This article by Fr. Taft which someone posted in another thread has insights into the liturgical renewal we are about to experience.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009165606/praiseofglory.com/taftliturgy.htm

Here are a couple of interesting quotes:







It appears that Fr. Taft has conflicting principles. Can we actually be rooted in the past and NOT reject modernity? That is the essential question. I suggest that modernity and the authentic tradition of the East are incompatible. The solution to the crisis of modernity is to discover our roots (in authentic liturgy and theology), water them and see if they grow. If not, then we can tweak things to fit modernity.

Christianity a "viable lifestyle"? Now that's a worth a discussion all by itself...

I also found some of his statements about the "reform" (destruction, rather) of the Roman Rite in Fr. Keleher's book really upsetting. I don't have the book with me now, since somebody
borrowed it from me.

Is it just me or does Fr. Taft, S.J. have a penchant for overstatement? I certainly found many kernels of truth in his article, but it seems to me that Fr. Taft is too willing to have strong opinions based on forced dichotomies (high and low Christology, etc.) and sweeping generalizations. The article did remind me how dangerous systematic theologians can be with their use of history.

Of course, Fr. Taft is right that we tend to romanticize the past. But, does that mean we shouldn't aspire toward the ideal, simply because no age has reached it?

Also, what is modernity? "Modernity" is such a generic and nebulous label. There are many things I appreciate about "modernity," if we mean by that, the Lockean/Kantian tradition of natural rights and representative democracy. But, if we mean by "modernity" the secular-atheistic aspirations of modern man, then I hardly think that we need to adapt to them (unless adaptation means resistance).

The problem, it seems to me, is that genuine inculteration of liturgy is something that must occur naturally. It can't occur through a committee. the beauty of the ancient liturgies comes from the fact that they developed out of the life of ancient Christian peoples with properly Christian sensibilities. The current "modernization" experiment with the liturgy, is the attempt to impose consumerist, "rock'n roll" culture onto a stream of tradition that is fundamentally alien. When the values of a culture are greed, murder, selfishness, and atheism, then it is the culture that needs to be changed, not the Church. God bless

Joe

I note that in Fr. Taft's article he refers to one of the founding members of ICEL:



In an address to the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, McManus said:



http://www.adoremus.org/1205NewsViews.html

Joe,

You ask what is modernity? I am glancing at "On the Doctrines of the Modernists" by Pope Pius X. It is a little unnerving to read Fr. Taft's article along side this Encyclical which is available here:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

I can't put my arms around anything in this short time, but I think there is something to be seen in comparing the two.

For the modernist, knowledge is simply phenomena. History becomes, thereby the ultimate "science". This of course makes the historian the wisest of men. Theology is reduced to historical understanding of all phenomena, rather a knowledge of God.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but what I sense when I read something like that is how disconnected that might be from the thoughts or concerns of the average parishioner in regards to the liturgy.

Aside from that, I find statements like this



hard to comprehend. It seemed the Bishop of Parma was saying something similar in regards to the changes to the liturgy in his letter posted recently. I honestly really have to wonder who it is that advocates of this line of thinking are targeting. Who are these people that want an accessible and contemporary liturgy? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who I have ever talked to who has converted to Orthodoxy (and it may be a different type of person that goes that direction) has a completely different viewpoint. It's the fidelity to tradition, and the stark contrast with modernity, that they find attractive.

The only conclusion I can come to is they are gearing this primarily at drawing in disaffected Latin Catholics, or if not disaffected then just those seeking something a little more traditional that what you find in most Latin Rite parishes.

You raised some really good questions (as usual). They in turn re-engaged questions of mine. Are we (that is, the Orthodox-Catholic) reaching people for Christ? Or, are we reaching people who already know Christ but want a deeper knowledge of Him, or a more traditional setting for worship, etc.?

Now, of course, there is nothing wrong with the latter but is it really evangelism? It seems more like spiritual growth/discipleship, etc. But what about the call of the Gospel to reach the unchurched and those who have no faith?

For example, here in the state of Kansas, many scholars estimate that close to 40% of the population have no church home (I know that probably shocks some people). In the classes that I teach, I am shocked at how few young people know the basics of Christianity -- many don't even know what Easter is all about. The vast majority could not tell you what the doctrine of the Trinity means to save their lives (or their souls). I am reminded constantly that a large number of these young people have never been in a Church and have no knowledge of the saving truths of the Gospel.

