www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The new western liturgy: an obstacle to ecumenism?

Alex
I grew up Roman Catholic, at the time of Vatican II and all the changes. Each Sunday it seemed like "okay, what new thing are we going to do this week, are the editors back there making the lastest revisions to the 'new mass'"

Twenty years ago when we moved into a new house we were up the street from this "strange" Byzantine church -- I had never heard of Byzantine. Since there were so few Catholic churches here in the Deep South (Georgia), and this Byz church was the nearest church I thought I'd give it a try. I loved it. From the first Liturgy I loved it. I loved the ancientness of it. I could sense that it must have been how the
early Christians worshipped. I loved worshipping God similarly to the early Christians (I assumed there had been SOME changes over the centuries).

But some of my adult Roman Catholic relatives do not care for the Divine Liturgy.
They don't "get it". They are bored. I think our Liturgy requires a bit of effort on the congregations part. You have to listen, you have to participate. But the rewards are so great.
To sing our "catechism" every Sunday is the most special time of the week. We don't go to be entertained by the nice choir. Heck, our singing is often not so good, but we sing from our hearts with much devotion.

Don't worry if Latins find it boring. Us Byzantines, converts especially, LOVE the Liturgy and think about it daily. Our "heaven on earth".
God Bless you up in Toronto,
the rest of us that are not envy you.
I am delighted to read your posts about
WYD and to hear the excitement in your notes.
I am catching some of WYD on EWTN.
Denise

Dear Remie:

I am reminded of a wonderful bishop (it may have been Kallistos but may have been Fulton Sheen) who said �the language does not make the Liturgy holy but the Liturgy makes the language holy�.

I am also reminded that, in the beginning (Acts), the reception of the Eucharist was not surrounded by any Liturgy. It was a simple breaking of bread and drinking of wine. The development of the Liturgy came well after and several different Liturgies came to be among the churches. Coptic, Latin, Greek, Abyssinian, Chaldean, etc..

Very early in the Ecumenical Councils (I do not remember which one) the concept that proper words or actions brought about the sacraments - was rejected. That a �formula� cause them - is akin to magic. The words and rites and ceremonies that accompany any of the sacraments - do just that - accompany the sacraments. They are the changeable external �clothing� of the sacraments (if you will) the visible shell of the invisible reality and it is within the authority of the bishops of the different church to change them. In fact, it is the duty of each Patriarch to speak the gospel and make the message and meaning of the gospel and the sacraments understandable to those to whom they are speaking. Of course this should be done with reason.

This of course does not excuse some of the confusion and abuses that arose immediately after Vatican II when some RC clergy made Mass a hippy celebration. But those days of abuse are long gone (yes you may find some crack pot priest doing wild things in every century).

God knows very well that each of us goes through an early phase in which we consider that what the church does - is magic like - and He allows that. A phase in which we believe the sensible formula produces the wanted grace.

If you can understand what I am saying, it is like the difference between �faith� as the Catholic church uses it and the Protestant church. The Protestants see faith as something which - if you have enough of - you prays will be answered as you wanted. So certain Protestant groups believe, for example, that to be healed of some physical sickness one must deny even a hint of doubt to enter the mind and one must work himself up to a state of �faith� that he is �healed already�. And �claim� that healing. Faith to a Catholic is (or should be) is that we should give up our own concepts and ideas of the way things work - and follow what Christ advises (he knows the real ways things work). Let me put it this way - I own a dog and recently he almost died because he is so old most of his teeth were abscessed. My dog is not capable of figuring out what I was doing when I took him to the vet to have his bad teeth pulled. He is not capable to putting it together in his dog mind that having his bad teeth pulled and going on antibiotics for a month cleared up the toxins that were killing him (he was loosing his fur).

God uses the good and bad events that come to us each day - to mold us (by the hammer of experiences) into his own image. But we have our own mind and will - so our part is voluntary. If we do not have faith in God - we will �kick against the goad� (as Jesus put it to St. Paul on the road to Damascus) because we have made up our own minds on the subject of what we should or should not be doing. And if we do have faith that God can do what He said He will do - we patiently weather the storms of life knowing that these troubles are the very thing which shape us into his own image.

