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

Side Note:

As a member of the Universal Church I support both of you and others who love their Novus Ordo; because at least you are trying to be good and live your faith and it is understood when you desire to live "within the System", if you will.

Also note, that when in debate we need not turn to ad hominem, in fact when one has resorted to it one has in essence already lost his argument anyway. We need not be condescending like the liberals are to the "poor" "unenlightened" traditionalists with their "eccentric" and "archaic" view of life, because remember there never used to be an Anglican-like tripartite state within Catholicism, with its low, broad, high versions of Catholic Faith. To be Catholic once one was TRADITIONAL. So do not fault faithful Catholics, whether of the East or West, with fully being WHO and WHAT they are. When we are honest you get upset, when we violate our conscience by pretending everything is all right you are satisfied. Well I for one will NOT violate my conscience and I can't have bedside manner, I'm Hungarian

I'f I have offended you; I ask forgiveness for the offense, but not for the content of my conscience expressed in words.

In Christ,


Robert

Dear Administrator:

I can already feel your presence ; so I will cut to chase if you will As for me I am satisfied that I have vented and am now ready to move on with the discussion at hand. May all Latin Catholics throughout the world accept my request for forgiveness if by some of my words you have found offense, please forgive me a sinner.

It is really hard as a Byzantine Catholic to formulate a coherent and well thought out position in these matters; it is an emotional one, but I think it can be treated well, which I think we all will try to do in the future.

RE-POST of TOPIC QUESTIONS:

"Question:
1. How could the Vatican II Council Fathers choose revolution/reformation for the Latin Church and restoration for the Eastern Churches in its Communion? - This question is in regard to the Liturgy and Ritual.

2. If the Council Fathers wanted the "updating" of the Church as a whole why have the Eastern Catholic Churches not seen the "aggiornamento" that has swept through the Latin Church? Since the Fathers saw that the traditional Roman Rite was in essence out of touch with modern man and its expressions antiquated why have the Eastern Churches, whose Liturgical forms are even more esoteric and grandios than the traditional Roman Rite, been encouraged to restore even further these traditions? Why the seeming discrepancy? Was this in essence the new triumphalism? Is not the underlying signal: We will make the Roman Rite new and dynamic and the Eastern Rites relics which adorn the since sold triple tiara of the Pontiff? Has anyone else noticed this problem?

3. And if Rome desires an "updating" for us as well how could Eastern Churches update their liturgical forms to maintain the essence of an Eastern core without betraying its identity to either a Latin/Western liturgical paradigm and yet be made dynamic, relevant and modern?

4. And if, on our side, this updating is not intended, what can that possibly mean for the future of our Communion with the Latin Church? Was the aggioramento of the Latin Church the work of conciliar genius which will only lead to its steady growth or was it the most perilous action in Church History only to possibly lead to grave errors and schisms/apostasies? Are the Eastern Churches the salvation of the Latin Church while she plays with holy things or will we be relegated to the history books or reduced to nothingness because we did not as Episcopal retired bishop John Shelby Spong said, "Change or Die"??

Just some questions... "

Yours in Christ,


Robert

Regarding the admin's statement,"It is my fervent prayer that some authority in Rome puts a stop to the revisions if one of our hierarchs does not."
Unless I am mistaken, some authority in Rome (no less than Fr Robert Taft and the staff of the Oriental Congregation) has reviewed the proposed text of the Divine Liturgy, and made some minor corrections.

For those who think the Orthodox are without liturgical problems besause they hold a "traditional liturgy", please read this letter of 1973 from the eminent liturgical scholar Fr Alexander Schmemann:

On the Question of Litugical Practices [jacwell.org]

here's an excerpt:

