Big Guy!

Raising one's arms in prayer is something that is done in the East and especially by Eastern Christian monastics. Rather than lift up our arms for all to see, it is better to do this in more modest fashion etc.

It would indeed seem from images carved in the catacombs that the normal Christian position for prayer was the lifting up of one's arms - as Tertullian also wrote.

But the entire argument about going back to the Early Church's liturgy - really?

The Apostolic Church of Jerusalem attended the services of the Jewish Temple and observed the Judaic traditions, including circumcision.

When St James was martyred, let's recall that he was so esteemed by the Jewish community in Jerusalem that they actually thought he was a Jew - and a very pious one at that.

They put him up on the Temple roof with the request that he condemn the followers of Jesus, of "the Way." Imagine their surprise when he did the exact opposite - and then they pushed him off to his death.

So if we really want to go back to the early Church - I don't think we really would.

The Ethiopian Church is probably the closest in ritual to the early Church in its observance of Judaic practices.

We do know that the early Church followed a liturgical, pre-set prayer pattern and the word "leitourgoukon" is in the Acts of the Apostles in Greek.

And we know they prayed in vigil all night - Fr. Taft once wrote that North American Catholics are "completely innocent of history" in this regard .

Short services did not characterize those "prayer fanatics" of the early Church, the Apostles, Deacons, Martyrs etc.

It matters not what position the priest took - I don't know, frankly.

They prayed toward the East and that was handed down BY LAW in the Apostolic Canons and later church legislation.

I can't imagine a priest facing west before a congregation facing east in prayer . . . Can you?

Even when priests bless the people, their hand goes from the left to right - following the people's Sign of the Cross from right to left - it was only after Latin faithful followed their priests in what they were doing, that the RC Sign of the Cross went from left to right as well.

And what was wrong with all subsequent liturgical development? Do we need to prune for the sake of liturgical pruning?

It's a question of how much, one would suppose . . .

Alex

Alex,
Your wisdom is truly appreciated!
As for the Lutheran pastors and your comment that Protestants would be more attracted to Orthodoxy, I've often thought the same thing.
I've been to Lutheran churches a couple of times in my life and found their penitential rite - with their complete reliance on God's grace - not dissimilar to some of our prayers (Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner!)

Amities, Wolfgang

The concept that the Church needs to be purified and return to the "Early Church" has been condemned by Pius XII. So is the NO a new Liturgy or is it a return to "early Church", either way it has shown to be a failure. A completely fabricated Liturgy that doesn't even remove several of these "medival" innovations that were so bad. Such as the creed being said during Mass, that never occured in the Roman rite prior to the 11th century. The Liturgy is a living thing and it has grown organically over the centuries. The Protestants also felt like they were "returning to the early Church" and you see how that has worked out for them.

Yes, you are correct, the Church in not a democracy. But the question of the Tridentine Mass is not one which can be paralleled with the "question" of the ordination of women.

The ordination of women to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate) has not the slightest basis in the tradition of the Church.

The ordination of women to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate) has been ruled out, by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and something which the Church is not authorized to do.

Nobody, male or female, has any inherent "right" to be ordained to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate). Vocations come from God through the Church, which "calls" the candidate to Holy Orders.

The Tridentine Mass (to which I am not attracted and which I have no particular personal wish to attend) was in peaceful possession throughout most of the Western Church for serveral centuries; its place in precedent and tradition is quite secure.

The Second Vatican Council decreed that the existing rites should be maintained.

The Church consistently teaches that it is both a right and an obligation to remain attached to the liturgical tradition in which one was baptised or should have been baptised.

The Church does not permit an abuse of authority which would deprive the faithful of the liturgical tradition to which they belong - or as an Archbishop of my acquaintance (himself in perfectly good standing with the Holy See, and having not the least objection to the Novus Ordo) put it to me in conversation not long ago: "They have a right to the rite!"

For an excellent study, quite friendly to the Eastern liturgical traditions, one cannot do better than to read Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, available from The Foundation for Catholic Reform, P.O. Box 255, Harrison, New York 10528. The original French edition has a preface by - surprise! - Josef Cardinal Ratzinger.