To make matters worse, for many (most?) of my students, Christians are bigotted, arrogant people who judge others and are quick to send anyone who disagrees with them to hell. (I know this because I have asked them.) (They often seem surprised when they find out how I am and what I believe -- "But you seem so nice," one student said to me in shock "How could you be one of them?")

The mission field of the Church has to be these young people and the thousands upon thousands like them. Are we reaching them with the Gospel? Are we even trying? This is what I am constantly asking myself.

People who are fleeing the NO are not looking for inclusive language.

People who want the church to "step into the 21st century" are not the same people who want a more traditional worship.

I don't see the situation in such contrasting terms. It is certainly better to seek those with no faith and bring them in to the church, but the fact is Protestants of all stripes lack the sacraments (at least beyond baptism from a Catholic standpoint). Some Protestant groups (such as the mainline liberal denominations) besides lacking the Eucharist, Absolution, etc. have adopted gravely sinful ideas as being acceptable. In other words I think it is just about as imperative to bring the "churched" in to the apostolic faith as well. I don't consider that merely spiritual growth.



I know of Orthodox groups that are trying, and I have been surprised to find that a number of young people have responded. It seems to me they are usually as drawn to the traditions of the church as those who come from churched backgrounds. I'm 36, from an unchurched background, and my first real experience with Christianity was in the Orthodox liturgy when I was in college. More can certainly be done, and I don't want to overstate the impact of Orthodox evangelism on younger people (because numerically speaking it probably isn't spectacular), but some success is being had.

I guess it's a matter of outlook. To me, I would think if young people are attracted to faith because it addresses and meshes with modernity, they will probably choose one of the Evangelical Churches. So the risk I guess is you will not attract these people, and at the same time turn off your own people and turn away other people who are interested in tradition. I would be interested to see what the evidence is that the young and unchurched will come in, because that seems like quite a gamble to me.

Wondering



So is it the unchurched that is the target group as seems to be implied above? Is this really the nexus of the reforms?

For an introduction to the religious perspectives of the young people of today, see the NPR stories at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6811573

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june07/religion_01-03.html


Just to clarify: I was not trying to comment on the intent of the translators in my post; I was trying to remind myself (and by virtue of this forum, my brothers and sisters) of the Gospel call to reach out with the Good News of God's Love in Christ to the people of this world who do not know it because they have not heard it -- and, because this is where my heart truly is, especially reminding us of our need to share this news with the young people of today who are truly searching. My comments were related to Fr Taft's comments about "modernity" and the Church's need to speak with clarity and force to modern people. I do think that how we do this is very debatable and good God-loving people can disagree -- but I don't think any of us can disagree that the Church has to speak to the generation in which it lives.

As a historian, I also note with interest that God-loving people throughout the ages have been frequently been tempted to condemn their "modern" world as being graceless, beyond hope, etc. As American historians have noted, this is especially true of religious people in the New World. I share the following as an example of the insights drawn by historians:

"Characterizations of Americans as apathetic, indifferent, or complacent are older than the Republic, of course. Before Jeremiah was a bullfrog, the jeremiad was a staple of Puritan sermons. When drought or disease descended, or when Indians attacked, ministers found evidence that God had withdrawn his favor from "the chosen people" because one or more of them had failed to keep His commandments. In times of prosperity, they rang the alarm bells, too, indicting the inhabitants for forgetting their "errand into the wilderness." Long after Puritans became Yankees, the jeremiad retained its cultural power, invoked by pious prophets and secular reformers, anxious about the state of souls or the fate of a nation. Whether in support of an embargo on imports from Europe during the Revolutionary War, or warnings that the Civil War was divine retribution for the sins of Americans, North and South, the jeremiad became part of the civil religion of the US." See http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?u...altschuler.html

Very well put!

Father Taft is an incredibly talented liturgical historian. He knows (and says he doesn't know) anything about fixing cars. That's ok because fixing cars is not his gift. Bob Taft is also not a theologian. Neither is he a pastor of any experience. To state this not an insult. Those are not his best gifts. His best gift is his history.

A Church should not base a liturgical reform based only upon the ideas of historians. Historians often can't see beyond the history books. They attempt to recreate the perfect liturgy by choosing bits of historical practice that appeal to them. That is exactly what is happening with these reforms. The pastoral dimension has been totally ignored. Everywhere these ideas of historians are implemented they are rejected by the faithful. The faithful leave and the liturgical historians blame them for not understand what they are trying to accomplish. The people know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They want none of it.

