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

Dear Robert,

You just explained the point that you were making without using words or metaphors which could be misinterpreted as belittling or abusive.

In fact, the Latin Church and/or our Liturgy wasn't presented as a source of an Eastern problem.

The big picture is clearer and no feelings could be hurt. :rolleyes:

Thanks for taking the trouble to make that happen.

Steve


Thank you.

That is an abomination! I thought we were suppose to have a liturgy that was parallel to our Orthodox counterparts? This would be going against what the spirit of Vatican II had in mind with regards to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Once again, this is something "inflicted" on our Particular Church recension from "within". God help us change the thinking of our hierarchs before it is too late!

Ung-Certez

Dear Christine:

What I am saying and I want to be clear is simply this: When in Rome do as the Romans do, when in Byzantium do as the Byzantines, when in Moscow do as the Muscovites, etc.. That's it. What you do is what you do, but when we start acting like old Romans in Byzantium that's when I draw the line. That's the clincher for me.

As for the issue that some traditional Catholics didn't have a relashionship with Jesus Christ is their own business. We cannot make windows into mens souls; we can only worry about the content and state of ours. God is Mystery and that Mystery can use anything He wills to bring souls to Him, Novus Ordo, trad. Latin Mass, and our Divine Liturgy; what needs to be worked are a few kinks to get the ball going with all of us. For me the issue is unity and authentic continuity, once we got that down, then it's in the bag.

Kudos on your spiritual journey.

Yours in Him,


Robert

Dear Ung-Certez:

Where is His Beatitude Judson when we need him? Memory Eternal. Frankly I don't know where Metropolitan Basil sits on the Orthodox barometer. That would be the clincher really in all this I would think. But yes, this issue is going to be a watershed in determining who we are and where we want to go as a Church.

In Christ,


Robert

Fr. Joe and Christine,

I have to STRONGLY disagree with all of your assumptions about Post-Vatican II and the Latin Church. I see NO fruits of Vatican II and I see no evidence of a renew of spirit! Further, I see a STRONG movement that can be only the result of the Holy Spirit moving in people�s lives to return to Traditional Liturgies.

There are thousands and thousands of young people (Post-Vatican II) who are discovering the treasures of the Church on their own. They either attend a Latin Mass or head in the Eastern direction. Case in point the countless people on this Forum who are not Byzantine Catholics.

Vatican II has been nothing short than a disaster for the Roman Catholic Church. It can even be compared to the Iconoclast of the East. It may well take many many years for the Church to reform like She did during the Iconoclast.

Whenever we see a Traditional Latin Community we see a raise in vocations. Case in point Campos Brazil in which the people their have never seen the Latin Churches "New Mass". Vocations in Campos are higher than any other Post-Vatican II country per population ratio. Yes, Campos is in FULL communion with Rome.

The Fruits of Vatican II I see are Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Weakland, Cardinal Law, etc... including Pope John II who reportly slammed his fist on his desk when ask "What went wrong with Vatican II." In which the Pope replied (Slamming his fist on the table), "Nothing was wrong with the council." However, the previous Pope said, "The Smoke of Satan Has entered the Church."

Christine,

Screaming and hollering while dancing around with your hands raised high may give some a spiritual rush (it works for some Protestants) but that kind of spirituality in highly incomplete. If young people are raised to always expected some spiritual rush when the enter Church then there spirituality will never be complete and they fall away from the faith. Every young Catholic East and West should be raised and taught about spiritual abandment in which God draws back in order to for us to draw closer. The Charismatic movement in VERY dangerous to the spiritual development of our youth.

Facts speak for themselves Vocations are down, the Church is rocked with Scandal, the Liturgy is Joke in many parishes, New Age is creeping into many parishes, etc... Vatican II was a complete and under disaster!

Please note I mean no disrespect but I must disagree with your post.

"It'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 doesn't mean that some changes in the liturgy are being put in practice by priests and Bishops in Greece."

This attitude is a sad one. While this entire discussion has been centered around a spirit of opposition to what is being attempted with regard to the Ruthenian Recension, its concerns are quite different from what reactionaries in the Church of Greece, the Archbishop included are displaying.

The reforms proposed by some Greek bishops can hardly be said to mirror the reforms of the Latin liturgy after Vatican II. His analogy is a poor one and sadly, displays yet another example of the fears and presuppositions of many in so-called conservative circles. Some may disagree, but the perpetuated exclusive use of now extinct languages is contrary to the original idea of the Byzantine liturgy. While these languages may have at one time been equivalent or close to the spoken language of the people, this is no longer the case and has not been for centuries. As we all know, language is constantly changing and evolving and these languages have, like Latin, become literary or ecclesiastical idioms, many nuances and vocabulary of which is simply not understood or employed in everyday speech. Why cannot those like the Greek Archbishop make this logical conclusion? And why is it not seen that languages people do not understand is not faithful to the tradition of the Eastern Church?