In saying alll this I do not wish to imply in any way that it is enough for a priest to have pastoral zeal, and in general to "mean well" in order to do whatever he wishes: to alter services, to introduce new practices, to restore old ones, etc. There is no room in the Church for anarchy, and certainly it is the sacred duty of the Episcopate to guide, correct, lead, and decide in this area as in any other area of Church life. But what I most emphatically advocate and beg for is that decisions to be made in this most sensitive area, which in many ways determine all other aspects and the very spirit of the parish, be made on the basis of serious study, of the evaluation of all factors and implications. Being personally not "guilty" of any of the "abuses" enumerated in the instruction, I feel free to state that behind nearly each one of them there is a problem which cannot be reduced simply to disobedience or to "abuse" in the true sense of this word. Not everything that has been done for a hundred years and to which people are accustomed is necessarily correct in the light of the true liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy, and something which seems "new" and even "revolutionary' may very well be a much needed return to genuine tradition. Although the final decision is always reserved for the Episcopate, there should be time while searching for that decision, while trying to discern what is right and what is wrong, for study and consultation, for that blessed "sobornost" of which the Orthodox speak so much and which they practice so little.

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your postings.

I think that your position is clear.

Let me simply repeat what I said to Johan:

Quote Posted by Inawe:

"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."

Fr. Joe,

Thanks for your excellent posts on this topic. You have a great way of getting right to the heart of the matter. There is a great deal of flexibility in the current Byzantine Divine Liturgy and the inflexibility of the revisions to be imposed will only stagnate the celebration in our parishes. We do not need to revise the liturgy to create a third way that is different from the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

Your comments on the Office of the Three Antiphons are excellent, especially those about the important purpose of the litanies making sharp distinctions between the three antiphons. Even in our latinized days most of our parishes separated the antiphons by singing �Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. To You, O Lord. Amen� even though the litany was not taken. They seemed to have the liturgical sense that this was needed. I could understand the litanies remaining optional and the single verse of each antiphon being the bare minimum but we should not be publishing a liturgicon that removes this option. The sad part is, that those who argue for the revision of this part of the liturgy have not celebrated the fuller Office of Three Antiphons for years on end, something that is very necessary in order to appreciate them.

Regarding the dismissal of the catechumens in the Roman Catholic parish in my neighborhood, the catechumens immediately go to the parish hall where they participate in a formation program. I agree that this should be optional but my main point was that we seem to be eliminating practices that the Roman Catholics are now restoring.

--

Robert,

Thank you for your comments. I agree with many of them but I disagree with those about the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo. I realize that there is a great variance in the way Roman Catholic parishes across the country celebrate the liturgy but the parishes in my area that I have visited are excellent.

The issues you mention (poor catechesis, faithless homilies, heretical teaching, bad liturgy/music and those regarding architecture and art) have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo. The priest facing the people is the older form (after all, it was a Eucharistic MEAL � they sat around a table). Communion in the had by non-ordained ministers is a custom of the early Church, when Christians would take the Eucharist home with them to self-communicate during the week and to bring the Eucharist to the sick who could not participate in the Sunday liturgy. With all due respect, I think your comments on �liturgical archeologicalism� need further development. There is nothing wrong with restoration if such restoration is actually good for the Church. I would agree that the Latins jettisoned much good liturgical development in their hurry to re-embrace the liturgy of an earlier age. I disagree that such a move is in any way heretical, as some of your posts seem to suggest.

The questions you asked in your post from this morning are good ones and I will respond in a separate post later today (if I have a chance).

--
bisantino,

Thanks for your post. Yes, I am aware that Rome has approved the revision of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and that Fr. Taft was probably the main reviewer. With all due respect to Fr. Taft, he is fairly liberal when it comes to liturgy (even though his personal celebration at the Russicum is perfectly faithful to the Russian Recension). The fact that he has commented on the revisions does not make them acceptable or good for our Church. I have yet to see anyone speak to the issue of the necessity to fully renew our tradition before even considering revising it.

In the Liturgical Instruction this is quite clear:

The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating. (Section 18)

We have not yet restored our liturgical and spiritual life to our own received liturgical traditions. We have no right to revise it at this point in the life of our Church. We certainly have no right to ever revise it apart from the other Churches of the Ruthenian Recension (Catholic and Orthodox).

