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

Robert makes correct observations on these points:

"these ideologies were most certainly not in the spirit of the previous Council, Vatican I;"

"One would have to be blind to say the Fathers desired intentional continuity with Trent's paradigm of Church and for that matter post-Trent Catholic political doctrine and modalities. For some reason at that time in world history Church leaders mostly saw that to create a dynamic relevant Church it must not only connect with the modern sensibilities of man, but also be able to reflect the progress of the humanities/sciences."

I believe that the intention of Pope John XXIII and the Council Fathers was indeed to crate a dynamic church that connects with modern sensibilities and progress in humanities and sciences. The "Good Pope John" told the world that it was time to "open the windows" and let in some fresh air. I see nothing wrong with bringing the church into contact with the age it lives in, while preserving the essence of faith and tradition that are essential to it. Nowhere does it ever say that change is a four letter or evil word. Rather, Vatican II affirms that the church must constantly renew itself from within, while listening to the world around it. Even Our Lord said that we must recognize the "signs of the times."

The paradigm of the church expressed at Trent was in response to its own time and the concerns created by it. That council too connected to the signs of its own day. Some however, would say that Trent was reactionary to the Protestant reformation in a way that worked against it rather than in its favor. Instead of seriously considering those points of the reformers that could have been well taken, regarding liturgy and scripture in particular, the Tridentine Council placed the church into a state of isolationism that lasted for hundreds of years. Trent, rather than Vatican II could have been the point from which the church brought some of its non-dogmatic practices into relevancy. Remember that not all of the ideas of the reformation were wrong. Many of the abuses and conditions it responded to were indeed needed, as much then as in 1963. But instead, the Catholic Church reacted, as if often the case, in an over-protective and counter-productive manner. Had they given serious consideration to what many were calling for in the church, then some of the splits caused by the reformation could well have been avoided. The long period of isolation between the church and science and academia was a dark one for the church and produced some of the abuses that it was left for Vatican II to dispel. A general reactionary spirit stymied some of the most brilliant minds of the times, which was unfortunately reinforced and controlled by the office of the "inquisition." Only later was the church forced to retract some of its condemnations, when science indeed proved the church to be wrong, as in the instance of Galileo.

If Vatican II meant only to reinforce the paradigm of Trent or Vatican I, there would have been no need for the council at all. Every church council, including the Seven Ecumenical Councils were held to respond to the issues of the particular day in which they were called. It is true that one council builds on previous ones, but does so in light of contemporary developments and concerns of people of that particular day. Again, if they did not, they would serve no purpose. If Vatican II should only have reinforced the models of Trent and other previous gatherings, that could have been accomplished merely through some papal decree, reiterating that which everyone already knew.

The Holy Spirit, working and acting within the church is our assurance that God will continually call the church to renewal life and spirit, responding to the needs of the day, so that it will be clear the Our Lord is with us always, not only in this or that century or council. Needs change because people's situations change. This does not mean abandoning all that is sacred or what we have believed from times immemorial. It means making those sacred traditions able to remain alive and remain able to speak to people, keeping them firmly anchored in a church that does not abandon the age it lives in but responds in faith, to meeting people and their needs, desires and the intentions of their hearts.

Fr. Joe

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Father, Bless!

Oh yes, the Dismissal during the Litany of the Catechumens...its my favorite..."All catechumens, depart! Depart catechumens! All that are catechumens, depart! Let no catechumen remain! Let us the Faithful, again and again in peace pray unto the Lord..." Love it! When I used to attend the OCA it always made me chuckle

I am agreed on that point you made regarding the anachronistic aspects of the Liturgy, but they are still cool utilized with the full glory of a pontifical Liturgy, albeat wierd in a parish Liturgy. And I agree that the way the Byzantine and Roman liturgies devoloped was markedly different, especially after the Council with the swift inorganic changes flowing forth from the Vatican for the Faithful of the Latin Church. I think when the Orthodox Faith changed the people of the Slavic Countries its inculturation was based on a culture of faith not one of death as we have in the Western world. That is why inculturation in the Liturgy in the West is dangerous if not indeed suicidal ecclesially.

But Father, again for the sake of the Ecumenical dimension is not the current situation a concern for us and the Orthodox, is it not a grave scandal, and how long can we resist assimilation into the new culture of the new Conciliar Latin Church, indeed a new latinization or hybridization?

