www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latin Rite Post-Vatican II

"The earliest euchastic feasts new nothing of these. They were memorial meals that celebrated the breaking of the bread."

Actually, ad orientum celebration dates to the oldest stratum of Tradition. The earliest churches excavated, most notably the house church in Dura Europos (ca. AD 250) is oriented; several internal walls were demolished to ensure that the altar was placed at the east end of the newly created worship space.

Altar rails came into fashion when the basilican floorplan became the most common form of church architecture. Christians began using it in the third century; Jews had been using it at least since the first century AD. In a basilica, the apsidal end of the building is always on a raised platform separated from the main body of the building (the nave, in Christian architecture) by a low rail, This rail evolved, in the Middle Ages, into the altar rail, just as, in the East, it evolved into the iconostasis.

"Not quite sure what the problem is with other canons. "

Well, for one thing, they are innovations. Many of them are also manifestly inferior to the Canon, and several of them include elements alien to the Latin Tradition. Historically, the Latin West had just one anaphora, the Roman Canon. The introduction of multiple Eucharistic prayers is an innovation, an "orientalism" if you will--but unlike the multiple anaphorae of the Eastern Churches, use of which are dictated by the Typicon, the choice of which Eucharistic prayer to use is left entirely to the discretion of the celebrant--who usually chooses the shortest and/or the blandest one he can find.

"The earliest euchastic feasts new nothing of these. They were memorial meals that celebrated the breaking of the bread."

Should we go back to that?

Alexis

Danman,

Let's be fair here! An attempt to return to the "earliest forms" is both a denial of tradition and an exercise in futility. Tradition implies continuous usage, not resurrecting archaic forms. Furthermore, it is naive to think that when such forms are implemented, they will automatically have the same meaning for the people that they had in the early centuries.


How "late" are these additions?

I don't know what you mean by "the numbers of people available." There are lots of laypeople who could fulfill these roles. Surely you're not suggesting a return to that bizarre practice of having presbyters serve in the roles of deacon and sub-deacon?


For my part, I really don't have a problem with EP3 and EP4. EP2, dubbed the "quickie canon," is based on the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus. This anaphora was highly praised by liturgists back in the '60s as a model of "simplicity," but was later revealed (or so I understand) to have been specifically intended for use in times of persecution and not as a model for normal use.

I have heard some of the other EPs, but far too few times to make any judgment on them--although I might say that none of them seemed to be as abrupt as EP2.

One major problem with these, as with other "optional" features of the 1970 missal, is that virtually NOTHING is designated for specific feasts, seasons or funtions--any option may be picked at the priest's discretion at any time for any reason. This cheapens the Liturgy and fails to communicate a sense of blessing the days, months and years, which is an important part of the Church's liturgical life.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

"This anaphora was highly praised by liturgists back in the '60s as a model of "simplicity," but was later revealed (or so I understand) to have been specifically intended for use in times of persecution and not as a model for normal use."

This is news to me, as none of the studies of liturgy I have read make this claim. Rather, the issue with Hippolytus is whether he is describing liturgy as actually celebrated in a particular time and place, or if he is laying out what he considers to be and "ideal" liturgical celebration.

In any case, discussion of Hippolytus or any other ante-Nicene study of liturgy is irrelevant. Hippolytus and the the Church of Rome in the 3rd century employed Greek, not Latin. Until the switch to Latin under Pope Damasus, we know practically nothing about liturgy as celebrated by the Church of Rome.

The Roman Canon, lacking an explicit epiclesis, is generally considered to have originated some time in the late 4th-early 5th centuries, which makes it one of the oldest extant anaphorae. Only the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is considered to be older, and certainly both Basil and Chrysostom, in their present form are much younger.