Nothing really that surprising to me there. Some things that stood out among the individuals that probably represent wider trends are a belief in religious pluralism (i.e. a relativistic view of faith), movement from Catholicism to Evangelicalism, and the "spiritual but not religious" thing.

I still have trouble believing that making the liturgy accessible, gender neutral or engaged with modernity will do anything to attract these people. I would think if that worked, the Episcopalians or Methodists would be reaping the rewards of such a trend. They're not, though. They're steadily declining.

"Married to the spirit of the age, widow to the next"

This brings up a perennail and enigmatic conundrum for any doing evangelical work. I think there is a temptation to empiricize most things down to an either-or, A or B sort of dualistic derivation. I say neither is really separate or totally divorced from the other. Every soul is unique, and responds to the utterances of the Spirit each in a totally independent manner. It would be difficult to draw any hard and fast lines between evangelism and anything else, spiritual growth, discipleship, etc. We are constantly being evangelized and (hopefully) spiritually growing all simultaneously.

Getting to the comment about Kansas, I can only offer my own observations (I've lived here now over half of my life, ever since college). There is a sense of reality here, as well as a sense of transcendence that is seemingly innate, even in the younger people (they often don't know or realize this, but they do indeed have it). Taft makes some comments about the people of Rus' in his essay "Russian Liturgy: Mirror of the Russian Soul" about the physical relation of home and land to the spiritual nous of the people.

I find these to be very much parallel here in the ol' Midwest. After all, we have the same state flower as the national flower of Ukraine... Seriously, living in a wider and vast land does influence the spiritual aspect.

The sense of reality also is innate - even college-age kids want something real, and something solid. While their lives are turblent whirlpools, they usually want something in terms of worship and spiritual environment that is peaceful, but solid, consistent, and objective. Even those who have never been churched have those innate tendencies, and often these make ferocious (I use that in a positive sense) converts - and very often disposed towards a more traditional observance of their faith.

When I taught at an SSPX school, I would say perhaps as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of the families were not RC at all before coming to the SSPX - and the great majority of these converts, with few exceptions, were college-age or just beginning new families. Sure there were many fleeing the Novus Ordo, but that was not anywhere near the only prompting for those coming to the school or the Masses. While I disagree with many aspects of the SSPX I can't overlook the factual. I keep in touch with the ROCOR ponomar in Kansas City at their little mission; as I recall only one of their families in the entire mission is cradle Orthodox. In teaching my classes on Eastern Christianity in the RCIA, I am not dealing with those who have been in the Church for very long (they aren't even Catholic yet) but I see the yearning for that objective truth, the reality, the thing that is solid.

In the 1970s the Roman Rite had every opportunity to be relevant to the kids - music, liturgy, it was all there, all modernized, all accessible. It did not work very well - in fact there was quite a large exodus out of the Church. Now those dioceses and religious orders that have recent growth in vocations are largely those that would be considered "conservative" or "traditional".

At some point, mass inculturation has to be balanced with fidelity and integrity of the mother tradition. Again, where that point is, is not clear. But in "reaching out" as those involved in evangelism we always have to also be "lifting up" at the same time.

Excellent point and very well expressed! Thanks!

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

"In the 1970s the Roman Rite had every opportunity to be relevant to the kids - music, liturgy, it was all there, all modernized, all accessible. It did not work very well - in fact there was quite a large exodus out of the Church. Now those dioceses and religious orders that have recent growth in vocations are largely those that would be considered "conservative" or "traditional".

At some point, mass inculturation has to be balanced with fidelity and integrity of the mother tradition. Again, where that point is, is not clear. But in "reaching out" as those involved in evangelism we always have to also be "lifting up" at the same time."

But was it relevant? As a person who grew up in 70's and 80's I don't think those who thought they were relevant were relevant at all. They were stuck in the 60s and tried and continue to try and perpetuate it. Thankfully, I grew up in a Benedictine parish staffed with old timers and was spared all but the Glory & Praise hymnal and even that was relegated to the one guitar Mass.