I�m not sure I understand your comments about Orthodoxy and their own liturgical issues and how they apply to this discussion. I have never suggested that anyone in the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy has the answers. I have only suggested that we must work together since we share the same liturgical and spiritual life. I�m also not sure about your reason for using that particular excerpt. Our received liturgical tradition is certainly not one of anarchy. It already has great flexibility and flexibility is certainly not anarchy. If anything, the excerpt supports the need to learn our tradition by living it and the necessity of understanding what one seeks to revise. Certainly a revision that is implemented from the top down is not an example of the �sobornost� Fr. Schmemann is speaking about.

Admin

Dear Steve,

You are correct, the Adoremus Bulletin (which I read fairly regularly) addresses a small cadre of Catholics.

The Administrator wrote:

Thank you very much for your comments. It makes no sense to me when traditional Roman Catholics hammer at Novus Ordo Catholics for receiving Communion in the hand today from an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist when the early lay Christians brought Holy Communion to the sick and homebound. One of the great fruits of the liturgical movement has been the move towards liturgical worship by the Protestant communions. Rather than being "protestantized" Catholics and Protestants are moving beyond the polemics of the Reformation and finding the common roots that existed in the early centuries.

The Roman church is very large. It will take time to address and correct some of the abuses that developed over the past 30 years but I believe it will come.

A coworker of mine, Mary, sacrified much to send her three children to Catholic elementary and junior high school. The family belongs to a Novus Ordo parish which they describe as very faithful to Catholic teaching and tradition. Mary's daughter finished her high school years in a public school so that her younger brothers could continue to attend the Catholic school. One day the students were asked to bring something to class that would show their self-identity. The daughter chose to bring a crucifix. Mary asked if she would be comfortable bringing a crucifix to a public school where she might be ridiculed. The daughter answered, "Mom, I'm a Catholic -- that's who I am."

I think there's still hope for us Romans. In the meantime, I thank God for the faithful witness of my Eastern brothers and sisters.

Khrystyna

Dear Christine,

Thanks for sharing your perceptions of the parishes in which you participated. I am happy to hear that your perceptions are similar to my own. Much good has come from the renewal. There is still much to do as you point out.

Isn't that always true with growing pains. It seems strange to describe the Church as having them; but, its the closest metaphor that I can find to express the problems and the wonders involved in such massive change.

Thanks also for confirming my supposition about Adoremus. I have not read a full issue of the journal, just some articles posted on the web site. I am glad that you find it to be beneficial.

I am grateful that you are posting here. Your love for our Church is apparent and what you say is said clearly and with love for both East and West.

Thanks,

Steve

Actually, we have no direct evidence whatsoever on the posture that Christians assumed for the first century Lord's Supper. But assuming the table etiquette observed in antiquity, the table would have been open on one side to allow the serving of food. The diners would have sat or reclined behind the table in a semi-circular arrangement. The place of honor was not at the center of the table but on its right side. At least this is what Klaus Gamber states in his book *The Reform of the Roman Liturgy*. In any case, to try to copy first century table customs is unproductive.

When we move into the second century, by which time the Eucharist had been detached from the Agape, we have evidence that all Christians stood and faced east for prayer. The pre-Nicene house churches suggest that the Table would have been sited in the east end. One house church shows that the table would have actually been joined to the east wall.

When I was in seminary, I was taught by my fine liturgics professor, who had recieved his Ph.D. at the Institute de Catholique and was firmly trained in Catholic liturgical studies of the 60's, that the original orientation of the liturgy was the priest facing the congregation. This eventually changed around the 6th century or so, a development that was universally recognized by all sound Western liturgists of the day as a degeneration. So went went the theory. Unfortunately, as I have since discovered, there is absolutely no evidence for this theory. The dominant note of patristic liturgy, and both St. Basil and St. John Damascene attribute this to apostolic tradition, is priest and congregation together facing east.

There are some 4th century basilicas where the altar is sited in the west end of the church; but liturgists such as Jungmann and Bouyer suggest that the congregation would still have turned toward the east for prayer.

