Friends,

I ran across this article on the Ecclesia Dei Society website which raises the question of "bi-ritualism". I've not been comfortable with it. It seems a bit artificial. We have employed bi-ritual priests and deacons and a member of our Byzantine Parish is studying to become a "bi-ritual" deacon primarily because there is not enough Byzantine parishes in the area to fully employ his services.

Here's the article. Your observations would be most appreciated.

Dan Lauffer

"Should a priest regularly celebrate the holy mysteries in more than one liturgical rite?

By Fr Ephraem Chifley OP

Stepping back from the trials and tribulations which recently have beset the Fraternity of St Peter in its relations with Roman officialdom, Fr Ephraem Chifley OP, reflects on the implications, and contradictions, inherent in the bi-ritualist trend of official Church liturgical policy.

The shortage of priests in most western countries constitutes a serious pastoral problem. It is no wonder that bishops are always on the look out for priests of whatever other rite to say the New Mass in their parishes. This is an understandable though misguided policy - clearly an instance of a hard case making a bad pastoral policy. It fails to ask questions about the cause of the shortage in the first place and it is surely not too simplistic to suggest that the collapse of priestly identity and the consequent decline in the numbers of young men seeking a priestly vocation might have something to do with the way in which general liturgical practice (as distinct from the new missal) undercuts the unique role of the priest.



There is, however, a prior question. Should a priest regularly celebrate the holy mysteries in more than one liturgical rite? This question arises not only for traditional priests who have an attachment to the Pian Rite (the Rite of Pius V - the 1962 Missal) and are asked by their bishops or superiors to use the Pauline Rite (the Rite of Paul VI - the 1969 Missal) but also for priests of the oriental rites in countries that are predominantly Latin rite. It is not primarily a question of whether or not one rite is better than another but whether the business of frequently swapping rites is pastorally and theologically sound and whether is it good for the priest and the people he serves.



Spiritual schizophrenia


The Congregation for Divine Worship suggested recently that there could be no question of “bi-ritualism” for priests who celebrated both the Pian Rite and the Pauline Rite. According to the Congregation these two are both the same rite. This is true in the narrow legalistic sense that there is no separate jurisdiction for those who are attached to the Pian Rite. The “traditional movement” is not a separate ritual church like the Maronites or Ukrainians, much as some people would like it to occupy that canonical position. It is not, however, just a case of different “ways of saying Mass”.



If it were just a question of rubrical niceties then people would not object to the Pian Rite as vigorously as they do. It is a plainly different liturgical reality which stresses different and clearly inconvenient things about the Church. A disinterested observer would have to concede that the average Sunday Mass in the Pauline Rite in the average Novus Ordo parish is as different from the average Sunday Mass in the Pian Rite in the average traditional parish as it is from Mass in the average Byzantine parish. In fact the latter two probably have much more in common with one another. I have heard Greek Orthodox people say after coming to Solemn Mass in the Pian Rite that it is “just like ours”. We do not need to enter into discussion as to which one we ought to prefer. We must, however, as a matter of intellectual honesty acknowledge that there is an actual liturgical diversity.



The adoption, therefore, by some priests and laity of the Pian Rite represents a profound acculturation by them to a different form of liturgical and spiritual life from that legitimately practiced by the rest of the Church, just as the Copts or Chaldaeans have their unique patrimony. One cannot shift easily between such contrasting cultural and psychological realities. As one old Anglican bishop put it to a friend of mine, “saying Mass in two different rites is a sure way of going very mad, very quickly”. Bi-ritualism is spiritually schizophrenic.



One would never expect a Test Cricket Batter to spend his days away from the SCG winning a tennis tournament or playing ruck rover for Essendon. When I was a lad I played the trombone reasonably proficiently. My music teacher strictly forbade me to play a trumpet or cornet. The mouth of brass player changes its shape to suit the instrument. Having adapted to one, the other was ruled out. An action as complex and habitual as that of a liturgical rite requires us to change to harmonize with its unique contours.



In order to assert that “bi-ritualism” should be an accepted general practice one has to accept an account of the liturgy which is fundamentally rationalist. If the liturgy is primarily an intellectual reality - words on the page - then a priest can say one set of words one day and different words the next. The bodily and habitual aspects of rite are discounted in favour of the purely cerebral. It must be considered ironic that this view of the liturgy principally as a read text is one that both the pre- and post-conciliar liturgical movement sought to weaken.