I personally have some affinity for Church Slavonic, because of my heritage, and enjoy some use of it in liturgical services, for the sake of its historical value, but I also am confident enough in the liturgy of my church to be able to express its beauty and spirituality in today's lingual forms, whatever they may be in a particular community.

I've heard it said by Greek people, that they do not understand hardly 10 percent of what is chanted in church, because the language is not the same as that which they know and speak. The same is true of Church Slavonic, which can be ascertained by a survey of those in parishes which speak contemporary Ukrainian. My parishioners and many others have consistently said that they simply do not understand much of the Slavonic liturgy and were happy when the transition was made to Ukrainian. While there are many similarities between the two (Ukrainian and Slavonic), liturgy requires both ascetic beauty and an ability to understand the words of the prayers in a manner that does not require the worshipper to think twice about the meaning of the texts. There is not time during a living service, to refer to dictionaries or ponder over the nuances of this or that expression. The meaning needs to be clear. This is all the more true when it comes to making the transition from Church Slavonic or Ecclesiastical Greek to a completely different tongue such as English. Can one imagine the stichera of vespers chanted in Slavonic in a current Ruthenian eparchial parish? While it would be no problem for me to do this, who would understand the beautiful theology of the prayers? Same in a Ukrainian church with Ukrainian and I would venture to say that people would also be much more appreciative in a Greek parish if the services were to be rendered in the language they know. One exception to this rule seems to be the Arabic liturgy, which as far as I know, does not present a difficulty for people to understand the service. If it does, I stand corrected, but in the Arabic parishes I've visited, this has never been brought up.

Again, I think it's a shame that hierarchs such as the Archbishop of Athens are so afraid of any type of change at all, that it stymies the ability of the people to know and appreciate their spiritual patrimony expressed in the prayers of the liturgy. It's important to remember here, that the discussion among the Greeks was not even about radical changes in the order or structure of the liturgy (except some minor abbreviations that are probably already being done), but only to put it into a idiom that people can understand. From previous articles, I remember that the language was the major issue. Astonishing for sure and again, so contrary to the heritage of the Eastern Church.

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Fr. Joe,

If the Church implements the changes into the Liturgy as it stands now it will only cause further schism in our Church. Many will leave the Church and return to Orthodoxy or something else. I see this Liturgical movement as dangerous ground. The Church should rather move in the direction of restoring our traditions. We have lost so much. The said thing is that most of our Church does not know what all we have lost.

I see another great schism in the future. I pray our Bishops will have enlightment to preach what has been taught rather than invent what has never been.

Dear Johan S,

I can only say that the Roman Church that you describe is not the Post Vatican II Church in which I live and where I find many fruits of the Spirit. The Liturgy and the Sacraments are celebrated and the works of mercy abound. The good lives of the countless ordinary holy men and women and clergy and religious are all around us in plain sight.

Sorry that our sinfulness and our growing pains which are also plain to see have clouded the vision of the Spirit working to shape the rest of us to be as He would have us be through the renewal.

It is good, though, that you do see His Handiwork in at least some communities of our Church. May you find your way to Him among us in those communities. May He also help to make clear his work among the rest of us in the same Roman Church.

Pray for us as we do for you.

Steve

Dear Robert,

I understand very clearly what you are saying and I believe I affirmed the Eastern experience. And as for looking into men's souls, I couldn't agree more but our Lord did say we would be known by our fruits. Ritual and liturgy can become vehicles for spiritual growth or good hiding places for the unconverted.

Johan,

When I wrote that I am hearing young Catholics singing their hearts out I was not implying that they were letting loose in an enthusiastic, charismatic style. What I meant was I see them participating in the Mass in a way that my mother-in-law did not in her time -- for her the Mass was praying her rosary or reciting her novena to St. Anthony while the priest and altar servers went about their business. That is NOT what authentic Roman liturgy should be. The whole church cannot be judged by Cardinal Mahoney or Archbishop Weakland. With Steve I agree that your description is entirely alien to the parishes I have experienced.

Khrystyna

Dear James,

Now I gotcha! Since you didn't specify that you were using the Roman morning and evening prayer format I wasn't sure. Anglicans and Lutherans also have a shorter form of the Liturgy of the Hours so yes, it can become confusing! I use the Roman Liturgy of the Hours, too.

