www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Renewal of the Liturgy: An Eastern Novus Ordo?

what troubles me is Vatican II used more Protestant input instead of Eastern Catholics and other Catholic rites relating to Liturgical reform from the various articles I have read.

Dear James,

It I understand it correctly, the restoration of Communion under both kinds, standing to receive and the use of the vernacular were Eastern contributions at Vatican II. As someone raised in a family of Protestants and Catholics I would be very interested in learning what you consider the "protestantizing" of the liturgy. Some of the liturgical changes made by the Council actually have their roots in the Church of the 3rd-4th century before there was ever a protestant tradition of any kind.

Many parishes are, no doubt, still struggling to balance the best of the "old" and the "new" but I do feel that the basic structure of the Mass is intact.

In Christ,

Khrystyna

.

Dear Joe,

Yes, indeed. Many Latin Catholics are shocked when they learn that the original liturgical language of the Church was Greek and the only reason that Latin came to predominate in the West was because it was simply the language of the people at the time. I love the beauty of Latin but it has been enshrined with a sanctity it really doesn't have.

I have no problem with the love some Catholics have for the pre-Conciliar Mass and see no reason why it can't live alongside the Novus Ordo. But today's Catholics need to have a rudimentary knowledge of Church history as it really was, and the development of the liturgy as it really happened.

Some pre-Conciliar Catholics attended the Latin Mass faithfully without ever really developing a living relationship with Jesus Christ and were thereby spiritually impoverished.

Dear James,

I understand what you are saying in your comments about the taking from protestants. There are similarities in the sound of the music used in our Church today. It used to be that if a hymn was used in a protestant church, it was not heard in our services. During the changes, we learned that many of those hymns, with adjustments for theological correctness, could be used. So we "borrowed" them. But such borrowings that appear to be of protestant origin did not change the basic structure or the basic actions of the Liturgy, it seems to me.

The challenge given to Council Fathers was to recover our authentic traditions and to present them for men and women in our world. Pope John XXIII called it aggiornomento.

Part of what was recovered were elements of our traditional liturgical practices. They did not come from the Protestants. There was at the time, very little liturgical life among Protestants. In fact, if I recall correctly one of the boasting points among them at the time was that they were, for the most part, non-liturgical churches.

Christine's point is well taken. It is hard to borrow from others what they do not have or even claim to have.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Christine and Joe T,

What you say is true. The erroneous notion that a goal of the Council was to protestantize our liturgy has been repeated so often that it has taken on a life of its own, from what I know. The charge of the renewal was to recover our authentic traditions especially in regard to our Liturgical life and restore them to the life of our Church.

I think that you have identified a major issue when you talk about the need for helping members of our Church to learn Church History.

There was a massive effort to educate a whole cohort or two of Latin Catholics about the renewal arising from the teachings of the Council. To help the members of the Church, laity, religious, and clergy included, about: the need for change; the origins of the changes; and the meaning of the changes themselves was a daunting task.

It was done with varying degrees of success, in my estimation. The pain resulting of the implementation of the changes was eased or increased to varying degrees based on this.

There was so much teaching and learning to do then. The still is.

Thanks for your insights.

Steve

First, let me thank everyone who has complimented my remarks on the broad issue of liturgical reform/renewal - East and West. I try to say it as I see it while taking into consideration all aspects of the "issues" and this is not always an easy task. That some of you benefit from my observations makes it all very worthwhile.

I agree with our Administrator about the proposed "revised liturgy." It has serious flaws in many areas, most of which are outlined by the Administrator in a thorough way. One of the things that bothers me the most is the tremendous "inflexibility" in the text to be promulgated, which in turn can lead to a spirit of "stagnancy" in the way the liturgy is celebrated and received. It also violates the traditional prerogative of the individual celebrant to wisely mold a particular celebration to the spirit of the day and congregation. As I and others have said previously, no one particular absolute "poryadok" or "ordo" can serve the needs of every parish and every situation or time. That has been one of the beauties of the Byzantine liturgy up to this point - its ability to be flexible so as to speak to a particular celebration. With a promulgated, "no more and no less" liturgikon, some features of the liturgy that are deemed desirable in a certain parish or a certain celebration will no longer be feasible. At the same time, individual celebrants and cantors will be forced to comply to the "party line order" whether or not it consistently meets the needs of the worshipping community.