It used to be called rubricism and it was blamed for all sorts of things. But a priest or layman who adopts the Pian Rite becomes implicated in more than using a particular liturgical text. He develops attitudes of mind and spirit which flow from his immersion in that rite. He will manifest a particular theological and spiritual perspective different from that of people who celebrate other rites. To suggest that the vast majority of priests and people might move easily between profoundly different ritual realities involves a view of the human person that is startlingly unsophisticated, and quite frankly not a little authoritarian.



Church magnanimous


The Church is entering uncharted waters. We have little idea of what will happen next. The cultural upheavals of the 1960’s have left many in the Church marginalised. But surely a Church of a billion people is magnanimous enough to make room for a variety of cultural liturgical expressions of its faith, including that represented by the growing numbers who celebrate the Pian Rite. For the first time cultural difference is not based principally on region or language. Divergent cultural reactions to the rapid social change of the last century bisect lines of class, language, geography or ethnic origin and have become focussed, in the Church at least, around the celebration of the liturgy.



It is of fundamental importance to the Church’s evangelical endeavour that this cultural diversity is acknowledged and turned to advantage rather than becoming a source of sterile controversy for yet another generation. It is time that those whose attitudes were formed in the theological debates of the 1960’s realised that those categories are no longer relevant for the task ahead of the Church in the 21st century."

Here is the Url http://www.ozemail.com.au/~oriens


[This message has been edited by CD Lauffer (edited 03-17-2001).]

Dear Dan,

In a way, I think this priest is right. Our defence of the Eastern Churches as being Churches and not rites is based on the fact that rite is only a part of the big picture...theology, spirituality, culture all have their part to play within the different sui iuris Churches. And that's fostered by liturgy. It's the same in the Latin Church. If you're thoroughly immersed in one tradition and its spirituality, theological perspective, etc., it's not going to be easy to adapt to another. I'm of the Syrian tradition, and was raised with that spirituality, theology, liturgy, and patrimony. When I went to Catholic school, I was for five days a week immersed in the Latin tradition. It took a few years for me to get used to that Western tradition, without forfeiting my Indian/Syrian heritage. An argument I once had with a friend of mine about whether or not I was truly confirmed comes to mind. I was exempt from Confirmation classes because I'd already received the Holy Mooron at baptism. But many (including not a few teachers) weren't very convinced. The parish's bi-ritual Syro-Malabar/Latin priest had to tell them that that's the way we do things. And then they listened. But that incident is an image of how their rite, their liturgy, affected their perspective. It took me a while to get accustomed to saying the Rosary because we instead have hymns to the Virgin that we'd sing. Now that I've used both for a while, I like both. I go to my parish for Lenten services, and then afterwards to the parish church of the school I used to go to for Stations of the Cross. I got used to both, and I like both. But if I had to make a choice between the two, then Vespers blows Stations out of the water!

I think it's possible for bi-ritualism theoretically to work, but it has to be done right. Otherwise, the bi-ritual cleric runs the risk of "softening". In my opinion, the "rite" thing to do would be for everyone to keep their rite if they could possibly afford to do that. Granting genuinely good reasons, it might be good to be bi-ritual, but overall, I think it's best just to stay put.

Having read the fourth paragraph, which says that the CDW considers both the 1962 & 1969 Missals to be the same liturgical rite, one is led to wonder on behalf of the Latin traditionalists why a bishop's permission is necessary to offer Mass in the 1962 rite. If they're the same rite, that is, the Latin rite, and Latin priests are ordained to offer Mass in the Latin rite, then they should be able to choose which they'd like to use, right? Or is there legislation somewhere that knocks out the '62, but keeps the '69? If this is the case, then according to the CDW statement that both are the same rite, that means that the Latin rite was exchanged for the Latin rite. Huh?

Excellent article that tells the truth about the realities of the Roman Rite.

My priest — who remembers biritualism in Russian Catholic establishments 30 years ago — and the late Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) essentially agree with this writer’s disapproval of biritualism, even though ‘schizophrenia’ doesn’t literally mean ‘split personality’. You can’t flit back and forth from Church to Church every week.