On the otherhand honest efforts at relevance that most here would agree with, like Mass in the vernacular and the people responding to the priest rather than just the server, are denounced as vociferously as are true abuses by those opposed to any change, like the SSPX.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"But was it relevant? As a person who grew up in 70's and 80's I don't think those who thought they were relevant were relevant at all. They were stuck in the 60s and tried and continue to try and perpetuate it. Thankfully, I grew up in a Benedictine parish staffed with old timers and was spared all but the Glory & Praise hymnal and even that was relegated to the one guitar Mass."

I'm not sure what your point is. I would take it one step farther and posit the same can be said in the context of any who would wish to revise worship to "update" or "modernize", whether text, rubrics, etc. in any tradition, including our own. Perhaps we see it again in our own context of the New Liturgy, in fact.

I would also surmise many, if not most, who grew up RC in the 1970s possibly did not have the same parochial experience you did. I did not, nor were there any more than a couple of parishes at that time in my diocese that would correlate with what you describe.

My point stands, that the gross innovations in general did not work, the attempts at modernization and "making it relevant" did not work, even though they were heavily marketed as such, and those dioceses and religious orders now enjoying the greatest growth are those that would be generally considered "traditional" or "conservative".


I don't disagree. My point was not any one in support of the SSPX, which perhaps you missed; it was that the demographic makeup of the adherents was not just disgruntled Novus Ordo Catholics but also was increasingly being composed of new converts. They had no background and if anything should have fit into what you describe regarding other considerations (Mass in vernacular, etc.) which I agree may have been positive steps; however - they did not and chose the TLM when given the choice. I will also say (happily) that many of these families I knew have since been reconciled through the Indult or the FSSP, but most still attend the 1962 Mass. We also do not have the benefit of knowing what would have happened had an English translation of the 1962 Mass with full congregational participation been allowed.

One cannot deny the success in general that traditional orders have enjoyed; dioceses and orders with waiting lists for the seminary can also be demonstrated. Like it or not most probably Pope Benedict will allow greater freedom for the 1962 Missal.

Freedom of consicence is also important; anyone within the Latin tradition can now in many dioceses can freely choose between the 1962 (FSSP or indult), a conservative Pauline Mass, or the other extreme and still be perfectly in communion. Were all of the reforms successful, there would be no need or demand for the 1962 Mass. That is most certainly not the case.

Which makes me think the BCC should allow the use of the older Liturgikon if people want it. Modernizing the liturgy and so on I may not agree with, but I understand why it's being done. Forcing such changes on people who don't want them, I don't get.

This is very good. The Roman Catholic Church tried to be relevant in the 60s, 70s, 80s and the 90s. It didn't work. So why are we copying the things they tried that failed? I don't want to be disrespectful but I think the proponents of these revisions are stuck somewhere in 1970s Roman Catholicism. Liturgical relativism never works.

I do think that there are other ways of being "relevant" than those adopted by some Roman Catholic parishes in the post-Vatican II era.

Sometimes when I am reading these posts, I am reminded of an ongoing discussion at my work. Since I am relatively new (I have been here 4 years), I still have lots of enthusiasm and ideas about how to improve the way we do things here. Inevitably whenever I suggest a new way of doing things, a certain person who has been working here for over 25 years says, "Oh we tried that N. years ago -- and it didn't work." It is then that I respond, "First, sometimes the reason things did not work in the past is because they were not tried correctly. Second, that was then -- this is now."

One more note: as a trained historian, I am always a little alarmed when people draw simple hard-and-fast conclusions from past events. The past is always extremely complex -- it is very hard to say: "This didn't work because of this ..." History seldom fits into neat little patterns of cause and effect. As I always tell my students, "History never proves anything. People use history to prove something." So I find the arguments over what worked and what did not work and why it did or did not work to be unhelpful. In this, I agree with the posts which have asserted that history should not be used to advance arguments either for or against liturgical reform. The job of the historian is to debunk the myths about the past (Fr Taft is actually quite good at this). But historians should never be relied upon to predict the future!

So ...

If you are in favor of the new translation, you will find a way to interpret the past few decades as being positive and indicative of the fact that the Holy Spirit works through His Body in the world as the Church strives to be faithful to its calling. (After all, the fastest growing body of Christians in the world is the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. We are now at about 1 billion; by 2025 many scholars estimate its numbers to be 1.5 billion with most of the growth occuring in non-English speaking countries. A very strong argument can be made that the amazing growth of the Church in Africa and Asia would not be occuring had Vatican II not instituted the reforms it did.)