While we have suffered through great latinizations in the past, most all of which are now extinct, we have come upon a new and more subtle form of latinization, in the promulgation of a uniform and unyielding redaction of the liturgy. Actually, since the Missal of Paul VI and its subsequent implementation, the Latin liturgy has seen a great deal of flexibility where as previously it had none. Now, the attempt is being made to make the Byzantine liturgy akin to style of the former liturgy of the Roman Rite. A key aspect of the "Byzantine sensibility" - that of accommodation the needs of time and place is proposed to be replaced by a rigidity that it did not know in the past.

I also agree with our Administrator on the particular liturgical points made, especially the abrogation of the "Office of the Three Antiphons" and other changes that pull the liturgy further apart from its other Orthodox and Catholic counterparts. This may sound like a contradiction, because I just noted the usual flexibility of our liturgy to particular cultures and times, but that type of accommodation differs from unilateral liturgical choices that have not proven themselves to be useful or authentic variations of the service. I've often mentioned having "liturgical sense" in making these choices. In particular, a rushed, abbreviated form of the antiphonal portion of the liturgy would seem to me to go against this liturgical sense. The psalm verses are important scriptural references in the liturgy. One of our mistakes in the past was exactly to reduce these to one-versed excerpts, seemingly unassociated with each other. Of all the former "abuses" in our liturgy, I find it interesting that the liturgical commission chooses to retain this one. At a time when the many scriptural references in the Byzantine liturgy are being emphasized, large sections of scripture are being excluded. As to the small ektenias which separate the antiphons, while I admit that these can be repetitive, they serve the important purpose of making sharp distinctions between the three antiphons, so that one may readily recognize where one ends and the other begins. Granted, there "might" be times when these litanies become tiresome for a particular circumstance. My own pastoral solution to this is the use of the first petition (Again and again . . . ) followed by the "voz hlas" or "ekphonesis" - with or without its corresponding prayer aloud. It allows for the necessary distinction between the antiphons, while also permitting some flexibility. While I would never use this format in an official version of the liturgy, I find that its use can be helpful, should other aspects of a day's service call for abbreviations. Some may be totally against any abbreviations whatsoever, but again, the genius of our liturgy up until now, has been exactly its ability to lend itself to certain flexibilities that meet the needs of time and place.

I also agree that such innovations as the reduction of the response, "It is proper and just . . . " to just those words, even though historically more ancient, places our liturgy outside the borders of what is commonly used by other churches that share our Ruthenian recension. I acknowledge that in another place, Tony rightfully observed that in Greek churches, this is now the usage. Not being an expert on the Greek recension, and without having older texts at my disposal, I only wonder if this is a more recent change by the Greeks or if it has been the practice in the Greek liturgy at all times and places. My own estimation tells me that it represents a more recent return of the Greeks to the original, short response, but again, I could be totally off mark on this one. I do believe that the translation referenced on the Greek Orthodox website is a rather new version, which, at least as of several years ago, while widely distributed, was not given official status as of yet.

I believe that if there are catechumens preparing for baptism in a particular parish, then it is appropriate to use the ektenias which the liturgy provides to pray for them, particularly during the Lenten season at the Presanctified. Whether or not to dismiss them is another issue. It may work well in some places, (such as in the RC diocese mentioned, where they have a strong RCIA program) and cause division in other locales. I believe that should be up to the competent diocesan authority, in consultation with the local pastor. If they are dismissed, then I think there should be somewhere for them to be dismissed to, such as a period of catechesis in another part of the parish complex, rather than merely sending them out into the world on their own, while the rest of the community continues to worship.

To summarize, what is being proposed by the liturgical commission for a "standardized liturgy" in the Ruthenian American Church corresponds much more closely to a pre-conciliar Latin shape of the liturgy than it does to the Byzantine spirit, which has always allowed for flexibility according to culture, situation, time and place. While the Latin Rite now reflects a great deal of this pastoral sensitivity, some within the Ruthenian churches are attempting (knowingly or unknowingly, I don't know) to make a "forced" redaction of our well known liturgy that places it into much closer proximity to the spirit of the Roman liturgy prior to Vatican II.