Serge

Old World Rus’

Sorry, but I think that the Dominican author of the article has a decidedly Latin perspective where he treats "Pian" (I've NEVER heard this term used anywhere to describe the pre-Vatican II Roman Mass) and "Pauline" to describe the newer recension.

We Easterneres are, in the perspective being used, as as a 'touchstone' for the Latins to fight their liturgical wars.

As Elmer of Fudd would say: "Be afwaid; be vewy, vewy, afwaid!!"

As for the "I have heard Greek Orthodox people say after coming to Solemn Mass in the Pian Rite that it is “just like ours”..." then that is just a figment of their imaginations from my (Greek and Orthodox) family perspective. In my mother's (esteemed) perspective, the only 'old' Roman service worthy of Byzantine comparison was Benediction.

For the Latin folks (of whatever persuasion), please leave us out these battles, and don't hold us up as some benchmark of 'orthodoxy'. For us Byzantines, smile sweetly at the combatants and run like hell.

Blessings!

Dan,

Your not refering to Tim T. are you? I know he is (or was) in both the Latin and Byzantine deacon formation programs but this is because he started formation with the Latins before we had a program. In all my discussions with him I've never heard him mention about seeking biecclesial faculties. Besides, I think your parish is big enough to keep the most energetic man busy.

As to Fr. Ephraem's article, I both agree and disagree. Yes, I think it could be spiritually difficult to go back and forth from West to East all the time. That however does not mean it can't be done. In fact, many of the finest priests I have known are biecclesial (and that is really the proper term) and my spiritual director is one of them. Most say our liturgy better than many of our own priests.

However, one must read between the lines to see what Fr. Ephraem is really trying to say. Since you are new to the Catholic Church, I will assume you have been spared many of its politics, the ongoing drama between the the Pian (Tridentine) and the Pauline (Novus Ordo) groups being some of the worst.

Fr. Ephraem is setting up a false comparison. If swapping between the traditions of the East and West is not a good idea then swapping between Pian and Pauline liturgies is equally unsound. A good arguement except for the fact that the Pian and Pauline liturgies are simply different uses of the same Rite and Church, no matter how much the Tridentines kick and scream that they are not or don't want it to be. They share the same tradition, spirituality, and theology even if it has become watered down in some Novus Ordo parishes.

What people like Fr. Ephraem want are seperate jurisdictions for those who use the Pian Rite. However, this is never going to happen because it is unsound ecclesiology. It buys into the idea that ecclesial jurisdiction should be determined by "rite" instead of the preexistence of an autonomous church.

I also believe that the Catholics of the Tridentine Use often overstate and exaggerate the differences between their use and that of Paul IV, and the abuses that occur in the Novus Ordo. From my own experience I find three types of parishes within the Pauline Use (Novus Ordo) The first are parishes that are liturgically and doctrinally sound. The Masses are very much like those televised on EWTN. The second are doctrinally sound with correct but ho hum liturgy with minor liturgical transgressions that occur mostly out of ignorance of liturgical law. Over use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, the same cleansing the vessels, bad music, poor liturgical art and furnishings, etc. are a few examples. The majority of parishes fall into this category. The third are unsound doctrinally and sometimes outright heretical with grevious liturgical abuse. Use of invalid matter for the offerings, laypeople performing functions of the clergy, feminist and new age heresy infecting the theology of the prayers, are among the abuses found in these parishes and groups like Call to Action. The number of these parishes are small, but there are enough to cause concern.

However, the Tridentines often exaggerate the number of these parishes and ocurrences in order to strengthen their own cause, which is always the abolition of the Novus Ordo and imposition of the Tridentine Use on everyone. To speed this process up they want their priests to be able to refuse to say the Pauline liturgy, regardless of pastoral need. If the people want to go to Mass they will be forced to attend a Tridentine one. This is an attempt to get around the liturgical reform called for at Vatican II while looking innocent in the process. I liken it to one of our priests announcing he is now adopting the Old Russian Rite and will no longer say the Ruthenian recension we are used to.

I tire of these groups trying to use us as an example why their "rite" should be given its own bishops and diocese. The Eastern "Rites" have their own jurisdictions why can't we? The answer to that is because we are autonomous Churhces that resumed communion with Rome. They themselves are and always will be a part of the Latin Church and do not constitute an autonomous Church.