In my opinion, the versus populum , which was promulgated so aggressively by Catholic and Anglican liturgists and bishops, has been disastrous for the Western rite. It violates what one might call a grammatical rule of Christian liturgy: we all face the Lord together. This orientation allowed the liturgy to develop as a sacrificial act and built into the celebration an openness to the coming kingdom. Now, however, we look at each other instead of looking toward the transcendent Deity who comes to us. It is no coincidence that with the adoption of versus populum, the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice has declined precipitiously.

It is often argued that the versus populum encourages the formation of community. Poppycock! Two things may be said: First, it is improper to manipulate the structure of the liturgy to achieve a specific a non-liturgical end. Community is established by our communal act of prayer and by sharing together in the body and blood of the Lord. Second, after 22 years of experience I can say that versus populum has not in fact strengthened the communal identities of our congregations. There are lots of things we can and should be doing to strengthen our sense of community, but playing with the altar is not one of them!

An unintended consequence is that it has made the Eucharist more priest-centered than ever. Now all eyes are focused on the celebrant. He becomes the entertainer and the congregations becomes his audience. I can tell you from long personal experience it is very hard for the celebrant to resist the lure of playing to his audience, and it is very hard for the laity to not look at the celebrant as the person whose job it is to entertain them. This has become especially true in congregations who have jumped up on the praise-band bandwagon.

The first change required for the renewal of the Western rite is the return to the ancient practice of priest and congregation together facing the Lord.

In Messias,
Alvin+

This post responds to Robert�s questions.

Q1. How could the Vatican II Council Fathers choose revolution/reformation for the Latin Church and restoration for the Eastern Churches in its Communion? - This question is in regard to the Liturgy and Ritual.

I think that this is simply a matter of the council fathers of Vatican II respecting that any effort in restoration or revision in the Eastern Catholic Churches must occur with respect to and in conjunction with such efforts in the corresponding Orthodox Churches. The Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches did lay down a number of principles for renewal, namely that the primary task of the Eastern Catholic Churches is to proclaim the Gospel to all people and convert the entire world to Jesus Christ. This decree also clearly stated that it is up to the Eastern Catholic Churches to rule themselves. This would include that the Eastern Churches, acting together, would be the appropriate authority to lead and direct any effort at restoration or revision of the received tradition.

2. If the Council Fathers wanted the "updating" of the Church as a whole why have the Eastern Catholic Churches not seen the "aggiornamento" that has swept through the Latin Church? Since the Fathers saw that the traditional Roman Rite was in essence out of touch with modern man and its expressions antiquated why have the Eastern Churches, whose Liturgical forms are even more esoteric and grandios than the traditional Roman Rite, been encouraged to restore even further these traditions? Why the seeming discrepancy? Was this in essence the new triumphalism? Is not the underlying signal: We will make the Roman Rite new and dynamic and the Eastern Rites relics which adorn the since sold triple tiara of the Pontiff? Has anyone else noticed this problem?

Again, I think this is because the council fathers wisely understood that: 1) they were not competent to revise a liturgical and spiritual tradition they did not live, that 2) we needed to restore our received liturgical and spiritual tradition and live it before attempting to revise it and 3) that we needed to undertake any revision of the Byzantine rite together with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. I don�t see the discrepancy you speak to or even a hint of triumphalism. I see only a practical reality of the council fathers addressing their own Latin Church.

Q3. And if Rome desires an "updating" for us as well how could Eastern Churches update their liturgical forms to maintain the essence of an Eastern core without betraying its identity to either a Latin/Western liturgical paradigm and yet be made dynamic, relevant and modern?

This depends entirely on what �updating� means. It is always appropriate to seek better ways to proclaim the Gospel. This does not mean that the Byzantine Church needs to choose a past century, consider it to be the perfect example of liturgy and then re-create it. It does mean that we need to life an authentic Byzantine Christian life so that we may learn the beauty of our Byzantine Christian life. Then, once we understand, we would examine the forms that work and the forms that don�t work. A good example of renewal that makes the liturgy more dynamic, relevant and modern is the use of American English in the Divine Services. This is not something foreign to our tradition so it is not controversial. I admire the wisdom of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine for translating the Ruthenian Recension liturgical books into modern Ukrainian and using them as the normative texts. Other examples of logical and good restorations would the renewal of people receiving the Eucharist frequently, the administering of the Sacrament of Anointing as needed (before and after surgery, for example, and to everyone on Holy Wednesday) rather than the older Western custom of anointing only prior to possible death.

