www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Reconstructed/Reintroduction of Liturgies

In Catholicism, the Gallican Liturgy is no longer celebrated. I have heard before that this is because once a certian rite is gone, it's gone, and it cannot be reintroduced because the liturgy is organic.

However, in Orthodoxy, for example, the Church(es) have reconstructed the Gallican Liturgy for very limited use in certain parishes.

Why have they done this and Catholicism has not? What are the differing attitudes concerning the "organicosity" (for lack of a better word) or "development" of the liturgy in the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church?

ChristTeen287

Dear Christ Teen:

As far as I know the Galican Rite has never been fully approved by Canonical Orthodoxy, and it is not used by any canonical Orthodox Church.

In Western Europe, during the first part of the XX Century, there was a movement in order to restore the Galican Church led by a group of former Catholic priests who converted to Orthodoxy and wished to restore the Rite of the Gauls. As their Bishop had been consacrated in the Liberal Catholic Church they faced some troubles to be recognized as a group with valid orders. This problem got solved when their Bishop Jean de San Francisco, was consacrated by St John Maximovitch. A large group of priests were received in the Russian Orthodox Church and became byzantine, they are the original founders of the Orthodox Church in France and Netherlands, thanks to the labour of St John Maximovitch. Those who wished to remain with the idea of the restoration of the Galican Rite reached communion with other Orthodox Churches (finally the Romanian Patriarchate) for breve periods of time until it became independent as a result of some requests of the ROC to celebrate the byzantine liturgy and other issues.

They have a great site:

http://orthodoxie.free.fr/

The last news I had is that they are now in negociations with the Catholic Bishops of France They only need to solve the problem of what status they would receive by Rome (an eparchy, an apostolic administration with special rite, indult parishes).If communion is finally restored, it will be the true restoration of the Galican Rite by the Catholic Church.

The root lies in the word itself. Liturgy in English comes from the Greek: laos ergeizei, i.e., "the people act".

Liturgy is the public and common prayer of the people. To "re-introduce" some older form of liturgy flies in the face of serving the needs of the praying community. This does NOT mean that one cannot call upon older liturgical sources, but it does imply that whatever is being done NOW should be serving the needs of the people who are praying NOW.

And, as a corollary, what we are doing now can be 'changed' in order to better serve the needs of the people in the benches, but the changes must be 'organic', that is: built upon what the people are currently doing and not the introduction of something "out of the blue" for historical "accuracy" reasons. That's just a plan for disaster, especially for Byzantine Christians. But, I take comfort in knowing that God's people will do what is right in terms of prayer, etc. with or without the support of the liturgists.

(This morning during the Mirovanie, after a whole mess of hymns, the cantors struck up "God Bless America" and then "America the Beautiful", and the people joined in enough to rattle the windows. Liturgists might have seizures, but here in metro-Washington, with TONS of Federal Employees and military personnel in the benches, it's the right thing to do to support all of us who await another jihad against the Great Satan in our hometown area. There's nothing in the typikon about this, but the people just KNOW what is right. I am so grateful for the Holy Spirit.)

Blessings!

I see this issue slightly differently.

In Byzantine Churches we have seen a slow, small, but noticable revival of the Liturgy of Saint James which was virtually extinct (i.e. being offered only in two or three places 30 years ago).

Now, as Alex said on a different post it has been translated by a Ukie priest in Brazil. One priest in the St. Nicholas Eparchy has tentative permission from our Apostolic Administrator to offer St. James Liturgy when the priest feels he is ready after some study and prep time.

A few Melkite priests offer it also.

Therefore I think that a RC priest who is (a) truly motivated to offer the Gallican Liturgy (or Visigothic, or Sarum,) and (b) seeks permission to do so, would probably get permission, especially if he asks twice!

Surely the Gallician Liturgy is no more "archaic" than ours?

One possible problem with the RC Church allowing any liturgical plurality is that it would fuel the squabble with the militant "Trad Lats".

If a priest offered the Gallican here, I would be interested in visiting.

With Best wishes for all!
and Happy Thanksgiving to all of us Yanks!
Stefan-Ivan

I truly believe that the "legitimacy" of other Western rites beyond the Roman is a good thing for the Western Church. Historically, the other Western rites appear to have been suppressed in order to affirm the Roman rite, and collaterally, the primacy of the Roman See. While historically, it seems to be a good thing since the WHOLE Western Church is "unified" [unlike us Byzantines who live up to our convoluted name], it does tend to stultify anything that is not originated or promulgated by the authorities of the Holy See. And let's face it, these Italian Bachelor Farmers (with apologies to Garrison Keillor) are not exactly a hotbed of creativity.

As for the revival of "older" liturgical forms, I think it would be interesting from a historical point of view, but to do so in the parishes could be a big mistake.

Why?

Because most of our Byzantine Christian communities have lived with persecution for decades and decades as well as centuries. During times of persecution and duress, our peoples have clung to our Liturgy as the touchstone of steadfastness. It was the badge of honor that spit in the face of the persecutors who would have us cave in to their pressures. And while our people could chant the hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, they didn't have a chance to make us concede our Faith. And it infuriated them. (Ukrainians and Armenians to the front of the line, please.)