Biecclesial faculties come down to pastroal need and the spiritual benefit of the one using them. Outside of personal needs, I can forsee few instances were a Byzantine cleric would need these faculties. The Latins have enough priests to go around if they only learned some logistical management. On the otherhand, I am grateful for those Roman clerics that serve our Church. I know many parishes would have to go without Liturgy if not for these men. There is no blanket answer that is going to be applicable to all situations.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon-candidate

Lance,

We are a small Church aren't we. Yes, I do mean Tim T. God bless him. Tim is a wonderful and Godly man. He is our choir director as you probably know and has come to be a good friend and advisor.

I know the Tridentines and the Novus Ordoites are at each others throats. I also know that we ought to be very very careful not to get pulled into their argument. We will get overwhelmed by these behomoths.

Yet, I do wonder how one can readily move from East to West and back again. I suppose one can do the rubrics but isn't more expected?

Like I said, I'm new and green and often very very naive. Forgive me please if my perspective is a little silly.

Dan Lauffer

Dan, I think there is really good insight on what you have stated. I wouldn't be 'healthy' for us to get pulled into these internecine quarrels in the Western churches.

As for the going back and forth, my own suggestion is: grow where you are planted. Perhaps going from West to East and staying there for a few years and then deciding that you want to go back West as a permanent home is fine. But monthly shuttles from one to another deprives the individual of the spiritual consistency that I believe is necessary for the good of one's soul. When times get 'rough' in one place, the solution is not to go searching somewhere else for a greater or lesser period of time, but rather to 'tough it out', because that is how we grow spiritually.

Blessings!

The adjective ‘Pian’ is rare but I’ve seen it used by Latin traditionalists. I agree the Tridentine is not a separate rite but rather a use, one that is better in several ways than the Novus Ordo.

It seems the simple faithful among the Latins and the Orthodox, as well as the very spiritually advanced, can see the obvious family resemblance between traditional Latin and Eastern. It’s the petty people on both sides who’ve got a little knowledge and are desperate to prove something (that ‘Orthodoxy is really a completely different religion’, or that ‘Latin equals real Catholic unlike those schismatic ethnic weirdos’, or that ‘we Byzantines are cool and mystical, better than those dumb anal-retentive Tridentines’) who are blind to this truth.

I’m sorry, but after reading these sometimes snotty dismissals of Latin traditionalists as stupid, as Neanderthals who want to squash us poor Ortho/Byzantines, I can see why people like Dr Carroll (or those traditonalists who love us and want to be our friends) don’t like us. Yes, we’re separate Churches, whether in communion with the Roman one or not, but sometimes the attitude shown to Tridentines is like a black person who wants to ‘kick whitey’s a**’. The ones I’ve known usually have been a lot smarter and more cosmopolitan than the ones painted here. They’re smart enough to criticize the new Mass and so it’s not surprising they respect our traditions.

The description of the three factions in the Novus Ordo rings true, Lance — I've added it to the field-guide page on my site. The first group is mostly conservatives (but not always — there are classy dissenters, incluidng male homosexuals, who like the aesthetics); the second is a mix of conservatives, would-be AmChurchers and the nonaligned ‘everyman’ Roman Catholic majority. Group three is AmChurch.

So I say, yes, traditionalists and conservatives, look to the Orthodox tradition and other Eastern Churches as a benchmark of small-o orthodoxy. I invite you to! You may find clues about how your Church got into this whole Novus mess as well as constructive ways out of it. Maybe imitating exactly what was done in your churches 50 years ago isn’t the solution.

Serge

Old World Rus’

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 03-19-2001).]

Serge,

I am honored that you quote me on your website, but you need to make a correction. I am Byzantine Catholic not a Roman Catholic. I was born and raised Roman, but became a practicing Byzantine when I was 15. I did not have the official ecclesial change until a few years ago to facilitate my entrance into the Archeparchial deacon formation program. My entire extended family is Roman, and includes two priests and Archbishop Rembert Weakland. So even though I haven't dealt with the Roman Church firsthand for about fifteen years now, I think I have a pretty balanced view as I compare my experiences with those of my family.