If you are opposed to the new translation, you will advance a much more negative assessment and seek to draw another conclusion.

The point I am trying to make is that you end up with you started -- all you have done is put the pieces of the history puzzle together to match your preconceived box top! History can only truly be done (my opinion) in a non-partisan context.

Certainly good points. History should hopefully be educational; that includes liturgy. One should also be vigilant against a dismissive attitude of the past or overt romanticism in order to justify a polemic position.



Strong, yes. Strictly because of the reforms? I am not sure of that at all. A ripe evangelical environment, to be sure. What the reforms meant, is again one of those historical questions that can be debated with good arguments either way. There are two or more sides to every historical or sociological coin. One comes to mind. The very first diocese to invite Archbishop Lefebvre to start a seminary was - Dakar, Senegal. Certainly Cardinals Arinze and Gantin both have been critical of past liturgical innovation.

Regardless of where one stands on the Latin liturgy reform vs. tradition, Latin vs. English, Old Rite vs. Nikonian, or even the Ruthenian New Liturgy vs. the 1964, one thing I think is absolutely key: that is to provide the means for a Christian to have freedom of conscience to practice forms of liturgy as they are led by the Spirit in communion with Rome. If that takes one to the New Liturgy, make it available. If that takes one to the 1964 Liturgikon and the Ordo from Rome, make it available. Let the texts stand on their own voluntarily; if one is better or desired it will become apparent.

I should also add, being a country boy who rode some "bad'uns", after the same horse kicks me more than twice in the same place, I develop a respect for the animal, and tend to take that history to mind.

Although I am a city-boy, I have been kicked as well and hope to have learned my lesson!

I would just add that both extremes in this debate can kick just as hard and probably in the same place

But aren't you making a judgment here as a "true" historian that all judgments are just preconceived "box tops?" Isn't that what Fr. Taft is saying in his article, but that he is an "objective" bserver who is above these preconceived ideas? He wwrites:



I've simply been saying that the original Creed has not been given to us because anthropos has been left out. I know for a fact that I have displeased some. I have asked why that is--"What's driving that traumatic change?" I have pointed to some valid possibilities.

Let's be concrete about the number of "Catholics" in the world. In the United States, or in Missouri for that matter, Catholics are, by all accounts, a great number. Yet we have private executions (abortion and now embryonic stem cell research (proposed now in New Mexico by a Catholic Governor) by the thousands. Remember, it was a Catholic, Justice Brennan who was the brains behind Justice Blackman's Roe v. Wade.

I am reminded of a story about the then Cardinal Ratzinger who was asked about the state of the Church. He said it was fine, just a lot smaller than people thought.

There are several good points here.

1. The reason some of our parishes are not vibrant is because we have not tried taking the liturgy correctly. We are inventing new ways before even following the instructions for the way we have inherited!

2. We are trying new ways that have been shown not to work. Three of our four dioceses have had some of the revisions for different lengths of time. They have not enlivened the parishes that use them. They have only caused people to leave.

So, can you enlighten me here? I'm in a diocese that has had revisions in the DL for quite some time (over 10 years). The third antiphon has been restored, a few litanies that we didn't take before are now taken, and the anaphora and some of the private prayers of the priest are said aloud. From what I've seen that's substance of the new DL as well, I'm not talking about translation here, just additions. What is the issue you have with that? Why have these additions caused people to leave? Is the mass too long now? Make me understand please, because I really don't.

Thanks! John K

John,

Visit a parish that does the **full** Divine Liturgy and you will understand. It's available at selected parishes until the ban goes into affect on June 29th.

Some (not all) of the things you list are a step forward for some parishes. There is no need to ban the official liturgy in order to add them. Or to bring down parishes that take much more.

Blessed Theodore

Theodore,

Do you know how many parishes do more than the promulgated liturgy? Do we know for sure that those parishes will be banned from taking it all?

I know of no parishes in Passaic that take the full liturgy and for some of the parishes I've been to, this will be a step up. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's done and we have to work with it now. I honestly have the feeling that many parishes will continue on as they are now, with a less complete liturgy or a more complete liturgy.

John,

Bishop Andrew outlawed the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy ten years ago. When he was in Parma he outlawed it there. The official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy has been under assault by our bishops for almost our whole time in the United States. He has actually disciplined priests who have taken the full Liturgy.

Harrisburg was the big holdout in Passaic until Father Shear died.