Thank you for your kind responses.

Father, Bless.

In Christ,

Robert

...Again and Again in peace let us pray to the Lord!

Father, Bless!

In regard to the "opening of windows" et al by the Council and the "attention" paid to the requests of the dead continental Reformers and the implementation of some of their most dire points, could we not say that the expression of the sincerity of intention in regard to the Council in the aggiornamento is at best the pablum of a naive approach to conciliar history and interpretation (Not to be disrespectful on my part, Father). Have we not already dismissed the fairy-tale that Vatican II was within the lineage of the previous 20 councils and that its authority was on par with them all? Were not all previous Councils convened to negate heresy and define and proclaim Dogma and promulagate discipline and Canons? Albeat Vatican II did promulagate a reform of discipline and Law it most certainly did not anathematize the most evil heresies of its day and combate error, but rather sought dialogue with it? My approach to these questions does not stem from a Western paradigm, but rather from a desire to develop or seek a firm and coherent Greek Catholic position.

Your Great!

Thank you Father!

Father, Bless.

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear in Christ Cantor Joe,

I think you could describe me as a the incarnation of the axiom, "the unexamined life is not worth living." But I try to have a sense of humor sometimes

I guess my Hungarian temper and hot blood get the best of me sometimes. Please forgive me!

And since we are in communion with the Latins we must be concerned with them not only from the standpoint of their liturgical praxis, but also their doctrinal currents. Being in Communion does not mean that we create mini ghettos whereby we settle comfortably ingnoring the "other" Catholics.

And my post title was in the spirit of a jounalistic eye catcher thang

How else do we get the interest of a worldly generation :rolleyes:

In the Theanthropos,

Robert

.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Cantor Joe:

I have many of the those "for private use only" liturgikons and prayer manuals. They are pretty neat; I cherish mine

Fr. Joe,

You are so articulate and clear. You make your points so clear. Thank you.

Axios

Brother Cantor Joe,

Don't get me wrong,change is needed at times,as the Lord said many times in the gospels,I am open to gradual change when needed regarding liturgy. Older RC'S like myself,feel alienated in the modern Church. Although I was 18 when the Roman Liturgy was changed alot of the older family members were very involved in the Church and had a impression on me. I don't think that younger RC's understand tradition or really care. I have'nt renounced the Holy Father, I voice my displeasure with modern ways. The Vatican is trying to please us Trads, but at their pace. I remember the Church as a place of reverence, not a production like "Jesus Christ Super Star".

In Christ,
James

.

.

Dear Fr. Joe and Fellow Posters,

I want to echoe Axios comments to Fr. Joe. Fr. Joe, your comments on ecclesial environment, the history and the renewal of the Latin Church are right on the mark!

In my opinion, these words of Fr. Joe rank right up there with the best insights about the process of Change that led to Vatican II and its renewal of the Western Church:

Quote from Fr. Joe

"I do not think however, that there needs to be or will be a radical revision of the Byzantine liturgy as some are afraid of. Ours has been a gradual renewal of authentic texts as needs present themselves. The Roman revisions came about in a more complete manner, with virtually no change from Trent to Vatican II. I don't see this happening with us. It is partially because of the fact that the minor adaptations have been occurring right along and partially because of the difference in the structure and nature of the two "rites" themselves. In the Eastern church there has not been the sense of "waiting for Rome" to act before changes are implemented. Since there is a variety of traditions and jurisdictions, each has undergone some amount of change in every period. Maybe in part, this has been the reason that many do not see the need for an "overhaul" of the liturgy, but rather, following history, are content to allow the liturgy to develop authentically, in response to the needs of time and place. Although the Roman Rite is now very flexible, this was not always the case, but I do believe that the Byzantine liturgy has always had a good amount of this flexibility which has thus allowed it to retain its integrity while still addressing necessary adaptations."

Thank you Father for the balance that you inject in many discussions of the Western Church and our Liturgy on the Forum.


Fellow Posters, I want thank you for the respect shown by most posters in this thread to the Western Church and our Liturgy and practices. Joe T. you have clearly pointed out the emotionally laden language that is used, inappropriately in my view, to describe the Liturgical renewal within our Church. Thank you for that.