I really don't have a problem with the Tridentine use, but those who support it often have agendas that are not ours and yet they seem to always want to enlist our help or use us as a refuge. The Roman Church is facing a trial but I don't think trying to erase Vatican II is the answer. I think groups like Adoremus are the way for Romans to go liturgically. The problem isn't the Novus Ordo, but a poor English translation and general liturgical laziness.

Another important point to remember is one can leave the Church through the left or right doors. As you point out dissenters can be as traditional as SSPX. Litrugical purity does not insure theological and moral purity. This is a point lost on many Tridentines, as they seek to blame Vatican II and the Novus Ordo for everything wrong in the Church.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon-candidate

Lance,

I have corrected the field-guide page to reflect that you are not Roman. Sorry about the mistake.

Serge

Old World Rus’

"It seems the simple faithful among the Latins and the Orthodox, as well as the very spiritually advanced, can see the obvious family resemblance between traditional Latin and Eastern."

There was *more* of a family resemblance then, that is true. But the family is getting more estranged, I think. We recently attended a very "orthodox" Novus Ordo Mass (complete with some Latin responses in Gregorian chant, etc) with one of our relatives (who is RC), and, frankly, we were both shocked at how disaffecting the whole thing was. It really felt very *protestant* to us (in spite of the fact that we were both raised RC). At the end of that Mass, we were both very happy that we were Orthodox -- it was like a shot in the arm, really, spiritually for us.

"I’m sorry, but after reading these sometimes snotty dismissals of Latin traditionalists as stupid,"

Not stupid.

"as Neanderthals who want to squash us poor Ortho/Byzantines,"

I woundn't use the word "Neanderthal", Serge, but I don't think that in the long run the Trads are very pro-Orthodox. We're useful in their liturgical battle with the Novus Ordo factions described by you, me, Lance and others. That's about it. If the Trads win out in the medium term, I would not expect this to lead to breakthroughs in Roman-Orthodox or Roman Catholic-Byzantine Catholic relations.

The real test here is the following: ask Trad RCs what they really think about the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy (or Rome and Byzantium, if you wish to keep the discussion to the confines of the Roman communion). In most cases, the answers are very revealing of a pre-Vatican II mentality towards the Eastern Church. Sure, lip-service is paid (sometimes after much brow-beating) to the proper terminology (because failing to do so would, in effect, contradict Rome and therefore undermine Roman authority, which is another key "button" for the Trads) but the underlying ideas are still very pro-Roman and not very Orthodox-oriented.

In effect, it's really a comparison between (1) a (Novus Ordo) church that has liturgically more in common with Protestantism but nevertheless is more willing to dialogue and explore issues with Orthodoxy than at virtually any time in history and (2) a (Trad) church that has much in common with Orthodoxy liturgically but is much more triumphalist and less willing to dialogue with Orthodoxy. You see, Serge, while I understand the affinity some feel for Trad RCs, I really don't think it's that easy to separate out the Trad liturgy from Unam Sanctam -- they go together. They are of one system.

Brendan

In truth doesn't the Orthodox/Byzantine Liturgy pre dates the Tridentine by a thousand years? We may have less in common with even the Tridentine Liturgy than we thought.

Dan L

Dear Brendan,

Just a note to congratulate you on such a precise and well-thought out posting.

Not only do you make good points, your analysis is simply brilliant.

As a long-time admirer, I must say that this one should really win an award!

God bless,

Alex

Alex --

Your kind words are appreciated (but not really deserved), particularly during this Lenten period.

Brendan

Brendan, I see your points but hold to what I wrote.

In truth doesn't the Orthodox/Byzantine Liturgy predates the Tridentine by a thousand years? We may have less in common with even the Tridentine Liturgy than we thought.

Not really, Dan. Today’s Orthodox Liturgy is roughly contemporary to the Tridentine: both are really late medieval. The Tridentine Missal is a slight editing and a codification of late medieval practice; in the Byzantine Rite the iconostasis took today’s form about the same time (source: Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy).

But the heart of the Roman Mass, the anaphora/consecration/canon/Eucharistic prayer, is older than the anaphoras of St John Chrysostom and of St Basil in the Byzantine Rite (source: Stuart Koehl).

Serge

Old World Rus’

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 03-19-2001).]