The entire effort for liturgical renewal among the Ruthenians, is in no doubt a necessary response to some prior-day, very Latinized, hybridized customs in this or that parish. All in all, these unfortunate situations are part of our history, but the most radical of them were not expressive of the average Ruthenian parish. Liturgical commission members now feel that by implementing a "standard liturgy" it will circumvent such tasteless abuses of the past. But in reality, in our day, these former abuses are much more rare than they were several decades ago and I believe that for the most part, the majority of parishes and those clergy who are well acquainted with our usages, have a firm grasp on an authentic celebration of the Ruthenian liturgy, so the "concerns" that the liturgical commissions are addressing are a bit outdated in that sense. While the intentions of the liturgical commissions for a better celebration of the liturgy are praiseworthy, I do not think that they are being approached from either a realistic scenario or an appropriate solution. As the Administrator has stated often, we have the "received texts" in the form of the books published by Rome in the middle of the 20th. century. If these books are used as intended, they offer both an authentic interpretation of the liturgy while still allowing for the flexibility needed in many pastoral situations.

Among the many concepts borrowed from the East during and after the Council, was the spirit of enculturation and the ability of the liturgy to address these needs. They saw that the rigidity of the former rite could not always speak to the particular cultural ethos of various countries and peoples. Thus, while maintaining the basic Latin rite structure and heritage, there are now opportunities to use or not use certain liturgical "options." This applies not only to cultures themselves, but also to, as we've been discussing, the circumstances of a particular Eucharistic celebration and the audience for which it is being celebrated. I realize that there have been abuses in the Roman methodology also and that the new flexibility is not pleasing to some. That is a different issue. However, by "standardizing" our liturgy with an attitude of "no more, no less" our liturgical commissions, (who otherwise have made excellent contributions to our liturgical awareness and renewal), are forcing on the Byzantine liturgy a rigidity that it has never had before in history, making it virtually impossible for the individual celebrant, cantor or parochial community to meet the needs that may arise.

Perhaps a better solution that could provide for an authentic celebration of the liturgy would be to make a list of "dos and don'ts" that could avoid grossly exaggerated "latinizations" or other tasteless practices while still allowing our liturgy to live and breathe as it should, preserving the "dynamic flow of the liturgy" that characterizes the Byzantine spirit.

Maybe one day, when time permits, we can together comprise such a list mentioned above, that could address what the liturgy should not be and what it should and can be.

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Administrator,

You are most certainly right on your points in regard to the revision of our recension of the Divine Liturgy. And that was the basis for my fears earlier on in what I called the new "latinization." Utilizing economia constantly to abbreviate the Liturgy has been a major abuse in our Church; it is nothing more than an imitation of Latin praxis. The Salvation of Souls being the first Law of the Church there should be a balance between strictness and economia. One hour Divine Liturgies won't cut it, but neither will mandating monastic practices on a congregation.

This issue of liturgical archeologicalism is a false paradigm of how liturgy should be "restored", and "revised" in the context of the Eastern and Roman liturgies and practice. To appeal to the past for a "purer" form of Catholic worship and praxis is a Protestant notion of reformation whereas the traditional Catholic and Orthodox teaching is that Tradition being the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church is always under His Direction, Inspiration, Authority, and Infallibility. It is a false thesis to state that in order to "purify" the Liturgy we need to appeal to the past or to return to a long discarded ancient practice.

In so revising our Liturgy we will not only re-assert the notion in the minds of the Orthodox that we are nothing more than Roman Catholics, but we will also undue the work of many holy priests and hierarchs whose only desire was that we reflect the pristine glory of an Orthodox Carpatho-Rusyn Church in Communion with Peter. We have forgotten that we are Pravoslavnae! When we entered communion with Peter we did not give up our Orthodoxy! I would hope that if this so-called revision of our holy Slavic Liturgy is undertaken that there should be such an outcry from our people that such a thing will NEVER be attempted again! I better stop my Hungarian temper is flaring! If they don't want another schism they better think twice about touching our Sacred Liturgy. That's all I can say about that right now; I need to go bite down on a stick

Once the door is opened to such revisions it won't stop until we are just like the Novus Ordo.
When that happens it's over for us.

.

Dear Robert,

I would never presume to speak on what is appropriate liturgically for Eastern Christians. It would be sheer hubris.

But I must challenge your assessment of the vernacular Mass as it currently stands. I don't consider it a "protestantization" at all. The Roman Rite has its own particular genius and attributes and they became heavily encrusted during the Middle Ages. I am totally serious when I say that some pre-Conciliar Latin Catholics never developed a living relationship with Jesus Christ. I have seen the evidence too painfully in my own wider family circle. And if some of our hymnody is incorporated from Protestant sources, so what? I have heard the beautiful Lutheran Communion hymn "This is the Feast of Victory for our God" sung at Catholic Masses and I am delighted. This hymn, taken straight from the texts of the Revelation, is a glorious affirmation of faith in the victorious paschal Lamb and the joy He brings his people.

