www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Comparative Liturgics

In the "A lurker who is leaving' thread, Joe asked:

I have a question for those more familiar with Roman particulars than myself. Many complaints are heard here about the position of the altar and the celebrants in the "novus ordo." I have been taught that there is a major difference in ideologies in the two rites. In the Byzantine Rite, the priest faces east (the altar) and leads the people in prayer to the Father. His purpose is to preside at the liturgy through a leadership role in the sacrifice. Therefore, he and the congregation all turn to God together. In the Roman Rite, the priest also leads the people, but in this case, more as an actor, taking the role of Christ (in persona Christi) in reenacting the sacrifice of Calvary and the ritual of the Last Supper. In these terms, I can understand the difference in positions. I have heard it said here, that the idea of the priest leading the people in prayer and all together praying in the same direction was also the philosophy of the Tridentine Rite. I don't know if this is true or not.

Priest and people facing the same direction, all on one side of the Holy Table, is universal in the rites, East and West, but in persona Christi is a Western description of the priest.

Now, to explain what has been my understanding of altar positions: Is it not true that altars in major cathedrals and basilicas of the Roman Rite were always free standing? Did not the pope (and maybe other prelates) always celebrate mass facing the people, or did he face away from the people but merely use a free-standing altar? I thought that for at least the pope, the liturgy was somehow celebrated in the same position that it is today. If not, then why have the altars in St. Peter's and the other patriarchal basilicas always been free-standing? Thank you to whoever can answer my question.

Altars in very old churches aren't necessarily freestanding. Some are, as you say. St Peter's has been used wrongly as a trump card (as has the Last Supper — actually Jesus and His apostles sat on the same side of the table for that ritual meal so that argument doesn't work either) for versus populum, but as others here have explained, in those churches everbody faced east anyway; the church happened to be built in the "wrong' direction. So at the anaphora/canon/Eucharistic prayer the priest (such as the Pope) and everyone else would face the back door, with the celebrant and altar at the back of the crowd!

While the conciliar document may indicate that the Gregorian Chant is the norm for Roman celebrations, I don't think it was ever thought that it would be used always and everywhere.

But the council did say it is the norm, meaning it would be used most of the time at least in Europe and the Americas.

I don't believe that it was utilized at the average mass in the average parish before Vatican II, was it?

No, it wasn't. In his writings Thomas Day* explains the cultural reasons why. The persecuted Irish who ran the RCC in the US had no liturgical musical tradition. (They didn't have the chance to have one in Ireland — they were persecuted!) The fact that the Church's chant and other liturgical tradition was neglected was something the pre-Vatican II, legit liturgical movement (I'll shorten that to LM) was trying to correct. Doing away with chant in practice after V2 actually went AGAINST what the LM wanted.

Did every church have a solemn, sung mass every Sunday? If they did, the majority of faithful did not attend it.

No, and that was true. Day explains why, and how the liturgical movement wanted to make a chanted solemn Mass the norm de facto as well as de jure (the Roman Rite always assumed the solemn Mass is the norm and Low Mass an exception).

Instead, low masses were popular, maybe with the use of popular hymns which, while maybe not the same style as some of the liturgical music today, could still not be considered in the category of chant.

Right. Day explained all that. Just what the LM was trying to correct. Sentimental 1890s novena hymns are unliturgical. Such were used to decorate the Low Mass and a lot of American RCs assumed that was normal. (But not all. Germans and Poles had a fine tradition of liturgical music and robust, singable hymns, which, if you're lucky, you still can hear at Polish-language Masses today.)

We've come a long way since the "folk masses" of the 60s and 70s, which did however, right or wrong, reflect the style of the day.

"We've'? I thought you were a lifelong Byzantine. Those godawful services certainly did reflect the times (actually they badly ripped off some good folk music — I'll listen to Joan Baez over the St Louis Jesuits any day), just like the equally unliturgical 1890s hymns reflect theirs. Day explains the folk Mass really fit in with Irish-Americans' notion of what liturgy should be: a short, simple service with saccharine songs to decorate it — actually in a continuum with the Low Mass of just a few years prior. I don't think a lot of US Roman parishes untouched by the restorationist movement (Adoremus, etc.) have changed much in 30 years except to get even more iconoclastic and Protestant.