The Old Roman Rite reached maturity some time in the 7th-8th centuries, and this was the target set by Vatican II. By the 10th century, due to the decadence of the Papacy at this time, the Old Roman Rite had fallen into desuetude--it was not being celebrated in Rome. It was being celebrated north of the Alps in the Carolingian kingdoms (Charlemagne felt anything Roman was good), where it existed side by side with the Gallic rite. But the Franks generally found the Roman Rite too austere, and began importing elements from the Gallic rite (which, being at least partially Eastern in origin, was more ornate and prolix). The result, which began to emerge in the 10th century, was the hybrid Romano-Frankish Rite. It was carried over the Alps by the German popes of the 11th century, and totally supplanted the Old Roman Rite. It then became the basis for almost all Latin rites of the middle ages,down to, and including, the Tridentine Rite.

Vatican II essentially wanted a restoration, as much as was possible, of the Old Roman Rite. Therefore, investigations of other rites, importation of elements of other rites, and innovations alien to the Old Roman Rite, would not be appropriate for the mandate given to the Commission. Of course, the Commission chose to ignore its mandate, and liturgy was such an obscure specialty back then that coteries of experts meeting in private essentially had their way. But that does not mean today we should allow the "reform of the reform" to follow a similar course.

A version well developed of the Roman Canon is found in the "De sacramentis" of St Ambrose not later than 397. The origin of the Roman Canon are put by far earlier, this considering its strong literal similitude with the Alexandrinan early anaphora of Saint Mark (read for example "The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer" by E. Mazza). The nearness between the Roman rite and the early Alexandrinan rite cannot be justified after the III century. Also the lack in the Roman Canon of any Nicean terminology about the Holy Spirit is considered a sign of its antiquity.

For the Hippolytos texts to be of IV-V century origin see for example Paul F. Bradshaw "The search for the origins of Christian worship" pages 80-84.

Among scholars of ancient liturgy the presence of an explicit episclesis to the Holy Spirit is a clear sign of the lateness of the text, no earlier than half IV century. Previous texts had only an epiclesis to Christ, or simply a request to "came to made us one thing", not to change the gifts.

We have lots of ancient anaphoric texts of the IV century or even earlier, most of them discovered in the XX century: for example a very ancient sahidic anaphora of the Basilean family discovered in the 1960, the anaphora of Serapion, the Deir Balyzeh Papyrus, the Strasbourg Papyrus and so on. On the contrary the more ancient exemplary of the anaphora of Addai and Mari is dated only in the XII century, so the reconstructions of what text was in the IV century is only speculation (and scholars are extremely divided on very different reconstructions)

In other words, the CVII seems to have given to much credit on the scholar literature in the 60s (mainly based on the idea of Dix of 15 years before). Now that the scholar knowledge on early anaphoras is changed a lot (even if many time university teachings are still to Dix), some choices of CVII could be different

Very good. I'll need to study this a bit. I believe, though that there are Syriac MS of Addai and Marin that are older than XII Century.

So, is it your contention that the VII Liturgical Commission should have limited itself to Latin MS between the 5th and 9th centuries?

Stuart,

Interesting history--I had not heard this before, even the part about VII targeting this period.

Here, I fail to see how "we" are going to have any say as to what course the "reform of the reform" takes, unless Pope Benedict should elect to allow participation of the laity on some level.

For my part, I think he needs to go very slowly (as he appears to be doing) and allow the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite exist side-by-side for a while--probably about 20 years. By that time, God willing, people will have seen the pluses and minuses of both forms and be looking for ways to incorporate features from both.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I entirely agree that pastoral prudence is required whenever one changes the liturgy. The experience of the Latin Church with the Vatican II reforms, our experience with the RDL, the Old Ritualist schism of the 17th century--all indicate that change must be slow, incremental and accompanied by extensive catechesis.

It has been close to forty years since the Novus Ordo was uniformly implemented in the United States; for most people, it is the only Mass they have ever known. The vast majority of the faithful are not liturgists, have no interest in liturgy, but do want continuity in their worship, without massive disruption.

Fortunately, there are many changes that can be implemented rather quickly that would have a negligible effect on the faithful, but greatly improve the quality of liturgy in the Latin Church. One of these is already underway--revision of the standard English translation used in the United States, to more accurately reflect the normative Latin text.