Incognitus

There have been a number of Protestants, both lay and clerical who have converted to Orthodoxy. There is no doubt about that. However, I disagree with the premise of the above statement on two counts.

I have never spoken with someone from a Protestant background about their conversion experience who hadn�t first considered Roman Catholicism as their primary option. The idea that Orthodoxy is a consideration simply because it lacks the office of the Western Papacy I think is simplistic and false, and detracts both from Orthodoxy or those who have chosen it.

There are a number of reasons why I think Roman Catholicism is much easier for Protestants to identify with and adapt to.

Aside from those two points, I think if you looked at the numbers, both as a total or as a percentage, I think you would find the number of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism far outstrips the number who convert to Orthodoxy.

Andrew

Dear Rillian,
I think you're correct in saying that Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy solely because of the lack of a papal center is simplistic. I'm sure the reasons given for conversions are myriad. However, I do believe, from personal experience and observation that many Protestants bring with them to Orthodoxy an anti-Catholicism that is inherent to many of the post-reformation Christian bodies. Does this correspond to what you observe? Vito

No, it doesn�t correspond to what I have seen. Like I said, everyone that I�ve ever talked to decided first they were not going to become Catholic before becoming Orthodox. Once they decided their own tradition was not where they wanted to be, Catholicism was in their immediate frame of reference. The choice was not a matter of bearing prejudice towards Catholicism (because in general I think such people would be hostile to any form of apostolic Christianity), they just don�t accept what the RCC claims about itself. All of that is a side issue though. I have yet to meet a person who didn�t convert because they didn�t feel that Orthodoxy contains the fullness of the faith.

What I do think is a possibility is that some converts adopt the most intransigent components of their adopted faith. It is quite possible that some converts to Orthodoxy tap in to an antipathy to the Roman church that does exist in parts of the Orthodox world. Conversely, the most harsh and negative things I have ever seen written about Orthodoxy have come from Protestant converts to Catholicism. I also find Protestant converts to Catholicism in general have a view of the Papacy that stands in sharp contrast to most cradle Catholics of my acquaintance.

Andrew

When we say that NO is a failed experiment, does that only apply to America?
I mean, what contribution does NO gave up to this point outside America and outside English speaking countries?

Here are some scary remarks from the papal master of ceremonies on liturgy. He explains why a multiplicity of liturgical forms is bad...

The use of the classical Roman missal is, according to this fellow, a concession to "older faithful." Meaning, it was a temporary pastoral measure that would die when the last of the pre-Vatican II Catholics passed onto their eternal reward. Any Orthodox Christian reading this would have to wonder at what a re-union with Rome would do to their liturgical heritage since we're all supposed to pray the same -- I mean the SAME -- way. Unity has become associated with outward ceremonial form in the Roman mind, even if the ceremonial itself does little to dipose the worshipper to union with fellow Catholics through the common petitions put before God and made acceptable by Christ. The part about the praying Church offering up its heart on the divine altar... well, that's just nice prose. We're supposed to pretend that the tumult of the do-it-yourself Roman Mass is all behind us now. The last time I went to a Roman Mass at the local cathedral, I didn't even recognize the Eucharistic prayer and it was read by the "presider" from a little booklet. I'm not sure anymore how many additional anaphoras are allowed now, but I served Mass in college for two years and there were only four. One was based off the one given in the Didache, the other was based on the traditional Roman canon.

Bleh.

We can all swop horror stories about which Church we went to and ..X.. happened and we were shocked, horrified and disgusted etc etc.

I dont think there is anything strange about the Comments of the Archbishop. The Latin Church has been struggling to achive uniformaty for ages and that was just with the Pius V missal. If my memory serves me right this archbishop used to be the late Pope's MC and is now doing something else these days.

As the topic was the RC Mass I dont believe any Orthodox would assume that what the former MC was talking about applied to other church traditions at all.

