www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Fr. Taft 2007 on liturgical reform, Liturgiam Authenticam, etc.

I came across the ending of Father Taft's most interesting article "The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy" in Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLIII, Roma 1977, p. 8-30.

This quote is very appropriate to the discussion and really bolsters the position I have supported (stick to the official books and let God work in His own time):

Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to. Sensus Fidelum anyone?

It seems his own tastes and opinions have "evolved" as well. His essay Russian Liturgy: Mirror of the Russian Soul from 1986 that I use in my college class is even stronger about the necessary integrity of the Russian liturgy and praises fidelity to the received tradition.
FDRLB

Chuckle! This morning at Divine Liturgy antidoron was placed into my hand by Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J.! Talk about it being a small world. If only he would have had the time to sit and talk I would have had a thousand questions....

Many years, Archimandrite Robert!

Maybe he doesn't expect the same high standards of us poor Ruthenians, as he expects from the Russians? Could it be that he still feels that the Russian recension should be maintained, but that the Ruthenian recension is not worth keeping?

Nick

The revision of the Ruthenian Liturgy was undertaken at the
direction of the Ruthenian bishops, who have the right to do
so. That revision was then submitted to Rome who assigned Fr.
Taft, as the resident expert on Byzantine Liturgy, to determine
if it was acceptable. He judged that it was. It was not his
business to impose his opinions of what constitutes "high
standards" on the Ruthenian bishops. If some members of the BCC
are not happy with what was done, they have no right to blame it
on Fr. Taft, as if he had imposed it on them. Let them address
their bishops.

My parish celebrates the Liturgy according to Russian Orthodox
Synodal use. Now, only only Fr. Alexander Schmemann but the
highly conservative Russian Orthodox hierarchy (in 1917) considered that the Russian Liturgy was in need of revision.
For Fr. Schmemann's views see:

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/liturgical_practices.htm

Liturgies change. They accumulate accretions. There is nothing
sacrosanct about any of these, even if they have been in use
for centuries. It is certainly appropriate that the responsible
hierarchs review the form of Liturgy as celebrated in their days
to ensure that it has not become overgrown with unnecessary
additions. Such work must certainly be done with care and reverence, but it should be done. How well the revision question
was or was not done is not something I can address, not being
of that Church.

Edmac

I would say that it is understood where the buck stops -- the Bishops -- but a reasonable question has been raised as to where is may have started -- Fr Taft(?).


That link and Fr. Schmemann's views have been discussed recently on this forum with some of the most forceful criticisms coming from Orthodox participants.

That was done to the most general extent ca. 1941 culminating in the publications according to the Ruthenian Recension link [patronagechurch.com] . Everyone seems to agree that it was done quite well. The present debate is whether its translation into English and implementation in the form of the RDL is sub-standard and defective.

Dn. Anthony

I don't think so. Were you there? This misinformation needs to be corrected, in case anyone thinks it is true.

The Liturgical commission was authorized to correct any errors in the translation, to prepare a new edition of the Liturgy. They were never asked to revise, rewrite, reorganize or reinvent the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. In the long illness of the then episcopal moderator, this group got carried away, and clearly exceeded their remit. The rest of the bishops were then bullied into accepting this revision, mostly against their will.

Father Taft is on record as saying that he was not asked to review the work of the revision. He was only asked to check for heresy and grave moral error. He does not approve of the Revision. In fact, he wrote three pages of criticisms of the work, it was not an approval, and that is why the bishops cannot publish the letter.

Fr. Alexander's work was great, but it is now dated. Obviously the priestly members of the committee, invoke his name (as they invoke Fr. Taft), who very much championed the liberal liturgical ideas of the last generation. People need to read the journals, and the current liturgical theology to see just how much this debate has ensnared the Roman Catholic Church, and divided scholars and polarized the argument. That the committee for the Revision of the Liturgy has taken our Church into these terrible waters is a great scandal. By espousing loose translations, re-interpretations, inclusive language nonsense, and wholesale rewriting of sections of the Liturgy, they have made a political statement out of our new Revised Liturgy, and taken us all along a road we did not need to travel.

Yes, the Bishops have a duty to direct the Liturgy, and authorize translations. BUT, they should have also carefully considered their duty to preserve the tradition, hand on the heritage they have received WHOLE and ENTIRE. They have the duty to work together with other Greek Catholic Churches and the Orthodox. They have the duty to guard the consciences of the faithful. They have the duty to pastoral care, protecting the flock of Christ, and preserving it from the temptations of this generation.

Yes, the bishops have the authority to authorize translations. But whether they have the authority to revise our common Liturgy, and rewrite bits of it that they think are out of date or out of style, is another matter. I hope that Rome looks at this again, and this time, they don't give it to Fr. Taft.

Edmac has obviously bought the propaganda line, and the half truths that have been spun to support this bad job, a poor attempt to revise a Liturgy, that needed no revision at all.

Nick

I'm confused regarding what this is saying about Taft: "Does he or doesn't he"?

Father Archimandrite Robert is in no need of defence from me. But since we have been friends for decades, it perhaps behooves me to speak up anyway.

We do not always agree - but I can assure anyone that whosoever would disagree with Father Robert would be well advised to have his sources at his fingertips. Father Robert does not express stentorian opinions on matters concerning which he is not qualified.

Modernism? He admires modernity to some extent, but that is not the same phenomenon. If I were "writing tongue in cheek", so to speak, I might comment that I find the Russian Nikonian Liturgy, which Father Robert uses on a daily basis, is from my preferred vantage point clear evidence of a predilection for modernism - but then my preferred liturgical vantage point is the pre-Nikonian tradition maintained by the Old Ritualists. And to return to being serious, Father Robert is far from being closed to that pre-Nikonian tradition.

I've never heard him suggest that any "Golden Age of Liturgy" existed, and the only reason that might conceivably move him to attempt a "renactment" of a liturgical form currently in desuetude could be the possibility such an exercise might offer for study and education. As he himself has both said and written, the liturgical historian provides others with some of the raw material in the work of liturgiology.

His contributions to the study of the Byzantine Liturgy are both invaluable and incalculable. We would be very much the poorer if we did not have him and his work. For us, it is an act of selfishness to wish him most sincerely: Mnogaia Lieta!

Fr. Serge

Father bless!

I don't doubt for a minute all the wonderful things you say about him. But the Revisionists say he approves of the Revised Divine Liturgy. This is one point on which Fr. Taft and I would disagree. From what he has written (cited above) about the Russian Liturgy, do you not see a worrying contradiction?

Nick

Interesting. I'd like to develop this a little more. Do we have an authoritative source to invoke?

Dn. Robert

No, we only have hearsay. Nothing authoritative, because they won't publish the letter in question. Until they do, we only have third and fourth hand reports of it.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,

Yes, I do see a contradiction - which is why I prefer to reserve judgement until and unless I see an authenticated text of this letter.

Fr. Serge

It is admirable to not rush to judgment, however the mere fact that the letter has not been shared just doesn't pass the stink test, something is up with the letter and concealing it only fuels speculation and rumor.

Monomakh

Hmmm, What they don't know won't hurt them?

Prayers for the restoration of the official Ruthenian liturgy.