Today, there is some beautiful liturgical music being composed that is both classical and singable.

I'll take your word for it for now. Good to hear.

It surely is a long cry from the monotone, mumbled low masses of pre-conciliar days in which the faithful did not participate but read private prayers or prayed the rosary because they could not concentrate on or understand what was going on at the "high altar."

Low Masses often are said at side altars, which are closer to the congregation. Plus the LM promoted the use of hand missals with Latin and English translations in adjoining columns or on facing pages. The LM didn't want to trash the existing rite to make it modern; it wanted to teach people to use and love the rite as is, with the ultimate goal of a congregationally sung chant Mass with incense as the norm every Sunday.

The number of eucharistic ministers may exceed that originally envisioned by the Vatican

Yes. It is an abuse. The Vatican envisioned their use in real emergencies, not every Sunday or at every Mass. I've seen them used for congregations of 10. No real need there. Just some Amchurchers' "ordain women' agenda.

but other things have changed, such as communion under both species, using multiple cups that need to be administered.

I already have commented on that, much to Steve's discomfort. There is no comparison between the way the Byzantine Rite does Communion in both kinds (right) and Amchurch's (wrong). I am for it in the Roman Rite, but watch how most Anglicans do it, then copy that. (The Anglicans also are a great resource for liturgical music in English.) Also, for multiple chalices, if necessary, or multiple ciboria, ordain deacons, subdeacons and acolytes (men in orders) to handle them at Communion.

I do think that it is against the spirit of the indult for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, to use lay ministers when there are extra priests available, sitting in the rectory or socializing. I know this happens and think that those priests should come into the mass to give communion, as it once was.

Agreed.

Other than that, both the ministers and the manner of distribution of communion are perfectly licit in the Roman Rite presently

Oh, dear. "Licit'. The Roman fault culturally of settling for a bare minimum. This mentality also produced the Low Mass you and the LM don't like.

and, while we naturally cannot fathom this style of the liturgy of holy communion in our church at all, it is not up to us Byzantines to judge its acceptability in the Latin Church.

Yes, we can! The standard is not Joe's or Serge's Taste Test, but the objective character of ALL traditional rites. And if you are in communion with a Church, you damn well better care what goes in it liturgically. "Extraordinary ministers' apart from the REAL emergency Roman canon law envisioned are a NO.

In regards to the "throne room" look that a modern Roman church is said to resemble, I know some of us don't like it but: the bishop's throne or presider's chair was an integral part of the sanctuary in Hagia Sophia and other golden age churches. The first thing the bishop did upon entering the church was to go to the chair, which was located behind the altar, in the apse, and greet the assembly with the peace, "Peace be with you." Then they sat and the readings began, from the bema. In our liturgy today, we still maintain two places for the bishop to sit, on the amvon, because he is not supposed to be present until the little entrance and at the high place, the original presider's chair. I think we all know this.

The Byzantine churches have a screen or later an iconostasis. Old Roman churches like S. Clemente have a baldacchino (also called a ciborium) canopy over the altar (as does the Renassiance St Peter's). And a gate like an altar rail. There are analogous architectural features in all the rites that make their altars/sanctuaries different from the cheesy Ming of Mongo ( "Good morning, everybody! Bring Flash Gordon to me!' ) throne rooms designed so the deliberately shabbily vested priest (since the "renewal' people threw away all the traditional vestments) can make like a third-rate Jerry Seinfeld, center stage. The objective character of all traditional rites, presider's chair or no, prevents such foolishness. The priest serves the rite; the rite isn't a prop for the priest's wonderful-or-perhaps-not personality.

The chair is fine if it is way in back, along the apsidal wall, while the altar (Holy Table in our Byzantine parlance), freestanding in the middle of such a Roman sanctuary, is larger and much more prominent than the priest's chair area. Put the altar on three steps and make it big and out of stone. Or put a Laudian Anglican frontal on it, made of vestment-brocade cloth and hanging on all four sides.