Dear Johan:

I firmly agree with you. What I was speaking about above was merely the debate in the Greek Orthodox Church as to the use of contemporary Greek as opposed to the current, ecclesiastical Greek, that many claim to not understand. The use of the vernacular of the time and place is something I feel strongly about, although an occasional inclusion of Church Slavonic (or entire such liturgies for certain audiences at certain times - eg. na otpust) certainly would do justice to our heritage, which we should not forget.

Read my comments earlier in this post, on the previous several pages and you will see my opinions on the current proposed liturgical "reforms" in the Ruthenian recension. Also note my contributions to the post on "post-Paschal rubrics." I think you will then notice my feelings about these matters. A major problem in all this is that a return to the shape of the liturgy in antiquity is not always beneficial for today nor takes into account "organic development" of the Byzantine liturgy in general and the Ruthenian usage in particular. I agree that in many ways, the proposed revisions are a trip into what has never been, at least in centuries and certainly in the "received texts" that our liturgy is founded on.

Steve and Khrystyna, I also agree with your sentiments on the post-conciliar Roman liturgy. From what I have witnessed in Latin parishes, the liturgy indeed does serve the spiritual compass of both Roman tradition and contemporary experience. You are a good witness to the vibrancy and living spirit of your church.

Johan, lest anyone misunderstand, as we've said earlier, the concerns of the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church are not synonymous and liturgical development in both churches must be taken separately and with attention to the unique ethos of each, as I believe Robert also affirms at heart. I don't know from your posts, if you are Greek Catholic or Roman Catholic. If we are Byzantine, then our judgment should be focused on our own authentic liturgical witness. For Roman Catholics, the experience and spiritual satisfaction of many of its members speaks for itself. Naturally, not all will be happy with every situation.

For the entire church, much of the theological content of the Vatican II documents is rich in content and uses much of the imagery of the East. I don't think that these can at all be simply dismissed as a disaster for the church, but rather a welcome refocusing on ecclesiology form purely bureaucratic and hierarchical to more patristic and conciliar.

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Steve,

Thank you so much for being concerned about my spirituality. I am a Byzantine Catholic, was born a Byzantine Catholic, and will die a Byzantine Catholic.

There are many good things happening in Protestant as well as Catholic Churches that can only be the result of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that there are many works of mercy in your Catholic Church. However, I believe you will fail to convince me that the good works that are in your church are the direct result of Vatican II and the Post-Councilor documents.

Recently, the Holy Father has called on the Latin Church to explore how it can bring back the scared in the Mass. Why would the Church need to bring BACK something if it is not lost? There is a letter by the Pope discussing this very issue.

Steve I recommend you read: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=17832 it was a non-scientific survey done to ask Catholics if there is anything wrong with the "New Mass." To be honest I don't care what the Latin Church decides to do. For me personal I will not go to the "New Mass" nor will I allow my children to attend. I do not believe the "New Mass" is invalid but I prefer to stick to my traditions and if there is not a Church available I will go to an Orthodox.

Further, Steve you might want to explore these questions: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...amp;newsid=7382979&PAG=461&rfi=9 about the "New Mass"

Dear Johan,

Thank you for your concern for the welfare of our Church. I am simply presenting the notion that my experience and understanding of the working of the Spirit in the Post Vatican II Church is quite different from yours. It is not my job to convince you of anything.

But, since you have presented your opinion and appear to offer of support for that opinion in your links, I have a couple of comments.

Based on your passionate statements, I thought that you were a Latin Catholic who had a dislike of the renewal and the renewed Liturgy.

Frankly, it surprised me that you, as a Byzantine Catholic, have formed such deep animosity toward the Post Vatican II Roman Church. This is especially true because you make these observations from without that Church. Such observations are more commonly expressed by members of our Church who are unhappy with her for some reason.

I have followed your links and I thank you for them. I must say though that they appear to be dubious sources to support the accuracy of the vision that you expressed.

The study reported in the first was conducted by a journal that is appears to be a publication of persons who seek to bring about the return of the Latin Church to a Pre-Vatican II way of life. The population surveyed is small and skewed; it is made up of a select group of Catholics who self select first to read the journal and then to participate in the survey. It seems natural to assume that the results would show agreement with the point of view of the journal and thus dissatisfaction with the renewal.

Given that, it seems to me unreliable to suggest that the study's results are representative. In short, I think that it is improper to use its conclusions to make any statements about the beliefs or feelings of the majority of Roman Catholics and to suggest that they are reliable and objective statements.

The second link is to a letter to the editor. It is hard to make a sound conclusion based on such evidence. The questions are interesting.