There are a small number of parishes elsewhere in the country. I’m not going to provide a list because I don’t want the bishops disciplining those priests for following Rome’s directives. But if they use the Revised Liturgicon they will not be able to take the full Liturgy because the Revised Liturgicon leaves out a lot.

Don’t give up on your Church. It’s not a done deal if we unite and appeal to Rome. The Ruthenian Liturgy is worth fighting for.

Blessed Theodore

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe (and indeed try to practice pastorally) that "Liturgical Renewal" has to be totally comprehensive in scope. Liturgy should be the engine that powers a total and radical renewal of the Eastern Churches. This means rediscovering and implementing for our times a "culture of liturgy" or a "liturgical ethos." A "new translation" of the Divine Liturgy is only one, tiny, tiny, facet of what should be a many faceted diamond of renewal. Part of the reaction to the "new translation" is that the new translation is not set in any context of total renewal. It is like being told to put a new coat of paint on a car that is rusting and needs serious mechanical repairs. While the paint in itself can be beautiful, it would make more sense if the new coat of paint were part of a plan to overhaul the car. (NOTE: my comment here is a call to renewal and NOT a comment on the "new translation" itself.)

By a "culture of liturgy" I basically mean a return to a Sacramental worldview. This involves teaching and preaching things like the concept of the domestic church, the theology of the body, and what I call 'releasing the inner dynamism of the liturgy.' This has nothing to do with "modernizing" or conversely, being intransient or "going back in time."

Liturgy is "so ancient yet so new" (Augustine.) This time of the New Evangelization is a time to look at old things but in new ways. Here are just a few small concrete ideas of what I mean by rediscovering a liturgical ethos:

1. The Heaven on Earth presentation done in the Eparchy of Parma gave us the historical and theological "why" behind our Liturgy. Much of what we know as our Liturgy today are remnants that were at one time much more dramatic and dynamic actions such as the Enarxis: the actual physical process of 'gathering' the community on the way to Church in which the Psalms were sung.
The greater the Feastday the more Psalms were needed because more people were being gathered. It is understandable that over time a dynamic element will naturally become modified. However, this does not mean that the inner dynamic element has to be lost. In fact it should be rediscovered time and again. So, here is what I suggest and what I do in my parish:

The physical is wedded to the spiritual (this is eastern spirituality and theology of the body.) Make the physical environment in our churches such that movement, and gesture can be liberated to carry the dynamic that our liturgy originally had. I have open areas in my church in which actual processions, actual 'gathering' or 'entrances' can take place rather than the minimalistic, 'apologetic' processions that have become
"our way." In these open areas in our parish our children usually congregate during liturgy. (Yes, children at my parish actually CHOOSE to stand ALL through Liturgy except when they sit on the floor at my feet during the homily.)During the processions what happens is that the entourage of priest, deacon and altar servers during the Great Entrance and the Small Entrance actually press by the children (and adults.) In fact, the children actually have to move out of the way. My vestsments sometimes even brush past the children giving them a thrilling sense of integration and closeness to someone and something in which they are in awe. After having had that moment of intimacy in the Liturgy the children (and the adults) then experience the other half of the ingenious integration of our litugy: the awesome entourage returns back into the mysterious area of the Church structure "beyond the veil" the icon screen, (beyond the "wardrobe" into "Narnia.")

What is happening in this one simple example is that the children and the adults are experiencing the absolute fundamental reality of God and of life: that God is immanent and transcendant at the same time. The mysterious God who is so
"ineffable, indescribable," etc. is at the same time totally with us and the spiritual journey is lived in that tension and rhythm. By simply "loosening" up during our liturgy and with the proper design of the worship space a much more dynamic, engaging and indeed impressionable experience of liturgy is possible.
"Loosening" up the physical structure is simply being more honest to the inner dynamism of our liturgy. In essence, it is stripping our liturgy of the secularisms and Protestantisms that have been allowed to become the norm to point that we think they are "our way."