ICXC
NIKA

Andrew,

Excellent points. In fact, if you read Frank Schaeffer and hear the accounts of his conversion from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, his initial interest was in Catholicism - but he couldn't stand the state of the average NO in Catholic parishes! (Who could blame him, quite frankly.)

I used to be a teacher at St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN. Msgr. Richard Schuler, who was well known in the liturgical movement, was the pastor at the time. This is the Bavarian parish familiar to any of you Wanderer readers that has the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra and makes use of the Masses of Mozart. Everything about the parish in terms of its celebration of the liturgy looks just as it did pre-Vatican II, but the NO is used - with the Latin. St. Agnes is really a Catholic cultural center, especially for traditionally-minded Catholics. (I heard a few times that then Cardinal Ratzinger had enquired through associates how St. Agnes was doing. He was very supportive of it as you can imagine.)

To my mind, St. Agnes represents the authentic spirit of the liturgical reform. (Evidently Mozart masses were verbotten prior to the Council.) I do not personally favor the exclusive use of Latin, as both Alex and I have mentioned. It should be principally in the vernacular. The chief problem with the NO was clearly in the way it was implemented - including translation. Most churches cast aside the Tridentine liturgical ethos (when done well - not those absurd 14 minute masses) which seemed to be the real strength of Latin Catholic life in favor of the "namby pamby", for lack of a better term.

I sometimes wonder if the loss of the sense of Great and Terrible Mystery that Alex alluded to is one of the reasons why so many young people have turned to the occult these days. (Unlike some, I do not blame the Harry Potter books. )

This is precisely one of the reasons WHY I think that Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and once they get back on their liturical feet, Latin Catholicism) have a very relevant mission today, especially in North America. The tired old post-conciliar, flat, personality/ego-centric worship doesn't meet the needs of today. (It hardly met the needs of yesterday, for that matter.)

God bless,

Gordo

Fr. Deacon Lance, thank you for your well-organised and constructed post. As an addendum to my view that we should participate in the Mass given us by our Holy magisterium I offer the follwing quotes:

"After what we have presented concerning the new Roman Missal, we wish in conclusion to INSIST on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the edition princeps of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St Pius V offered it to the people as the instrument of liturgical UNITY...our own expectation in no way differes from that of our predecessor...that through the new Missal ONE AND THE SAME PRAYER.... will ascend to Our Heavenly Father, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit." (Apostolic Constitution; Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council)

"The current norms, laid down on the basis of the intent of Vatican Council II, and the new Missal THAT WILL BE USED HENCEFORTH in the celebration of the Mass by the Church of the ROMAN RITE.." (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 4th. edn., 27 march 1975).

(Capitialisation my own).

And when and if new instructions came/come into force I will accept them in the same spirit.

N

Although I've already read Abp. Marini's point of view that the TLM is a concession to "older faithful," I still find it hilarious because in a just-comepleted study by the French bishops on the "Traditionalist question" in France, they determined fully 59% of Traditionalists there are under the age of 24.

So 3/5 of the Traditionalists in France are no older than college students...wow, yeah talk about the "older faithful."

Well, keep on wishin'!

Seriously, though, to wish is not to demand or to require, and this is a serious shift in papal rhetoric and must be intentional. Things of this nature had been more than wished or insisted upon beforehand.

Logos Teen

Dear Gordo,
Thanks for your posting, and please accept my compliments on your connection with Msgr. Schuler and Saint Agnes Parish - you are truly privileged and I don't mind telling you that I am a trifle envious.

Mozart Masses, however, are not banned from liturgical use - but to do a Mozart Mass well requires resources not usually found except in great Cathedrals where the Bishop, the Administrator, and the Director of Music are willing to invest the time and the money. Those who make that investment then are in for a happy reward - people will come at some personal sacrifice even from a considerable distance, and since most adults realize that such music does not come for free, they will contribute accordingly. Glorious music is still an effective evangelical tool.

(You guessed it - I'm looking forward to hearing the Coronation Mass a week from tomorrow, and wish you the same joy!).

Incognitus