So, when one diddles around with our liturgy, one is performing spiritual surgery on the very souls of our people. And "we, the people" are justly concerned with what is happening. For many of us, one doesn't care about credentials or "appointments" or whatever; just don't diddle around with what we do. Even if one is "part of the community", this is not a license to do anything relying upon historial or canonical fact. The reality is: the people of God are the Church.

Blessings!!

Dr. John: You have truly captured the spirit of what the liturgy is all about - "the work of the people" - a living and sanctified prayer that expresses both the faith and the lived experience of those who celebrate it.

I've always thought that, while it is interesting from a scholarly or historic point of view, to be aware of various "archaic rites" that are no longer in use (not part of a living community), attempts to "resurrect" them merely for the sake of lending credence to a particular "jurisdiction" or because a handful of people are intrigued by them, goes against the integral purpose of the liturgy itself. The church is not a museum and the various liturgies "museum pieces" but rather the People of God, gathered together for living worship. Maintaining historical rites for the sake of the rites themselves is an offense to both God and the true purpose of the church community.

It has been said here that the liturgy is organic and continually developing. That is the truth. Even our own liturgy, to which most of us are spiritually and sentimentally attached should, if it is a living prayer, see change and development over the years. It's a very hard call because, again, as Dr. John points out, the liturgy has served to unite, preserve and encourage our people during repeated times of intense suffering and struggle for survival. At the same time, we can see that, perhaps without our notice, the liturgy has indeed evolved over the course of time. It need not be celebrated "exactly" as it was in the "Great Church" of Constantinople prior to the 15th. century CE. Even the Byzantine liturgy itself experienced change during the imperial days (i.e.: the movement from the "cathedral rites" to a synthesis of monastic, Constantinopolitan and Jerusalem usages). There was a good reason for this development: times had changed and the "urban" or "cathedral" rites were no longer able to be maintained (they required large staffs of liturgical ministers which were no longer available after the fall of the empire). So, there developed what we now know as the "Byzantine synthesis."

I am not advocating major reforms or across the board revisions to our liturgy. As I mentioned, I too am attached in my heart to the "received usage." But, if we look at it, the liturgy as we know it has changed, even in our own lifetimes, and this is a sign of the particular genius of our people to adapt the liturgy to the needs of the times. For example, in most parishes of the Ruthenian recension, the ektenias of the catechumens (and in some places also those of the faithful) have not been taken for decades; other repetitive ektenias are shortened or omitted entirely (ektenias of offering and before the Our Father); the small ektenias are sometimes omitted (although these are ones that I would include, because they form a natural division between the three antiphons and are thus useful to make this distinction); Psalm 33 is not often recited before the dismissal; bishops often enter the church already vested rather than using the more solemn and long royal vesting rites (nice for some occasions but not absolutely imperative to the celebration); and other changes.

Many of these "changes" are so commonplace that many people do not even know that they have been changed. If we speak about organic development, that is one sure sign that it has occurred naturally - the liturgy evolves in such a way that rather than be "shocked" by abrupt changes and revisions, the liturgy simply adapts to the needs of the community and in that way, is a comfortable and logical development, making the liturgy a prayer that truly expresses the faith and experience of those celebrating it.

Awkward services imposed either from "committees of powers above" or by studious, self-identified liturgical "scholars" usually do not speak to many but rather make the liturgy a tiresome, oppressive time which one must endure rather than celebrate with the whole heart, mind and soul.

Of course when I speak of organic development and changes, this means what is consistent with our spiritual heritage and not those that have been imposed over the years, simply to imitate what some considered the superior and dominant Latin Rite. That is a totally different story. But again, our people knew quite well what was and what was not part of their liturgical inheritance - at least those who had a firm grasp on their identity as Byzantine Christians.

For those who love suppressed or naturally extinct liturgies - I encourage you to continue to study and appreciate them, but also to make a distinction between the classroom or library and the living experience of word and sacrament that is expressed in the celebrated liturgy.

Let us pray that our leaders will have the insight to realize that our precious liturgy has indeed done very well through the natural and organic development that has characterized it over these past decades of our lifetime and that certain revisions, no matter how historically correct, simply do not speak to our times nor reflect the experience of the worshipping community that must celebrate it.

Fr. Joe

I understand, for example, that there was a kind of pastoral needing when the AOC established the Western Rite. In spite of the problems with the liturgies they approved (Tridentine, and Anglican) they're both living liturgies.

But I doubt we really need the Galican Rite back, why do we need it? what about the "sarum Mass"? Would it be helpful to gain converts? would it bring more people to the Church? is there a Galican Church alive that must be received in Orthodoxy or Catholicism? I don't think so. This would be liturgical fiction, or liturgical antropologism.

Ooooh, Remie, I liked your post until the last word...you lost me, I have no clue what it means; I'll go look it up now.

ChristTeen287