More is not always better. I have heard young Catholics singing their hearts out at Mass these days and it must bring joy to the angels. Our liturgy may be more simplified now but I am seeing the fruits of faith that it is bringing to many Catholics. Perhaps these days the Holy Spirit is doing some needed housecleaning in the Latin rite.

I neither would expect nor desire that the Eastern tradition would travel the same road.

In Christ,

Khrystyna

Quotes posted by Robert:

"In so revising our Liturgy we will not only re-assert the notion in the minds of the Orthodox that we are nothing more than Roman Catholics, ...."

"Once the door is opened to such revisions it won't stop until we are just like the Novus Ordo.
When that happens it's over for us."

Dear Robert,

I have read your posting with great interest. I think that I understand your concern. You want to ensure that the Liturgy of your Church not become a liturgical expression of the Western Church but rather that it remain a faithful expression of the faith and tradition of an Eastern Church.

You point out that the Novus Ordo is not an expression of an Eastern Church. You are concerned that if the Liturgy of your Church takes on the look and feel of the Western Liturgy following the Missal of Pope Paul VI it will not be authentically that of your Church.

Have I misunderstood your position?

I have a question or two.

Is it your intent to insult the Roman Church or Roman Catholics by implying that our Church is somehow less worthy of respect by Orthodox Churches? Is it your intent to belittle our Church or our Liturgy?

You raise important issues. Perhaps you are not aware that your words can be interpreted as abusive and that they might get into the way of understanding especially for Western Christian members of the Forum.

Have I misinterpreted them?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Steve & Christine,

Again I thank you both for your replies. Maybe I respond to quickly, without really thinking about it thoroughly or are influenced by incorrect info.

I pray from the Manual of Eastern Orthodox Prayers and Morning and Evening Prayer (Liturgy of the Hours) daily.

Hopefully the Holy Spirit will straighten my path out.

In Christ,
James

Dear James,

The Manual has some magnificent prayers. If you decide to take the path East it will serve you well.

Should you decide to continue to incorporate some Roman prayers, I am wondering if you are familiar with the prayer resource Magnificat? The prayers are taken from the Roman Liturgy of the Hours and the language, while vernacular, is reverent and inspiring, as well as the beautiful and traditional artwork in each volume.

In any case, your prayers will be answered and the Holy Spirit will guide you.

Dear Christine,

The Morning and Evening Prayer, The Liturgy of the Hours is a Roman Rite book, so I pray both East & West . Confusing.... or do I cover all the bases ?

James

Well, I recall the recent attempts to "update" the Greek Divine Liturgy, by some of the Bishops of the Church of Greece. In a meeting of the Holy Synod, there was a lot of discussion about the recent decrease in Church attendance, specially in the case of young people. Some ideas were brought, and a Bishop and some priests were given permission to start experimental reforms. They presented a project of a revised Divine Liturgy, celebrated entirely in vernacular modern Greek, with shortened litanies, some prayers were also abreviated or ommited. After this (very inocent and soft reforms which did not affect at all the character of the Greek Liturgy) the Synod and the Archbishop decided not to adopt those reforms and standed for the traditional liturgy. Its's said that the Archbishop of Athens said: "if we adopt a reforms there'll be a moment in which this one will lead us to more and more reforms and we'll end up like the Latins". But this doesnt mean that some changes in the liturgy are being put in practice by priests and Bishops in Greece.

Dear Steve:

The issue of my comment regarding the Orthodox seeing us as Roman Catholics is a major one. It has nothing to do with the value and equality of the Latin Church with ours or visa versa; it has to do with our credibility in the eyes of the Orthodox. If our Liturgy resembles a Eastern-Latin configuration/hybrid et al we loose credibility as a true Eastern Church in the eyes of the Orthodox Jurisdictions who are at least somewhat ecumenically minded. This is our struggle: to be seen by our Mother Patriarchate as a true and valid Eastern Church which holds the Orthodox Faith of Christ; and to be blunt we can't do that with the type of revisions that have been suggested; and for that matter the issues of the implementation of married priesthood and the restoration of the true and valid monastic praxis of our Church are also hinging topics as well.

Feelings get hurt on all sides; what needs to be seen is the big picture, ok

In Christ's Love,


Robert