*I cannot recommend Thomas Day enough: he defends tradition intelligently and not by appealing to nostalgia or loopy legalism (Quo primum forever, the credo of Fr Gommar DePauw). Read Why Catholics Can't Sing and Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo? Both are available at large chain bookstores like Borders.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear friends, I believe I read in a piece by Taft that he believes the scripture readings in the Byzantine Catholic Church needed revision. As a born western Catholic who has regularly attended the Divine Liturgy for 6 yrs., ISTM that the readings are extremely limited and thereby unduly repetitive. I was interested in your views on this. Vito

Vito, it depends on how closely related the propers (tropar[ion], kondak/kontakion, prokimen[on], alleluia verse and Communion verse) are to the readings. If they are closely connected, let sleeping dogs like and keep the readings as is. There is nothing wrong per se with a three-year cycle of reaadings but the plain old one-year cycle along with the propers of the Tridentine Mass (introit, prayer/collect, gradual, alleluia verse, offertory verse and Communion verse), all in an old LM hand missal, taught me a good deal of the Bible that is relevant to Christianity. So as a lad, my "thing' for liturgy ended up exposing me to much of the Word. Isn't that how things should be?

Some people, namely defenders of the Tridentine Mass, prefer the one-year cycle because that way more people can remember, even memorize, the Bible readings they read or hear every year.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge, You commented on the relationship of the tropars and condacs etc. to the readings. Could you please elaborate? How is or was that relationship determined? And are they supposed to be closely related? Vito

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serge:
[QB]In the "A lurker who is leaving' thread, Joe asked:





[i]The number of eucharistic ministers may exceed that originally envisioned by the Vatican

Yes. It is an abuse. The Vatican envisioned their use in real emergencies, not every Sunday or at every Mass. I've seen them used for congregations of 10. No real need there. Just some Amchurchers' "ordain women' agenda.

Careful Serge - you and I have discussed this before in puiblic - though I did notice you said Amchurchers - why not say American Churches? Oh and we aren't ordained - we are Commissioned [ in my understanding very different ] and can only serve in our own Church, for which we were Commissioned.

but other things have changed, such as communion under both species, using multiple cups that need to be administered.

I already have commented on that, much to Steve's discomfort. There is no comparison between the way the Byzantine Rite does Communion in both kinds (right) and Amchurch's (wrong). I am for it in the Roman Rite, but watch how most Anglicans do it, then copy that. (The Anglicans also are a great resource for liturgical music in English.) Also, for multiple chalices, if necessary, or multiple ciboria, ordain deacons, subdeacons and acolytes (men in orders) to handle them at Communion.

It's down to instruction again. Respect please for differing traditions

I do think that it is against the spirit of the indult for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, to use lay ministers when there are extra priests available, sitting in the rectory or socializing. I know this happens and think that those priests should come into the mass to give communion, as it once was.

Agreed - as I have said before but not always possible.

and, while we naturally cannot fathom this style of the liturgy of holy communion in our church at all, it is not up to us Byzantines to judge its acceptability in the Latin Church.

Yes, we can! The standard is not Joe's or Serge's Taste Test, but the objective character of ALL traditional rites. And if you are in communion with a Church, you damn well better care what goes in it liturgically. "Extraordinary ministers' apart from the REAL emergency Roman canon law envisioned are a NO.

Serge I do not want to go ballistic !

I'm certain you do not wish to hurt our feelings and I freely agree that all is not right but most of these points have been discussed on more than one occasion.

Oh I'm sorry, but this is really a sore point, do you have to keep having a go at us? I don't intend to make comparisons.

Angela

Angela,

May I ask a question that may seem confrontational but is important? Do you wish and do you find fellow Roman Catholics wishing that the Eastern Catholics would just disappear? It would seem that we are in communion as long as we tow the Roman line, but are not if we challenge some very sloppy liturgical practices.