The responsibility of the Liturgy is within the authority of the bishops - and since we do not stand in their shoes - we know very little of the realities which the church has to deal with. For my part, I may have decided things much differently than a couple of Popes have - but if I sat in his seat and was given all the information he is given each day - I certainly would become aware of many things I had no idea about - since I am not a bishop I am saved from the responsibility of making an un-informed decision on anything and I maintain my faith that He does guide the authority of his church in these things - for my sake - so that my faith - is not worthless.

-ray

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:
[qb]>>>The new Western Liturgy has positive things. It has the character of what could be the "primitive" liturgy<<<

I wonder where this canard got started, for there is really no strong data at all for the liturgy of the primitive Church, both Justin and Hipplytus giving only the sketchiest of outlines, and even then we are not certain whether what they described was actual practice or their own theories about what liturgy should be. Assuming for the sake of argument that the new Missal does bear some resemblance to the primitive liturgy of the Church of Rome (big, BIG "if"), it begs the question of whether it is either possible or desirable to go back to such primitive forms of liturgy, or whether liturgy is an organic language of worship involving text, rubrics, gestures, mustic, furnishings and even architecture, all of which evolve dynamically in response to culture and to pastoral demands. If liturgy is an organic language, then one must be very careful about the notion that one can simply "prune" away all the escressences and unwanted growth, getting back to some abstract, "pristine" liturgy. That's just not possible. So then one must ask what the guiding principles of liturgical renewal should be, and the answers are pretty much given in Sacrosanctum Concilium: the purpose of liturgical reform and renewal is not to return to some primitive form of worship, but to ensure that the spirit of liturgy is consistent with that held by the Fathers: not necessarily to do precisely what they did, but to think about liturgy as they did. From that perspective, one would have to say that the new Roman liturgy is only a partial success, in the same sense that the Tridentine liturgical reform was only a partial success--which conversely means that both were partial failures, and in need of further reform.

>>>the liturgy of the catacombs during the persecutions<<<

Just for information, there is no evidence whatsoever that Christians EVER worshiped in the catacombs, and a simple visit to Rome or any other city with a major Roman underground cemetary would show why. They did sometimes meet ABOVE ground, usually near the cenotaph of a martyr, but never, to our knowledge, below ground. And again, we have very little information as to what their liturgy actually comprised, except in the most general terms.

>>>(this is some of what the protestant groups tried to rescue)<<<

Well, yes and no. Many of them rejected the notion of liturgy altogether in favor of a personalistic pietism.

>>with a lot of participation by the faithful and a sense of community.<<<

Well, that's what liturgy IS, and the fact that the Roman liturgy lost that for about 800 years was one of the main drivers of the Vatican II reforms. But one must ask whether the same result could not have been achieved by a more "organic" approach to reform, one which limited itself to the restoration of the roles of the deacon and the people in the liturgy; to the use of vernacular; to some minor amendations of the prayers; and to the reform of liturgical music. Instead, the commission decided to use the liturgy as a "privileged space" to further "aggiorniamento", and in the process did not so much reform the Roman liturgy as reinvent it. No objective scholar could say that the current liturgy is anything other than an "artifact"; i.e., a deliberate production by a group of people in a particular place and time, as opposed to an organism; i.e., something which grew directly out of the lived faith experience of the Church of Rome. That the liturgy was imposed from the top-down and was met with considerable resistance, is indicative of the shortfalls of this approach.


>>>That's why the Catholic Mass is so atractive for young people<<<

And that you can get a choice of five times on Sunday, and that it lasts only an hour at most (45 minutes on the average), thereby leaving a lot of time in one's personal calendar. Did I mention that the music is apalling, the language banal, and the sense of grandeur nonexistant? Oh, just an oversight on my part, I guess.

>>>The Pope's masses are a great example of this<<<

I wonder how much is the Mass, and how much is John Paul II, Superstar

>>>(I'd like to know what would happen if someday the Pope comes here and celebrates a Tridentine Mass, it would be wonderful).<<<

Why would he choose to do that, particularly as in its present form the Tridentine Mass violates most if not all of the principles of liturgy set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium?

