When I entered the Novitiate for the Jesuits in 1964, we had to obtain a copy of the "Missale Romanum" which was the standard liturgical text for the Roman Church. (There were pasted-in supplements for Jesuits and other religious orders related to the Order's saints and blesseds.) The text was universal.
The rubrics, printed in red (hence the word 'rubric') provided guidance on physical motions and movements - i.e., moving the Missale at the altar done by the altar servers. Seminary classes on liturgy prescribed exactly what was to be done and when and by whom - deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, etc. The Latin language was clearly expressed in the texts, although the pronunciation was not specified and there were a lot of variants dependant upon the ability of the priest - e.g., the "ag-nus day-eee" versus the "an-yus day-ee" which let the participants know whether the priest actually knew the Latin or was just phonating the text. While this might seem to be a 'shibboleth', it was in reality a touchstone of whether the priest was a "Mass-sayer" or a "Paschal-reenactor". And the difference was quantum reality.
It is really clear that in the psychedelic craziness of the late 60s and the early 70s, there was a lot of 'priestly liberty' in the celebration of the Eucharist, much of which was nuts.
The problem seems to lie in the fact that the celebrant was more or less able to 'interpret' the liturgical texts and the rubrics into something that was meaningful for the congregation. And some priests did stuff that was 'relevant' but totally outside the scope of ecclesiastical practice. It's clear that they were trying to be 'relevant' to contemporary culture, but they were woefully ignorant of the history of liturgy and its theological foundations while trying to be mindful of the contemporary 'scene'.
Without going into a dissertation, the fact is: liturgy is drama. It "re-PRESENTS" the spiritual reality in word and deed in the context of communal prayer. The community/congregation is present for spiritual nourishment from the bishop and led by the bishop's vicar: the priest. If the communal action is merely a rote recitation of the text, the experience will be mundane at best. When led by a prayful and congregation-loving priest, the experience will be a communal arousal to a commitment to the Gospel and its principles of love of God and love of neighbor. Anything less is a short-changing of the spiritual lives of the baptized. Good liturgical priests draw people to the liturgy and fill the church. Rote liturgy-performers fulfill the mandates, but the baptized slowly withdraw in spiritual de-hydration.
Good emotional (and dare I say it: theatrical) liturgy induces the baptized faithful to return week after week to receive the battery-recharging force that is gained from the liturgy and the community being together. The musical component is a critical element in the whole liturgical experience. It's no mystery why traditionally oriented English-speaking folks are drawn to the traditional Anglican liturgy: it's 'good English' and it's good traditional Anglo-American music and ceremony. Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders to be "null and totally void", so there should be no question about the validity of the services and sacraments, but there is also no question that the Anglican ministries 'speak' to the needs of many people, including many Roman Catholics.
For Byzantines, there is the cultural aspect where the "Anglo-American" paradigm isn't so important, but the adherence to the 'traditional' (=insert appropriate ethnic references) is very important. And any changes to these will have repercussions. Some will accept a degree of changes, others will accept no changes at all. (ROCOR is now dealing with parishes who want nothing to do with the Russian Church with whom they are now in communion. The Greek dioceses are dealing with parishes who want everything in Greek no matter what, while others want more and more English in the liturgy.)
The answer seems to be that each parish of families should "work" in a way that serves the needs of the people who are members of the parish. The language and the music should serve the people who worship there. A gradual introduction of new language/music should help move the community forward, but should not impede the needs of the community. Perhaps this could be 2 liturgies - one 'old' and one 'new' and see where the people vote with their feet. And this also imposes a huge burden upon the priests! They need to take care of the people and make sure that their spiritual needs are met.
If a group adamantly demands OCS and the 'old music' and another group prefers English and some new music, then the priest must be able to accommodate both in some way. For his priestly mandate is to serve God's people to the best of his ability. And the old excuse of " I was just following orders " just doesn't work when he is more than aware of his people. (And most priests are - much to their burden!!)
The "Paschal-reenactor" priests exude the emotional graces of the liturgy. These are the individuals who weep at the epiklesis and shake at the realization that because of their ordination the Holy Spirit is being called down to the altar to transform the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ (and why Greek people crawl over kneelers and benches to prostrate themselves on the floor). The Mass-sayers make sure that the words are said clearly and that the regulations are adhered to.
I prefer the former.
It's not the 'regulations', it's not the liturgical mandates, it's the faith of the people and their priests that make the sacrament of the Eucharist (and the other sacraments) both spiritually and psychologically and physically uplifting. If one takes away the 'accoutrements' that are comforting to the people and their priest, then there will be negative responses to the sacramental actions.
There is a Latin theological aphorism that states: "Quidquid recipitur secundum modum recipientis recipitur". (That is: whatever gets received, gets received according to the mode of the receiver.) In essence, it means that you can't force-feed anything to anybody. They have to be ready. We need to be aware of what the people need in order to serve their needs. If it's a guitar 'Mass', then that's it for them. If it's 4-part harmony with organ, that that's it for them. If it's 4 part prostupenie-a-la-Baba, then that's it for them. It isn't easy, but there is always a way of accommodating all of God's people. It's the principle of 'liberalis' =freely-chosen. (Yes, it the root of: liberal = free)
The baptized faithful ARE the church. We, as Christians, serve them all and each other.
Glavi vashe Gospodevi priklonite!