Dan L

Vito, I'll admit you've got me stumped. The Liturgy evolved gradually over the time and pretty much was finished by the late Middle Ages. So I'd guess many authors put all those propers and readings together. I don't know just how closely related all those parts are to each other.

Angela, as Brendan said to Steve, we never will agree on the EEM issue but I hope we can be friends nonetheless.

Someone else came up with "Amchurch' (I think it was the late traditionalist "veiled Vatican history/news' novelist Fr Malachi Martin) to describe the particularly virulent form of Modernism in the old rebellious North American colonies. Not all Roman Catholics in the US are like that, of course, which is why I did not say "American churches'.

Considering there are many 'Net-active Orthodox who spew filth about all of postschism Catholicism ( one nasty girl described the Pope to me as the leader of "a blaspheming heretical sect' ) , I am incredibly respectful of other traditions, even willing to learn from the not-really-apostolic Anglicans when they do something right (and liturgically they often do). Nor am I one of those traditionalists who demands everyone have six candles on a shelf altar and Low Mass all in Latin with background organ music (though of course one can do that, even though it may not be ideal), "just like when I was a kid'. The examples I give to fix the Roman Mass in practice about a third of the time aren't even Tridentine (I even will bend to allow Communion in the hand and under both kinds, � la mode anglicaine — things most Tridentines won't consider), and while some of them draw on my Byzantine experience, I don't ever advocate dumping the Roman Rite for the Byzantine.

So, please, calm down.

Do you wish and do you find fellow Roman Catholics wishing that the Eastern Catholics would just disappear? It would seem that we are in communion as long as we tow the Roman line, but are not if we challenge some very sloppy liturgical practices.

Dan: АМИНЬ! You've hit on something here, perhaps an attitude some of our Roman interlocutors might not even consciously be aware of having.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Dan, If we are talking the general RC population, probably 8 of 10 don't know what an Eastern Catholic is. Probably #9 thinks it's the same as Orthodox (which I guess isn't bad). As far as the RC clergy, most are probably too busy or too far removed to have an opinion. I know I'm being cynical and perhaps overstating, but maybe not. To wish they would "disappear" you have to "see" them first. I pray this will change. Vito

If we are talking the general RC population, probably 8 of 10 don't know what an Eastern Catholic is.

My own late father, a longtime lapsed Roman Catholic (self-help books and televangelists were more his cup of tea) who had grown up in the good old days, had never heard of Eastern Catholics and actually was taken aback when I told him about them. And do you know what he said? "Are they under the Pope?'

Probably #9 thinks it's the same as Orthodox (which I guess isn't bad).

No, it isn't.

http://oldworldrus.com

Did I say ongoing?

Regarding the position of the priest celebrant, Thomas Day has some excellent things to say about that, particularly the "Star Wars throne room' look of too many American NO sanctuaries. "Puffff... hissss... bring Luke Skywalker to me! Now let's join hands and sing “Isn't God a Nice Guy!” Have a nice day.' Seriously, distorting the altar like that changes the service from Godward common prayer into "the Father Bob Show'. His face is in the spotlight, sometimes literally, and perhaps enjoying the ego boost he feels compelled to perform and ad-lib (to show just what a charming guy he is), as in "Good evening, ladies and germs'. Ugh."
(Posted by Serge)

"Thanks, Anastasios. On one of the Adoremus threads or "Rite or Wrong' I said comparing Byzantine Rite Communion under both kinds to the American Novus Ordo free-for-all with Hosts fingered like hors d'oeuvres and chalices grabbed from lay "ministers' for self-Communion is a sick joke. Nothing at all about the Roman Mass per se."
(Posted by Serge)

"There are analogous architectural features in all the rites that make their altars/sanctuaries different from the cheesy Ming of Mongo ( "Good morning, everybody! Bring Flash Gordon to me!' ) throne rooms designed so the deliberately shabbily vested priest (since the "renewal' people threw away all the traditional vestments) can make like a third-rate Jerry Seinfeld, center stage." (Posted by Serge)

Steve,

Yeppers, your churches have a problem in practice, according to your own liturgical history (which the Amchurchers have tried so hard to shove down the memory hole) and every other apostolic Cathodox Church's rite in history and around the world. And as long as they do, I will comment on it, using humor, one of the most potent devices that exists.