>>>The problem was that in many parishes, while enphasizing the "community" sense of the christian prayer, put the other parts of the liturgy (the Sacrifice, the communion of the Saints, the veneration of pitious images, the veneration of the Our Lady) in an inferior place.<<<

That's what happens when you try to "invent" liturgy, instead of reforming what's given you. In any case, liturgical reform begins not with texts, but with people's attitudes. And before Rome changed a single line of text or single rubric, it should have worked for a decade in reforming people's understanding of what liturgy IS and DOES.


>>>On the other side the Tridentine Rite (or the supporters of the Tirdentine Missal) had the problems you had mentioned before: an ultra-clericalism (ignoring the faithful), and a strange obsession for the "secret orders".<<<

Advocates of the liturgical reform in the Latin Church suffer from the same delusions, but they manifest themselves differently. The Tridentine Church ignored liturgy; the post-conciliar Church obsesses over it and places its trust in esoteric groups of experts, sometimes called "liturgists". And they impose their views on a frequently recalcitrant Body of Christ.

>>>It seemed that all the meaningful symbols and prayers of the Roman Rite were kept as a taboo that was never revealed to the people who attended the services.<<<

Someone might want to go to the discussions on chanting the anaphora aloud to see if this is merely a Roman phenomenon.

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Dear StuartK,

Whether Pope John Paul II is a Superstar or not, I'll leave that to the pundits and to learned individuals such as yourself to determine.

Meeting the Pope and seeing him throughout this past week had nothing of the "Superstar" about it, at least for me and several hundred thousand others.

He radiates the Presence of the Lord Jesus, both at his Mass, and in the humility of a country retreat.

This had a tremendous spiritual impact on me, something I had not expected.

The liturgy was inspiring to me as an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian.

I've just had lunch with some of the pilgrims who all had prayer beads and a Cross.

They asked me where mine were.

I'm still thinking about an answer to that one.

Questions about where the liturgy or certain forms of it came from have become largely irrelevant for me now.

I, for one, am giving up my armchair theologian status.

I've come to realize that it is not what Christianity is about.

The Pope has inspired an enthusiasm to serve our Lord Jesus, as have the many pilgrims who came here to share their faith and magnetic love made manifest in action.

Sorry if your words about superstars and ritual forms ring hollow.

Alex

From Alex

>Whether Pope John Paul II is a Superstar or not, I'll leave that ...

Not a bad idea... But he sure draws crowds!

>to the pundits and to learned individuals such as yourself to determine.

Ouch!

>Meeting the Pope and seeing him throughout this past week ... He radiates the Presence of the Lord Jesus, both at his Mass, and in the humility of a country retreat.

He does carry an almost tangible charisma...

>This had a tremendous spiritual impact on me, something I had not expected.

Understandably...

>I've just had lunch with some of the pilgrims who all had prayer beads and a Cross.

>They asked me where mine were.

>I'm still thinking about an answer to that one.

You did not have your prayer rope, blessed by your priest or spiritual father? With the cross at the bottom of it? With the strands of spiritual children gathered at the foot of it?

The real question would seem to be, at least to me, "Where is your prayer?" and "Where is your Cross?" and "Are you following Christ?" And I have this sense that these were not at all lost on you!

>Questions about where the liturgy or certain forms of it came from have become largely irrelevant for me now.

Understandably... You have major inner events going on, yes?

>I, for one, am giving up my armchair theologian status.

Good idea! And along with the status, giving up armchair theologizing itself might also be a really good idea!

>I've come to realize that it is not what Christianity is about.

Amen to that!

>The Pope has inspired an enthusiasm to serve our Lord Jesus, as have the many pilgrims who came here to share their faith and magnetic love made manifest in action.

He is a huge inspiration to many, many millions... Everywhere he goes, there is almost a flooding of spiritual energy and attraction surrounding him.

[From the Orthodox standpoint, this is itself, of course, something to be approached cautiously, if at all... We treasure the idea of being "hid in Christ", and leave the attraction of the multitudes and throngs to Christ Himself, for we know only too well within our own souls the attraction of vainglory, and the destruction it wreaks in us.]