Modern is not evil. Just as our language and culture changes so, too, must the Church change the ways in which it proclaims the Gospel to best fit each generation. For us Eastern Christians this can be done while keeping the core of our Eastern Christianity. As Fr. Joe pointed out earlier in this thread, we already have a wonderful flexibility in our liturgical tradition that it appears the pre-Vatican II tradition did not have.

I should comment specifically on the changes in the Latin Church. Most of the older Roman Catholics I know do have nostalgia for the old Latin Mass. But this nostalgia seems mostly for the wonderful high Masses and the richness of the music and the quality of those Masses. They fully realize that such wonderful High Masses were not the norm in most parishes and that the norm was a recited Mass in Latin. Few of the older folk I have talked with would go back to those recited Latin Masses. Most simply desire a quality celebration of the current Mass. The issue of a quality celebration must always be considered separately. One should not compare the best of the old Latin Mass (which was relatively infrequent in the life of a parish) with the worst examples of the new liturgy.

Q4. And if, on our side, this updating is not intended, what can that possibly mean for the future of our Communion with the Latin Church? Was the aggioramento of the Latin Church the work of conciliar genius which will only lead to its steady growth or was it the most perilous action in Church History only to possibly lead to grave errors and schisms/apostasies? Are the Eastern Churches the salvation of the Latin Church while she plays with holy things or will we be relegated to the history books or reduced to nothingness because we did not as Episcopal retired bishop John Shelby Spong said, "Change or Die"??

Updating is intended, but such updating must only come from a Church that actually lives the tradition it has and has learned to understand it by living it. We have much renewal to do in our parish lives before beginning to learn about and understand our own liturgical and spiritual tradition. We need parishes with a regular celebration of vespers and matins in order for our people to understand the importance of these services. [Right now, by marrying services like vespers to the Divine Liturgy for Saturday evenings and feasts we are only perpetuating the modern Latin view that a Divine Service must have Eucharist in order for it to be important or worth going to.]

I think that the Spirit led many of the VII changes to the liturgical life of the Latin Church. It is the implementation of council directives that have failed and caused much heartache. The changes certainly were not perilous. With all due respect, I think that a conclusion that the Vatican II changes to the Latin Mass will lead only to grave errors and schism/apostasies is totally erroneous. Further, the East is not the salvation of the West. The West will eventually address the abuses that came with the implementation of the changes. Right now there are far more people converting to Roman Catholicism than to any other faith, Christian or non-Christian. Roman Catholics are certainly doing something right. I am not suggesting that this justifies an �anything goes� approach to liturgy but I think that it does support the general ideas on renewal from the Vatican II Council.

Dear Fr. Joe,

Thank you for sharing your witness about what you've seen in the post-counciliar Roman Liturgy in which you participated.

I'd like to thank you also for your other kind words. I find the same vibrant spirit in your postings and in the postings of the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Even those which critique the Latin Liturgy and find it wanting give evidence of their writers' concerns for assuring that the Liturgy is celebrated appropriately.

Again, thanks.

Steve

Quote posted by Fr. Joe:

"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."

Dear Administrator,

I just want to thank you for your presentation of reality about the Roman Liturgy according to the missal of Paul VI. What you say reflects the situation in most parishes with which I am familiar.

Things in our Church are not perfect, but neither are they are in a state of major crisis nor in a state of impending disaster. We have much to do as does any large body of humans faced with the magnitude of change that we've experienced. I believe that we have handled this process, pretty well under the leadership of our Hierarchy. I know that others don't think so.

So thank you for this:

"I think that the Spirit led many of the VII changes to the liturgical life of the Latin Church. It is the implementation of council directives that have failed and caused much heartache. The changes certainly were not perilous. With all due respect, I think that a conclusion that the Vatican II changes to the Latin Mass will lead only to grave errors and schism/apostasies is totally erroneous. Further, the East is not the salvation of the West. The West will eventually address the abuses that came with the implementation of the changes. Right now there are far more people converting to Roman Catholicism than to any other faith, Christian or non-Christian. Roman Catholics are certainly doing something right. I am not suggesting that this justifies an “anything goes” approach to liturgy but I think that it does support the general ideas on renewal from the Vatican II Council."