Your contention that "it ain't broke' actually sounds arrogant and I think ties in with Dan's excellent observation about perhaps unconscious snobbery to Easterns. "Of course the Roman Rite in practice is perfect! How dare you dumb Polacks criticize it — what do you know? Shut up unless we want to be amused by your customs or chow down on pierogi.' I guess Ming of Mongo hath spoken.

http://oldworldrus.com

Some comments from Roman Catholics who have visited our Church for a tour or for liturgy:

From a woman in the neighborhood: "Yes, we went to Greece and saw all this stuff. Do you really like this?"

From more than one student from my Catholic theology class: "The room was beautiful but I will remain Catholic."

Sigh....

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

From now ex-friend, before I 'doxed: "You are no longer part of the Catholic Church.'

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge,

I usually find your scholarship and research flawless but you state:
"but as others here have explained, in those churches everbody faced east anyway; the church happened to be built in the "wrong' direction. So at the anaphora/canon/Eucharistic prayer the priest (such as the Pope) and everyone else would face the back door, with the celebrant and altar at the back of the crowd!"

Here I think you've sided with a crackpot arguement. Every pre-Vatican II document I have ever read on the subject seems to agree that in the Western-apsed basilicas the celebrant faced the people. This nonsense of everyone facing the back of the Church didn't surface until the traditionalist movement felt they needed more ammo to argue against celebrants facing the people.

That most Latin-biased of resources the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on the Orientation of Churches, states:
"Yet the great Roman Basilicas of the Lateran, St. Peter's, St. Paul's (originally), St. Lorenzo's, as well as the Basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem and the basilicas of Tyre and Antioch, reversed this rule by placing the apse in the western extremity. The reasons for this mode of orientation can only be conjectured. Some writers explain it by the fact that in the fourth century the celebrant at Mass faced the people, and, therefore in a church with a western apse, looked towards the East when officiating at the altar."

I am not accusing you of inventing the arguement but I don't think it is one a person of your knowledge should be using. It doesn't hold water.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

"Yeppers, your churches have a problem in practice, according to your own liturgical history (which the Amchurchers have tried so hard to shove down the memory hole) and every other apostolic Cathodox Church's rite in history and around the world."

As you've said before.... Thank you for sharing your encyclopedic knowledge of the problems of our Church "according to your (sic) own liturgical history and every other apostolic Cathodox Chruch's rite in history and round the world. (Is Cathodox another mental construct?)

Your point has been made. You have alerted us all to the above on an ongoing basis. Your role as restorer/guardian of the integrity of what you think the Liturgy of the Latin Church ought to be is assured.

Can we move on?

"Your contention that "it ain't broke' actually sounds arrogant."

Thank you for sharing your gentle and courteous fraternal correction. I'll be sure to pass that observation from one who knows me so well on to my spiritual director.

" and I think ties in with Dan's excellent observation about perhaps unconscious snobbery to Easterns."

That thought is noted. Thank you for sharing that deep insight and well thought out and salient observation.

""Of course the Roman Rite in practice is perfect! How dare you dumb Polacks criticize it — what do you know? Shut up unless we want to be amused by your customs or chow down on pierogi.' I guess Ming of Mongo hath spoken."

Thank you for sharing your mind reading ability with this Ukranian/Polish (+ more) American Latin Catholic.

You know what, I even had a Ukranian baba and a Polish tata! Imagine that! I'm surprised that your powers of observation and analysis and judgement didn't pick that up!

Amazing the things that you see that I don't know that my mind is thinking about myself and those I love. Amazing how you see in my mind words that I find abhorent.

Ming of Mongo, eh? What a role!

Are you ready to move on yet? Can we use respectful and non belittling language when we discuss our Liturgies and our Churches, please.

Till then, keep em laughing!

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]