So it sounds like you have reached some profound turning points in your life as a result of your meeting with the Pope, Alex - I am happy for you, and pray you continue in God's mercy... Thank you for sharing your journey...

geo

Dear George,

Sorry if I came across sounding judgemental toward StuartK, but, you know, he can provoke one sometimes .

The bit about the Cross and the Beads. These Pilgrims were very "out there" with their religious symbols.

Toronto isn't used to that. Torontonians have become very "detached" and cosmopolitan when it comes to those kind of things.

That image of the girl holding up the Crucifix with beads and praying just haunts me. Thinking about it, reflecting on her witness inspires prayer in me - and a great humility.

This city isn't the same. The people don't know what's hit them - yet.

We'll be thinking on that for some time to come.

Spiritual restlessness is a good thing. I feel that I should be doing something out there for people to witness to the love of Christ.

I feel like a plastic ball of water looking for someone to throw me somewhere so that I can burst open and bring them refreshment.

Alex

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K

"Well, that's what liturgy IS, and the fact that the Roman liturgy lost that for about 800 years was one of the main drivers of the Vatican II reforms. But one must ask whether the same result could not have been achieved by a more "organic" approach to reform, one which limited itself to the restoration of the roles of the deacon and the people in the liturgy; to the use of vernacular; to some minor amendations of the prayers; and to the reform of liturgical music."


As you point out, it is certainly an interesting point for discussion to ask this. Those who were charged to work out the restoration of the Liturgy certainly did so.

Interesting description of what the organic approach to reform in the Roman Church should have looked like.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"Instead, the commission decided to use the liturgy as a "privileged space" to further "aggiorniamento", and in the process did not so much reform the Roman liturgy as reinvent it."


The intent of the renewal was to enable the texts and rites to "express more clearly the holy things they signify."(Sacrosanctum Concilium, Art. 21 AAS 56 1964 106. One word used during the time of the Council to mean "make clear to people of our time" was aggiorniamento.

Aggorniamento was a consideration in all that the Council did. It was seen as something that the Church needed to do, i.e. express holy things more clearly to the people of our time. The focus was on the Holy and making it clear the people.

Pope Paul VI did not indicate that he thought that the liturgy had been invented or reinvented

In fact, when he promulgated the missal, he wrote, "No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been suddenly accomplished. The progress of liturgical science in the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way. After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere," as St. Pius V indicated in the apostolic constitution Quo primum, helped greatly n the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published, and liturgical formulas of the Eastern Church have been studied. Many wish that these doctrinal and spiritual reches no be hidden in libraries, but be brought to light to illumine and nourish the minds and spirit of Christians." (Apostolic Constitution: Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised by Decree of The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council Paragraph 4)

The words used to describe the process at the time of the promulgation and in the intervening time in the teaching documents of the Roman Church about liturgical renewal and the Missal are significant, I think. The words are consistently restore, renew, and, as above, revise. To my knowledge, the words invent and reinvent are not used.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
" No objective scholar could say that the current liturgy is anything other than an "artifact"; i.e., a deliberate production by a group of people in a particular place and time, as opposed to an organism; "i.e., something which grew directly out of the lived faith experience of the Church of Rome."

What determines the objectivity of scholars? It seems to me that the best that a scholar can do is propose that such and that can be supported by the evidence. Certainly they have to begin with the primary sources. What scholars have done so and have concluded that the work of the renewal of the Liturgy was to construct an artifact?

The writings of Paul VI above and any other authoritative teaching document state the opposite. There appears to be no evidence in them that constructing an artifact, as opposed to enabling organic development was the work in progress.

A careful reading of the pertinent documents, indicates that the revised Roman Missal was seen as developing from the faith life of the Roman Church.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"That the liturgy was imposed from the top-down and was met with considerable resistance, is indicative of the shortfalls of this approach."

Would it not have been considerably resisted by some initially simply because it involved change in sacred practices no matter where the change began?