Steve

Dear Administrator,

Again you are right on the mark. My husband grew up in the pre-Conciliar Church and regularly experienced what he called "Low Mass", which had little liturgical aesthetic to it and certainly none of the glorious music found at a High Mass. He said sometimes the parish priest managed to get everyone out the door in less than half an hour. Unless one grew up in a family that developed one's appreciation for the glories of classical Western hymnody and music the normal Sunday parish Mass was not a stellar exemplar for high liturgy. I still see some of that mentality in some folks who dash right out the door after receiving Holy Communion. My 83 year old mother-in-law tells me she is glad the Mass is in English now.

Steve,

Thanks very much for your kindness. I appreciate that all of us on this forum, East and West, love the Church, our spiritual mother.

Khrystyna

Dear Steve,

I think "growing pains" are a very apt metaphor --only something that is alive can experience them.

Dear Fr. Kimel,

Please accept my belated welcome to the Forum. I have read your postings with great interest. They are always thought provoking. ( I found the notion of periodic virgins especially interesting.)

I read with great interest your opinion on the versus populum issue. This issue has generated much heat during its frequent reappearances here.
Based on what you said in your posting, I'd like to pose a question or two. Then, I'd like to explain why I ask.

First, the questions:

What leads you to conclude that when the priest faces the altar and the people that we are not all facing God together?

Why leads you to suggest that it is poppycock to say that the formation of community is a purely non liturgical act and that it is manipulation to recognize the liturgical basis of our community in the Liturgy?


Here's why I ask:

In your posting you seem not to recognize the presence of God as He presents himself in the Roman Liturgy. Christ is present in the priesthood of the priest. He is present in His Eucharistic form. As His body we are centered on Him as we lift Him up and offer Him to the Father. He is the transcendent God Incarnate.

He is present in His Body, the Church which is renewed by the Liturgical renewal of Christ's Sacrifice. The Church is recommissioned during the Liturgical celebration to go and to bring others to face Him where He is in the world. We are charged to go and build the Kingdom to come.

This is liturgical building of community at its deepest in sacred word and action. It appears to me to be a reach to label it poppycock. It is at the heart of what happens. We even face God together when we recognize the presence of Christ in eachother at the exchange of a handshake.

So it seems to me that our Liturgy makes clear that we are centered very deeply on God as He has come to us. Certainly we were facing God together when we all faced the altar against a wall no matter what direction the wall faced.

My point is that we still are.

It could be inferred from what you have suggested that our people are dimwitted theologically. While we are certainly in need of ever better catchesis, we know the reality that we share. Our Liturgy is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus. Most of us know what the Mass is about.

Certainly we look to Roger, the priest. We look to him because he shares Christ's priesthood. We looked at his back when he faced the wall as he celebrated the Tridentine Liturgy. He is not an entertainer; he is priest who directs our attention to the Mysteries we celebrate and the Kingdom come among us. We know the difference. We see Christ there among us in his priesthood.

Roger, the priest sees Christ present in us baptized into and gathered as His Body. We see Christ in each other and in our worshipping community.

Based on all of this, I cannot agree with the assertion that we do not face God together in the celebration of the Liturgy in the Roman Church. I cannot agree that our Novus Ordo is less community building than is the Tridnetine Mass. We are certainly not playing at the altar.

In my opinion, theological reality is made even more explicit in our liturgical actions and words.

That was a major purpose of the renewal, as I understand it.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Thank you, Steve, for your thoughtful post and questions. You first ask:
Who are you looking at during the Eucharistic prayer? To what are you attending?

And who or what is the celebrant looking at? Every priest struggles precisely with this question. Do I look at the missal? Do I look at the stain glass window at the other side of the room? Do I look at the congregation? If I do, do I look at one person? Do I make eye contact? Do I look at several people, lest anyone think that I am playing favorites?