We have installed icon stands custom built for the height of children. Our children are taught to enter into church and go NOT to a horse stall, (sorry, I meant 'pew') but rather to the icon and reverence this icon. Of course our church layout provides the space in which the children can do this. AND you should see the lip marks we have to clean off of these children's icons after Liturgy on Sunday! The children love to love Jesus. And yet "our way" has restricted them from doing this! Why not renew this? In fact we have a bit of a Montessori school approach to our children at Liturgy. As the children kiss
"their" icon and as they stand in church one of our E.C.F.teaches whispers in the ears of the children pointing out and explaining some things during the liturgy. This connects their experience of liturgy with their E.C.F. classes. Children want to be integrated into the liturgy and allowing this to happen is just one way of 'releasing the inner dynamism" of the liturgy. I know that there are parishes who do other such things as well that integrate children. Of course this does not mean that we introduce things foreign into our liturgy to make it more "appealing" to the youth. Rather, we take our youth on a journey vertically into a more authentic experience of their liturgy.

In addition to what actually happens during the Liturgy, the Heaven on Earth presentation pointed out that the Divine Liturgy actually begins on Saturday evening. It was suggested that Saturday evenings, rather than being "party night" as secularim mandates, should be in every household a time to put on our liturgical "game face." This in fact is how I was raised.
Saturday evenings meant Sunday had begun (sunset) and it was time to begin our gradual (and therefore more accurately human) entry into what will climax in the Eucharist the next morning. On Sunday mornings there was no TV or radio allowed in our home. The very process of 'going to church' actually becomes part of the REAL beginning of the Divine Liturgy. In a Liturgical culture or ethos, our experience of liturgy begins long before, "Blessed is the Kingdom..." Furthermore, our experience of liturgy continues on long after the dismissal. Liturgy should be the standard for our lives and it should impact life and culure rather than simply being "fit into" our predominantly secular lives. Liturgy is how we look at all of life: how we interact with the environment, our human sexuality, marriage, family, friendship, eating habits, health, and even global politics! AND even finances and stewardship!! How much preaching and "mandating" do we hear in our Church in these areas? Yet THIS is Litugy. Not just translations and rubrics

WHAAAT!!? Now wait a minute!! What does money have to do with how we translate "Theotokos" or how many antiphons we are going to take? Money, or rather a sense of stewardship has everything to do with these and all liturgical issues. We are struggling financially in our Metropolia because our financial "ethos" is not "Liturgical" enough! Finances is not a place that many want to go. But, if we really want to be more financially secure in our Church we simply MUST go there and in fact "disturb" everything, reconfigure our sense of stewardship toward a more Biblical and "Liturgical" view. I GUARANTEE we will sit financially must prettier with a Liturgical sense of stewardship. How I wish our Church would 'mandate'a return to a more liturcial sense of stewardship! If we can do it for a translation why not for stewardship?

The Liturgical ethos is the vision that Adam had before original sin. This goes far, far beyond the translation of a single Greek word or a whether we are taking this litany or that antiphon. These things have their significance but it seems to me that it is like fighting over the color choice of the car when the discussion should be how are we going to overhaul or rejuvenate the engine and body of the car?

A Second example: My suggestion is to take the Heaven on Earth presentation as a standard to help fuel the engine of renewal, the engine being liturgy. If we were ALL shown in the Heaven on Earth presentation what was proper about our particular worship, why couldn't our Metropolia 'mandate,' (just as the new translation has been mandated)that THE liturgical schedule at EVERY parish in the Metropolia will look like this: Vespers on Saturday evening, Matins on Sunday morning and then ONE Liturgy following Matins? NO Saturday night "Mass!!" This community dividing, anti-eucharistic, anti-eastern theology, homage to spiritual complacency must stop in our Churches.(In all honesty, how many of our church buildings really are not able to fit their entire parish population inside at one Liturgy?)

The theology of one liturgy on Sunday was taught in the Heaven on Earth presentation. This would also get EVERY parish praying OUR liturgical life properly. Now I can hear all of the groans and the "Oh, no, you can't do that. That would not be practical." But this is PRECISELY where the rubber meets the road of any hope for real renewal. We must challenge our fears and complacencey and our exaltation of the "practical" and move beyond the excuses for mediocrity. Renewal means we must take the risks to actually pray according to the way that SAINTS designed our worship to be. We need to pray in churches that are designed according to the way SAINTS prescribed which is a magnificant integration of liturgical text, gesture, action, theology, rhythm, music and art. Liturgical renewal means moving beyond the (secular and Protestant) compartmentalization of worship and return to an integrated liturgical culture that is the true genius of the eastern "lung" of the Church. A new translation ONLY is a compartmentalization which is why there will be resistance to it. My hope and prayer for our Hierarchs and for all of us who are concerned about our Church is that the rediscovery of the rest of the "diamond" will be mandated along with the mandating of the one single facet of a "new translation."