As an older Latin Catholic myself, I can relate to my brother, James. I have struggled to embrace the changes. I have come to appreciate them and the need for them. But the pain of some of my fellow Latin Catholics over the changes is real. It is truly important that the issues that they properly raise be addressed. I believe that there are signs that the work of balancing their need and the need of the larger community is underway.

I do have to say that for most of us there is no crisis among the faithful and clergy of our Church of the magnitude that has been suggested. There is the pain of seeing the suffering of some in our Church that grew out of the need for renewal and the resulting changes.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Brother Steve,

Thank you for the kind remarks, but 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.

Brother Cantor Joe, thank you for your prayers,the Lord knows I need them.

In Christ,
James

Just some quotes:

"The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church's rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences."

"Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church."

(Vatican II, Liturgica Instaurationes)

Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

(Sacrosantum Concillium)

"Only the Eucharistic Prayers included in the Roman Missal or those that the Apostolic See has by law admitted, in the manner and within the limits laid down by the Holy See, are to be used. To modify the Eucharistic Prayers approved by the Church or to adopt others privately composed is a most serious abuse."

(Insetimabile Dominum)

"In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."

(Canon 907)

"The Church carries out its office of sanctifying in a special way in the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, by the use of signs perceptible to the senses, our sanctification is symbolized and, in a manner appropriate to each sign, is brought about. Through the liturgy a complete public worship is offered to God by the head and members of the mystical body of Christ. This worship takes place when it is offered in the name of the Church, by persons lawfully deputed and through actions approved by ecclesiastical authority."

(Canon 834)

This is a very interesting discussion and I wish I had a bit more time to participate in it.

I do hope that Fr. Joe is correct that this will not be a radical revision but the people �in the know� that I have spoken with have told me otherwise. Certainly, the rubrics now in effect in three of our eparchies testify to the advent of the revisionist liturgy.

First, some of the textual changes will become paraphrases of the original texts rather than exact translations. We�ve already discussed the translation of �Blahoslovi Vladyko� as �Reverend Father, give the blessing� instead of the proper �Bless, Master�. Such a translation effectively changes this from a prayer (�Master� is Christ who is present in the person of the bishop who pronounces the blessing, which the bishop delegates to the priest) to a rubric. As a rubric it is really unnecessary. In the litany the prayer for �our holy ecumenical pontiff� becomes �for our Holy Father, John Paul, the pope of Rome". This change confirms that we really are a third way and that we have no intentions of transferring back to the Patriarchate of Constantinople when reunion occurs (the title �ecumenical pontiff� belongs to the patriarch of Constantinople�). There are numerous other examples. No one has yet to provide a theological explanation of why such revisions to the text are necessary.

Second, the rubrical changes are great. The Office of the Three Antiphons is gutted. The little litanies are gone. Since those supporting the change often claim that since we no longer journey to get the patriarch and bishop to enter the church at the Third Antiphon we don�t need the litanies. But using this logic we should then eliminate the entire Office of the Three Antiphons and go from the litany of peace to the readings.

Also, the litany of the catechumens should be taken if there are catechumens present. The catechumens should be dismissed. The Roman Catholic diocese local to where I live has recently renewed the custom of dismissing the catechumens (either just after the homily or the creed). They have realized the importance of at least the symbolism between believers and those who are preparing for enlightenment.

Also, the litany before the Lord�s Prayer is shortened. The little litany after communion is gone. The celebrant no longer has the flexibility to take certain prayers aloud or silently as the Spirit leads him but will be mandated to pray many of these prayers aloud.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the revised liturgy greatly changes the dynamic and flow of the liturgy, making it more akin to a Roman Catholic Mass than a flowing Byzantine liturgy.

Fourthly, the revised liturgy will not be the same as the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that is used in the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. It will become a new way, one that is different even from our fellow Churches of the Ruthenian Recension (both Catholic and Orthodox). I am not actually sure if our little branch of the Ruthenian Recension has the authority to revise the liturgy and create a new Recension. It is my fervent prayer that some authority in Rome puts a stop to the revisions if one of our hierarchs does not. We need to live the received Ruthenian Recension liturgical life as documented in the official Roman editions for at least a generation or two before even thinking about revising them.

Maybe they will call it the �Revised Divine Liturgy of the Revised Ruthenian Recension�?

I agree with Fr. Joe that some of the restorations have been good (frequent communion, preaching, pastoral ministry etc.) but I believe that the revision of our liturgy is wrong.