Isn't change in Churches as we know them officially promulgated by those who have the responsibility to engage in guiding the Churches, i.e those at the top?

The great majority of those who are members of the Roman Church worship using the revised Liturgy without resistance. Doesn't that suggest that the approach worked?


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"Did I mention that the music is apalling, the language banal, and the sense of grandeur nonexistant? Oh, just an oversight on my part, I guess."

Not true at most of the Liturgies I participate in. Opinion is opinion and must be respected however presented.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"I wonder how much is the Mass, and how much is John Paul II, Superstar"

Maybe the young have been catechized better than we thought? Maybe they know it's Jesus's Sacrifice and want to share the celebration with the Pope who asks them to visit with him. Couldn't we give them the benefit and not doubt their ability to distinguish one from the other?


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Remie
>>>(I'd like to know what would happen if someday the Pope comes here and celebrates a Tridentine Mass, it would be wonderful).<<<

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"Why would he choose to do that, particularly as in its present form the Tridentine Mass violates most if not all of the principles of liturgy set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium?"


Actually the question is not irrelevant.

The Tridentine Rite is a legitimate rite of worship in the Roman Church. Given what Paul VI said, the Revised Roman Missal is a development of the Tridentine Missal of Paul V. The Work of the People is accomplished using either rite.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
Advocates of the liturgical reform in the Latin Church suffer from the same delusions, but they manifest themselves differently. The Tridentine Church ignored liturgy; the post-conciliar Church obsesses over it and places its trust in esoteric groups of experts, sometimes called "liturgists". And they impose their views on a frequently recalcitrant Body of Christ."


Actually the Roman Church didn't change. It was the Roman Church which was Tridentine Church and which is post-concilliar Church. Analyzing in these terms, there is clear irony, no?

It was the Tridentine Church along with our Eastern and Oriental Sister Churches which initiated the Council. It was the same Tridentine Church with her Sister Churches in Council which brought about the renewal. It is the post-conciliar church which exhibits the change in attitudes and teachings and practices which are both cause and result of the renewal.

Is that organic development or what?

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

That's easy to say after at least one "schism" and a generation and a half of Catholics have died,
many sincerely missing the "Old Mass".



Better then to avoid Michigan.

With Best Wishes to All!

Stefan

In my personal interactions with Orthodox Christians, I do not see that the "new western liturgy" as helping in the area of ecumenism.

On the one hand, the former Anglican converts to Ortodoxy (many of them former Anglican clergy,) see the Novus Ordo as having strong Protestant overtones.

On another hand, the cradle Orthodox (all Greek American) who have discussed the new liturgy with me generally implied that the former liturgy was more in keeping with their conceptions of Catholicism.

Some criticisms of the Novus Ordo which the cradle Orthodox shared were:
1. It's more flamboyant than prayerful.

2. Communion "in the hand" and "EEM's" (esp. eight or twelve of them) is close to unconscionable".

3. there is a minimization of devotion to the Mother of God.

4. also various comments on the lack of religious garb.


I shared this before, but it's worth repeating: The youth director at the local GOA parish inquired where there was a "Latin Mass" for him to take the kids in his youth group after taking them to the Novus Ordo so they could get a glimpse of what the Catholic Church 'used to be like'.

Another favorite story is from a friend who's wife is cradle Orthodox Greek-American who went on sabbatical to the South of France. The wife, as it turned out decided to seek out the SSPX churches where there were no Orthodox churches.

All I could say was "
mais pourquoi ???"

With Best Wishes;
Stefan-Ivan

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Stefan-Ivan ]

Objectively one has to admit that prior to Vatican II there was a great decline in the Latin liturgy. The predominance of the Low Mass attests to that fact. The Motu Proprio of St. Pius X on the Liturgy which admonished that the sung Latin Liturgy was to be the norm was basically ignored by the majority of the Catholic Church after his death. The seeds of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II are rooted in a reality of minimalist congregational participation in the decades preceeding the Council.

When the priest is in the front of the church mumbling Latin as in the Low Mass the sense of participation is greatly minimalized. Liturgy should be the vehicle of the corporate worship of the Church, not the time nor place to say the Rosary or other private devotions while the priest has a private Mass.