You are certainly entitled to make your judgement.
It seems to me that the sweeping generalizations in your posting are indeed your personal opinion. It saddens me that you chose to express an opinion that denigrates the working of the Spirit life of our Church in a thread on reform of the Byzantine Liturgy. That is, of course your right.

I am sorry that you have such a negative view of our Church and its practices and cannot see the working of the Spirit in Vatican II and the Post Vatican II Church. I disagree, but you know that.

It seems reasonable to me to accept the teachings of the Council, of our hierarchy and of the Pope on how the Spirit works in our Church. It appears to me that there is general acceptance by the majority of my fellow believers in the Roman Church that He has done so through the renewal.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

P.S. Can we agree to disagree? That way the focus can move from liturgical renewal and the Post Vatican II Roman Church to the topic under discussion.

Dear Christine and Steve:

For many Byzantine Catholics the main reason why it is not an option to attend the Novus Ordo is the same reason traditional Latin Catholics will also not attend.

Some reasons are: poor catechisis, faithless homilies, outright heretical teaching, communion in the hand, communion from non-priestly ministers, bad liturgy, bad music, fear their children will loose their Faith and traditions, fear they will loose their Faith and traditions, and last but not least the horrendous and oftentimes outright non-Catholic forms of architecture and "art", plus the feeling of scandal of the priest facing the people and the tabernacle being placed on some side table or in another room. For me this is a grave sacrilidge: to assert that the Christ in the reserved Sacrament is not appropriate on the altar during the great Sacrifice. That is the message one receives - rhetoric about the early church doing it notwithstanding - read my statement about the heresy of liturgical archeologicalism.

I am amazed at the denial factor here, about this insessant need to be PC and hide our heads in the rose bushes when everything around us is odiforous. So I am sorry I strongly and firmly disagree with your assessments.

In St. Athanasius:

Robert Horvath

Dear Father Joe:

This attitude is a sad one. While this entire discussion has been centered around a spirit of opposition to what is being attempted with regard to the Ruthenian Recension, its concerns are quite different from what reactionaries in the Church of Greece, the Archbishop included are displaying.

Archbishop Christodoulos support the dialogue of his Church with the Roman Catholic Church and accepted the Pope's presence in Greece, he received him and he was very happy and moved by the sincere words of the Roman Pope. He suspended and defrocked priests of his jurisdiction who participated in protests against the Pope and now has agreed with the EP in removing schismatic anti-ecumenist monks in Mt. Athos. It is not fair to call him reactionary.

The reforms proposed by some Greek bishops can hardly be said to mirror the reforms of the Latin liturgy after Vatican II. His analogy is a poor one and sadly, displays yet another example of the fears and presuppositions of many in so-called conservative circles.

Well they don't mirror post-Vatican II reforms but they can be similar to previous reforms such as the 1965 Roman Missal (vernacular language, abreviated prayers, shortened litanies, etc). Don't forget that some of the changes were done little by little, vernacular liturgies existed long before Vatican II, in France and Latin America, for example.

I totally support the vernacular translations, but I think it's healthy to have translations in a language different from the common language of the people in the streets, such as a "liturgical English". I particularly enjoy reading the Anglican Book's original text which are very special in its approach to the mystery of the liturgy.

However I still think that a liturgical language such as Latin in the Roman Church protected the texts of the Liturgy from abuses or bad translations, specially in the West where the Protestant heresy was very strong, and where small changes in the words can symbolize profound changes in doctrine.

I disagree with those who think that the post-Vatican II Roman Church is too disastrous and negative. I have attended many Roman masses myself and there are still many parishes were the liturgy is celebrated reverently. However, I also disagree with those who think everything is fine and that no criticism must be done to the abuses that arrived after some of V-II's reforms. There's no doubt that the Roman Church is very far from the "new springtime of christian faith" promised by the changes.

I don't think Eastern Christians, catholics and Orthodox, should be eyed-closed regarding changes in the Roman Church and its liturgy. This is because East and West shared something which is very important, a true liturgical life with meaningful symbols and a living testimony of the faith, this is something that most Protestant denominations lack. The Roman Mass and the Divine Liturgy are depicable for the Protestant sects, as shown by the recent publication of the "manual on how to convert Orhodox...", they are depicable because they represent the faith of the Church and contain the doctrines that the Protestants hate (theosis, real presence, mystery, propitiation, sacrifice, etc).

If the liturgical life is affected by abuses or bad translations, or even errors in some words, the rubrics, and the meaningful symbols of the liturgy, the faith will sooner or later be affected and undermined. This is why the crisis in the West has a direct impact in the Eastern Catholic Churches too, they're in communion with the West, this is impossible to deny.