I believe that the question that our Church needs to ask itself during what I also believe is this time of a Judgement Day is this: With a "new translation" only, are we just playing around and tinkering with what seemed like a 'safe' path for renewal in our Church? Or are we really serious about the mission of our Church in the world today and willing to, as I keep saying, "raze it to the ground" but ONLY in order to rebuild it according to its glorious and authentic self? Some might say, as does our present Pope, "If we are worshipping correctly everything else will go correctly." This is absolutely true but ONLY because worship means so much more than Greek-to-English translations. As our liturgical theologians remind us: Liturgy is life. Life is liturgy. Let's "mandate" a real renewal of life and liturgy.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.

A visual aid:

A picture is worth a thousand words! Father Loya's arguments should be attended to. And as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Look at all the children!

I have been to Annunciation and there was standing room only!

BT,

I understand what you're saying and feeling for those few parishes that may follow the 1964 recension to the letter. My parish for instance, has a fuller liturgy now than it did prior to Bishop Andrew implementing the changes 10 years ago.

I think that it's been mentioned somewhere that the bishop is the guardian of the liturgy and chief liturgist for his diocese. If that is the case, priests not following what the bishop has set forth are disobedient to him, who is their master and father in Christ. The bishop, OTOH, is answerable to Rome if he does not mandate or follow what Rome has approved or set forth. Look at Bishop Basil (Takach) for instance. He was following what Rome set forth. That's what being in communion with Rome means.

I'm not asking for names, but exactly how many parishes in the four diocese' of the Metropolia actually celebrate the DL exactly following the 1964 liturgicon? Does anyone know?

I'm not giving up on the Church, I'm just being realistic. Rome approved the Liturgy, it's going to take a lot of letter writing or a new major exodus of people to other Churches (as was the case in the formation of the Johnstown Diocese) to make Rome notice and make a change. We're small fish in a big pond, unfortunately.

Would I rather the 1964 Liturgicon (with corrections) to what is being promulgated now? Yes! But I'd be a minority in my parish, let me tell you. Our average Sunday Liturgy now runs 1 hour 10 minutes to 1 hour 20 minutes and believe me, there are more than a few people who grumble it's too long sometimes and walk out after communion. What will the new revisions do to a parish that now is used to a 35-40 minute recited liturgy (low mass)?

Would I rather that our bishops had done this in concert with the other Churches in the English speaking world or at least in the USA that use the same recension as us? Absolutely! I think it was extremely arrogant and impudent to do this alone, only the Ruthenian sui juris Church of Pittsburgh, as if the UGCC and Melkite GCC did not exist here. That is my opinion.

What I'm trying to say is: let's give things a chance, maybe modifications can be made once the dust has settled. Is that unreasonable?

my $.02. John K

Hi John,



I reread Fr. Loya's post and then saw your comment again above. I think "giving things a chance" is unreasonable. I think, as Fr. Loya has so aptly stated, we need to be radical. And that, I believe, will be in accord with the God who is logos.

"I'm not asking for names, but exactly how many parishes in the four diocese' of the Metropolia actually celebrate the DL exactly following the 1964 liturgicon? Does anyone know?"

Not enough!

"I think that it's been mentioned somewhere that the bishop is the guardian of the liturgy and chief liturgist for his diocese. If that is the case, priests not following what the bishop has set forth are disobedient to him, who is their master and father in Christ. The bishop, OTOH, is answerable to Rome if he does not mandate or follow what Rome has approved or set forth."

If the Bishops are the "guardians of the liturgy" then they are not doing their jobs and must be deposed for their own salvation and for the good of the Body of Christ.

If the Bishops promulgate a Liturgy or anything else that defies/waters down/etc. Jesus Christ and the Priests refuse to be accomplices, then the Bishops are being disobedient to THE MASTER while the Priests are being obedient to THE MASTER.

OK--again, I hear everything that you're saying. I'm not 100% thrilled either. But, it still remains that 1) The new liturgy is coming, and 2) Rome approved it. If the majority of parishes are not celebrating using the complete 1964 books, and let's face it, the majority are probably celebrating using much less, then this will be a step up for many.

Honestly, before the new liturgy is rolled out, if you want to call the bishops on the carpet about doing their job, every parish not having an iconostas should be required to put one in. And not two icons on easles either!