www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Universal Tridentine Mass

I think that there is an underlying Leitmotiv in the postings that would clarify the various perspectives.

There seems to be a desire among some for the return of the "Tridentine" Mass form as opposed to the so-called "Novus Ordo". In reality, the strutures of the two liturgies are essentially identical and even many of the components are identical in text. The contrast seems to lie in the "ceremonial" aspects of the celebration rather than in the liturgies themselves. For those of us who have lived with the Tridentine form (especially in the "low Mass" and "private" celebration), there was nothing intrinsically beautiful about it (especially at 6:00 a.m.). But when celebrated with all the pomp and circumstance, it could certainly be a work of art (if the clergy could sing AND if there was a trained choir or schola cantorum).

The same can be said of our Byzantine liturgies. Some can be perfunctory or poorly sung (or, for a REAL treat, go to a recited Chrysostom; I stood with my mouth open at St. Michael's in Baltimore about a dozen years back.)

I suspect strongly that if an ordinary Catholic went to a Latin Tridentine and also to a Latin "Novus Ordo", that person would be hard pressed to distinguish between them. It's in the performance of the liturgy that the "Art" (and therefore the "beauty" becomes present.

The need to use the liturgy to catechize the people was certainly apparent to the Fathers of the Council, and by rendering the liturgy in the vernacular they hoped to achieve what we in the East already possessed. (At a gathering of Byzantine faithful, just intone: "It is truly proper..." in the appropriate language and listen to the folks join in.)

I also note that the musical renderings we use in the East are NOT really "old", as in Medieval, but are eminently singable (by and large - except for the Ruthenian "In you, o Woman, full of grace.." Unsingable.). Think of the Russian tones, especially 1, 7 and 8. Good music.

Gregorian chant? Difficult. The meter is not measured as we know it today. In the festal chants there are countless melismata and varying ictus points (marked in the 4 line staff). Not generally something you could hum on the bus going to work in the morning.

So, I would suggest that we focus more on the artful celebration of the liturgy and the ability to have all of God's people fully participate and be catechized, and not need a graduate degree in arcane languages to do so!

It's the prayerful nature that counts.

Christ is Risen from the dead!! (Hum along in the appropriate melody!!!)

And hopefully, they would know more than Samohlasen Tone 6 when singing it.

What's wrong with Tone 6 Samohlasni?

Also, some of the Znamenny melodies and Bulgarian tones in use in Slavic churches are of medieval age, but these are not used very often in most places.

Dr John,

I strongly disagree on everyone of your points. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are dead wrong. But, hey we all have our opinions and opinions are cheap because everyone has one.

There were groups of Old Believers who came under the omophorion of St. Andrey Sheptytsky and were allowed and even encouraged to keep the Russian Old Rite and all of its accessory traditions. The Russian Catholic Synod of 1917 presided over by Sts. Andrey and Leonid Federov officially allowed either the Old or Nikonian usage (but no admixture), and is still in effect.

I am very happy the Holy Father is allowing the Latins to have their Old Rite with much freer usage as there are definitely faithful who are attached to it.

I would agree with Fr. Robert Taft when he distinguishes between the Reading-Eucharist service and the "soft spots" that make up most of the differences between the rites. The "soft spots" are: (1) the entrance rites, (2) the transfer of the gifts, and (3) the communion and dismissal rites. If we theoretically removed the "soft spots" from all liturgical traditions, how close in format would the diverse rites be?

I personally think we get too hung up on the "soft spots" - those highly elastic parts of the Liturgy - that we fail to appreciate those parts where there IS unity, namely the Readings and Eucharist liturgies. Both of these have precedents: the Synagogue Service and the Last Supper. Both help tie us in with the Old Testament and the New Testament. Isn't this wonderful?

Not only can we appreciate the INTER-ritual differences (between the Latin and Byzantine rites), but we can also appreciate the INTRA-ritual differences (between Chrysostom and Basil or between the Novus Ordo and Tridentine).

Isn't all this just simply beautiful?

Joe Thur

I agree, Joe. And I think your point about the synagogue service is truly validating. Things evolve over time to suit the graces given to the community in its pilgrimage home to God.

If things didn't evolve, we'd be opening the liturgy with "Baruch atah Adonai Elohenu...."

Christ is Risen!!

The Liturgy in Jerusalem began with processions into the Church, hence the promimence of antiphons. The Byzantine liturgy looked considerably different than it does today even 1,000 years ago and especially 1,500 years ago. Taft is absolutely correct about the soft spots in comparitive liturgical studies.

But all academics aside, the soft spots are a part of liturgical development and thus become part of the liturgical identitity of the people. Often only the academics are considered when applying liturgical changes without considering the liturgical identity or sensitivities of the people.

I for one love the mercy and charity the Church shows by praying for God's mercy on His church at the extenias. I understand that these are a much latter accretion and the starting point of the Liturgy was antiphons of procession and the Gospel. But according to some liturgists, these are fluff, get rid of them, back to basics, etc.

There is a modern tendency to reduce all analysis into a dissectional mode. Liturgy has not been spared this modern scientific approach. Unfortunately when one dissects, the organism is not the same or as whole as when the process was started.

One never disects a living organism, only a dead one.

I pray that our Liturgical tradition is alive, and not subject to such ministrations.

Amin!

This is where I loose patience with Schmemann on the Eucharist. He ignores litugical devlopment within the context of a changing and evolving Church, trying to scrape away the 'accretions' of centuries and ignoring our litugical identity, mentality and expressions of piety.

Spasi Khristos-
Mark, monk and sinner.