I have spoken to Orthodox priests who strongly believe that positive aspects of the revised western liturgy are (1) it's in the vernacular and (2) when done properly according to the missal and rubrics of Paul VI it fosters congregational participation. Both of these aspects are much more consonant with Eastern Catholic and Orthodox liturgy.

Dear Stefan-Ivan,

I think you may have a point with certain covnerts to Orthodoxy. But beyond that limited group, I think the Roman Catholic Liturgy presents no real problems for us Orthodox. Individual Orthodoxy have theri personal opinions and preferences, but litugical matters, including religious garb and methods of distributin, have never raised a peep in all of the very extensive and valueable dialogues between our two communions.

Axios

To add on to my brother Axios I would bet that some of those converts to Orthodoxy that he (Axios) spoke of who are perhaps more sentimentally attached to the older Latin liturgy may very well be disgruntled Romans bitter over the liturgical changes who converted to Orthodoxy.

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Dear Axios,

As I mentioned, my post is based on my personal experience, and not on any scientific poll or study.

Dear Diak,

The converts I had in mind were all former Anglican/Episcopalians, all of them former Episcopal priests. Again, my post is based on my observations, not on any scientific methods. None of these individuals were former Roman Catholics to my knowledge.

I can not, in all honesty, retract what I have identified, and present positive feedback from Orthodox Christians, because this has not been my experience. Sorry.

With Best Wishes to All!
Stefan-Ivan

Dear Friends,

I don't know how relevant this is to the current discussion, but that hasn't stopped me before . . .

When I was waiting for the arrival of the Papal delegation in Midland for Mass, the shrine hosted a group of "neo-catechumens."

They started to clap and do other things that resembled religious Lawrence Welk Show.

I simply had to leave, couldn't take it. I pretended that my cell-phone was ringing . . .

But later at the Stations of the Cross, and the Vigil Service, I really got into it and was truly inspired, to the point of tears, by what these young people and their priestly guides had developed liturgically.

So I'm for anything that inspires. And a guitar can inspire, although not always .

Alex

Dear Stefan,

You have rightly pointed out the difficulties attendant on the revision of the Liturgy of the Roman Church.

Some in the Roman Church found it extremely difficult or impossible to accept the renewed Liturgy. Over the years, a small portion of them did choose to go into schism despite the efforts of the Pope to prevent it and to remedy the situation prompting their action after they did so.

Others were uncomfortable with the revised Liturgy when it was promulgated and are uncomfortable still. Yet, most of them worship with their parish communities using the revised liturgy.

Thanks to indults, many of those most comfortable worshipping using Tridentine rites can now worship using those rites.

I think that for most of the rest of us, the changes were accompanied with pain. We came to know that pain as the pain of loss. We lost the familiar and beautiful rites that we used to worship prior to Vatican II. That pain became the pain of growth for most of us as we accepted and embraced the renewed rites.

Some of us did die missing the "Old Mass." That causes sorrow among us who celebrated the Old Mass and knew it as our rite for worshipping for a great part of our lives. Those of us who grew in what is called the Tridentine Church expected to be escorted home by those familiar ceremonies at death.

I did not intend belittle the pain or the difficulties that have accompanied the renewal. If that is what came through, please accept my apology. It was not intended.

My comments were intended to point out that for most members of the Roman Church the revised Liturgy is our Liturgy. It has been for many years. I think it fair to say that there has been no more resistance to its promulgation than that which would be expected to follow change of such magnitude.

The great majority of our people accepted it and continue to accept it. We have made it our own.

I find it difficult to accept that a Catholic should stay away from Michigan if he or she wants to participate in a reverent, dignified and meaningful renewal of Christ's Sacrifice in a Roman Catholic Church. I have attended Mass in that State. There were no excesses or abuses in the Liturgies that I attended. The music was quite good, too.

Of course, your experience in that area is much greater than mine. I hope that if there are excesses or abuses you were heard when you brought them to the attention of the appropriate persons.

Again, please accept my apology for any pain caused by my comments. It was not intended.

Steve