The spiritual dynamics of versus populum are different than the dynamics of praying toward the east. This is not to say that the versus populum in any way disqualifies our Eucharist. Of course our corporate prayer, even when the priest faces his congregation, is prayer that is addressed to and accepted by our God. It's a matter of symbolism, though. The prayer of the Eucharist is directed to the transcendent Father. The sacrificial Lamb is presented to the holy one of Israel. Which orientation best symbolizes the divine transcendence? Which orientation best symbolizes our relationship to God?

Consider it this way: The Holy Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Church, offered to God the Father, through the mediation of our great high priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. It is our participation in the divine liturgy of heaven. It seems appropriate and right that during this sacrificial offering, the celebrant, who especially at this point is speaking and acting in the person of Christ, should be facing in the same direction as the congregation, that together we face the holy, mysterious transcendence that is God. We are not, at this time in the liturgy, called to focus our attention on our high priest but on the God to whom our great high priest is offering the holy sacrifice.

When the priest faces the congregation he is, of course, facing God; but now he is facing God as God is immanent within the community. And this skews everything and turns our relationship with God upside down. The divine transcendence (i.e., God's utter difference from his creation) is the foundation of God's immanental presence. It is because God is so utterly different than his creatures that he can can make himself so intimately present to us without in any way minimizing or compromising his transcendence.

I am convinced that the versus populum represents a terrible violation of the structure of the liturgy. It cultivates a comfort with the holy God that is too comfortable, too easy. It domesticates him. I am reminded of Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. He is not a tame lion.

If West is ever going to restore the liturgy, it must restore the ancient orientation.

What I mean is this: The question "How can we celebrate the Holy Eucharist so that it generates a better sense of community or improves our communal feelings?" is completely out of place and must not be asked. It is a subtle form of works righteousness that substitutes our own meager and usually silly efforts for the work of the Spirit amongst us. It is the Holy Spirit that creates community through the Gospel. Period. If our community feeling is weak, then we need to get on our needs and start praying for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit. What we don't want to do is summon a meeting of the worship committee! :-)

Our primary question must always be "How may we celebrate the Holy Eucharist in a way that truly glorifies God? How can we celebrate the liturgy in a way that best embodies the Gospel of Jesus Christ and fulfills the instituted purposes of the Eucharist?"

As soon as we starting thinking of manipulating the structure and order of the liturgy in order to generate specific kinds of feelings and achieve specific kinds of political ends, we have begun down the road that ultimately leads to clown Masses, praise bands, and "meaningful" self-worship. Don't get me wrong. Praise bands and tamborines have their place in the life of the Church--just not in the Sunday Eucharist.

I don't think we are in disagreement here. Again, think of it this way. When the Blessed Sacrament is offered to God the Father, do we want to be looking at the face of Christ, or do we not want to be looking through him and past him to the Father?

Again, I don't think we are in disagreement. The points about which you write equally apply to a liturgy where the celebrant faces east with the people.

Oh, how I wish this were true! But alas, it is neither true for Anglicans nor for Catholics. But I'm not speaking here of head knowledge. I'm speaking here of a knowledge that the liturgy itself communicates through its structure and symbolism.

For the first 15 years of my ministry, I served parishes with versus populum liturgies. I then became rector of a Church with the altar against the wall. At first I felt terribly uncomfortable. It took me a good while just to learn how to celebrate the liturgy in this way. And after I became comfortable with this form of celebration I noticed two things in particular. First, the sense of awe and holiness communicated in the liturgy was much stronger, much more powerful. The liturgy was truly an experience of mystery offered to mystery.

And secondly, I experienced a tremendous liberation as a priest. I never had realized how much I had been held captive to my "audience" in the versus populum liturgy. I suddenly had opportunities to actually pray during the liturgy itself. You see, when you are constantly facing the congregation, you always feel, at some deep, perhaps unconcious level, that you are on stage--and indeed you are. You are the center of attraction, which is precisely what you do not want to be at the sacrificial offering.

[to be continued. off to dinner]

In Messias,
Alvin+