It is truly important to begin "where we are" in terms of our faith-lives as well as our liturgy. The business of moving currently-traditional evening services to mornings, for example, flies in the face of where we, the people, currently are. But there are also valid reasons to make changes that might benefit the people. In Boston, a few years back, Christmas midnight Mass was moved to 6 p.m. because there was an epidemic of shootings late at night and there was genuine concern about peoples' safety.

I think that the dissection image may be a good one, but its counterpart is surgery. There are many elements of the liturgy that have been added over the centuries, especially as noted elsewhere as "soft spots". I don't think that we should feel obligated to retain everything unquestioningly. But, that said, I also don't think that a mandated excision based solely upon academic research is the right way to go either. Why? Because it upsets the people.

If we are going to make emendations to liturgical celebrations, we should do it very, very, very, very slowly and absolutely in conjunction with a lot of education and explanation. (This Pascha, in a Greek Orthodox parish in Florida, the priest blessed and distributed both palms and pussy-willows. Many Greek eyebrows were arched when the willows were brought to the front. But the priest explained that northern Orthodox don't have palms and use willows. He emphasized that people "make do" with the resources available to them. The people were quite content once things were explained. Eduction. Education. Eduation.)

Christ is Risen!

I believe my reference to Taft has been taken in the wrong way, judging by the following posts.

My point was to answer for the nature of the liturgical differences, not a rejection of them, and how these later soft spot developments often become the battleground between those who want change and those who don't. None of the arguments deal with hearing the Word of the Lord better or loving God in Communion better.

There are some who don't want to think of doing autopsies on living things (such as the liturgy) but watch out if you move the lectern from the side of the temple to the middle - as was noted on another thread - or if you happen to change the tone of a hymn. Usually, those who DON'T love or want to internalize the Word of God are the first to fight or flight. Ignorance of our love relationship with God and how it grew and developed over the years can be a mighty deadly force in a faith community. In our past we have a number of blemishes and sour spots. Any development is not gradual or smooth. I would say that our liturgical development is similar in fashion to a periodic pruning rather than a progressive growth without trimming. Things develop, and some things get chopped off. Things get added, and things wither. Take, for instance, the period of our liturgical history when a 'symbolic' interpretation reached its zenith. Every little liturgical action became a part of a passion play. We still see residuals of this on our antimension ("The noble Joseph ..."), at the preparation table (the icon of the Nativity and/or the Star under the asterix), and on the orarion of the deacon (the angelic "Holy, Holy, Holy"). But, we no longer teach our liturgy as a Passion Play. Because like some living things, some parts die off or are chopped off.

What am I trying to say? I am trying to say that everything liturgical becomes equal. How the server carries the candle becomes as important, if not more so, than whether there is Eucharist and Communion. Moving a lectern will prompt some souls to protest to the Metropolitan, but if the same pastor didn't pray the Anaphora it probably wouldn't phase them nor would they probably care. Our failure to sense a hierarchy of liturgical importance is akin to our failure to sense a hierarchy of truths in dogma (where changing a tone for a hymn is just as important, or more so, than changing the definition of the Trinity).

We DO study living things. We DO study life, no? Should we only study dead things in order to understand living things? Dating between two lovers is a time of study. We share and learn about each other's personal histories to help make better decisions. When I dated my wife, I didn't study her dead gandparents. We learned to ask questions and consider hypothetical cases to see how each other would react. In the meantime, we learned to love each other greater and better. And I will celebrating twelve years this year. And guess what? We still ask questions!

No. I didn't imply that we scholastically break down our liturgical life into pieces and parts to better understand it. But I do believe that to appreciate something better, such as liturgy or even the Scriptures, one has to balance fairly both diachronic and synchronic approaches.

Our Christian Tradition is not only that, a "tradition" or handing down, but also a rejection of the pieces and parts of the past for obvious reasons.

Joe Thur

Dear Joe, your points are insightful and well taken. There is no liturgical scholar worthy of the name today equal to Archimandrite Robert who is one of the few scholars whose books I not only had to read but love to read.

I was simply mentioning the trend in modern "comparative liturgy" of partitioning the Liturgy academically and the occasional tendency of liturgists to say we need to go back to this or that "snapshot" of an earlier interpretation of the shape of the Liturgy.

It is hard to hit a moving target when trying to "freeze" the liturgy into this or that model that should be held as an ideal or goal for revision. As Hieromonk Elias wisely pointed out, it is a living, breathing thing. And it is the heart of the identity and life of the Christian community, "source and summit of Christian life" as the Second Vatican Council stated.

It is wonderful in this case (going back to the topic) that if a community has its liturgical identity in an older variation of its rite that it feel free, supported and blessed to worship according to that rite and become a visible and welcome part of the Church and not be treated like museum pieces or scoffed for holding to "old-fashioned" things such as its liturgical tradition as handed down, its own particular witness to Christ and expressions of His truth, etc.

Has everyone on this forum lost sight to the fact that the N.O. mass of the Latins changes the words of consecration? "I do this many" into "I do this for all."

That point along with many others has caused the degradation of the liturgy to the low point of Polka Masses, Jazz Masses, Cardinal Mahoney Masses, Clown Masses, and countless other illicit activities the Latin church has experimented with (even the Popes WYD had liturgical dancing).

Combine this with the sex scandals etc... and I can only see this as a sign from God that He is not pleased with the Church.

I think the Pope knows all this and is getting ready to meet his maker and does not want to leave the Church in it's present state.

I expect the many liberals to start bashing my comments. Ok let the bashing begin...

I really don't think that there are many "liberals" on this site. What exactly do you constitute as "libetal" comments and ideas.....that's one thing that the East can't be accused of is a liberal attitude......