A second near-term change would be suppression of at least some of the Eucharistic Prayers devised to supplement the Roman Canon, and the subjecting the use of the remaining Eucharistic Prayers to regulation through the liturgical calendar, as our use of the various anaphorae is controlled by the Typicon. Priority should be given to the Roman Canon, as it is the original and authentic Eucharistic Prayer of the Latin Church.

While we are at it, the very notion of "children's Masses" should be suppressed. The idea that children are incapable of understanding or participating in the same Eucharist as adults represents a radical departure from two millennia of Catholic practice, to say nothing of Christ's injunction to suffer the little children to come unto Him. Our own experience with children at the Divine Liturgy ought to indicate that there should be just one Eucharist for all, adults and children alike.

Another change, requiring some preparation on the part of the Church, would be restoration of celebration versus apsidem, which is assumed (as Fr. Serge has demonstrated) in the Latin version of the Missal (the priest is instructed at several point to turn to bless the congregation). Catechesis is needed because of the wide-spread perception that the "priest is turning his back to the congregation. Once people realize that the priest is, in fact, leading them towards the Holy Altar, this perception should change. Not only would this restore the authentic Tradition, but it would reduce the present clericalism of the Mass (caused by the priest assuming the unintended role of Master of Ceremonies), but easier on the priest, who no longer has the psychological burden of "performing" in front of an audience.

Additional reforms could be implemented to improve the quality of liturgical music, reducing the use of the organ and electronically amplified instruments, suppressing non-traditional instruments such as guitars, drums, accordions, etc. The long-term objective should be restoration of the sung Mass, with the people singing the responses congregationally in either plainchant or Gregorian Chant.

Some or all of these reforms can be found in a smattering of parishes around the country, all of which have large and enthusiastic congregations. This leads me to conclude that they can be implemented on a much wider scale, assuming that there are bishops willing to lead, and priests willing to make the effort to (a) celebrate the Mass as it was intended to be celebrated, and (b) educate the people to understand and embrace these changes as being a return to Tradition and an enhancement of their own worship experience.

The older manuscript of this anaphora was published by W.F. Macomber in OPC 32 (1966) pages 335-6 (known as Mar Eshaya text) and dates about the 10th or 11th century. And we know that on about 650 patriarch Mar Isho-Yab III made an important liturgical reform, but we don't have any previous text. The anaphora of A&M is surely originated in the III or IV century, but we don't know which are the original parts of it
The problem is that we don't have a complete order of Mass before the X century. We have only books of prayers, and some descriptions of papal Masses. The ordinary of the Mass was known by heart or not written.
Anyway the Liturgical Commission took only what it liked from such ancient text, and re-worded it. It is like a house made of some ancient (restored) bricks put together by a moder architect. The result is a new building, that follow the requests of the 50s and 60s theology and scholarship.

Anyway the Liturgical Commission mixed the Roman Liturgy with the Antiochian liturgies (including Byzantine rite): there are lots of "Byzantinations" in the Paul VI Missal: think for example to the explicit epiclesis in the new Eucharistic Prayers, the narration of the history of salvation in the same Prayers, the procession with the Gospel, the aloud acclamation of people after the consecration, or -extremely important- the prayer of the faithfuls itself, made with a structure (prayers followed by the same short acclamation said by all) that is a completely foreign structure to the Latin Rite (where intercessions are said with alternate antiphonal structure, as still done in the liturgy of the hours).

The first change that I would make would be to ban sing-song performance of the Responsorial Psalm, including the double-singing of the responses to make more to sing.

The Psalms are beautiful, but this is a tragedy to witness. Chant them or recite them, but please don't abuse them.

hawk

I've noticed a distinct difference between liturgies at which the opening announcement is, "Welcome to our gathering. Fr. Joe is are presider, and our gathering song is . . ." and those that star with "Welcome to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Our celebrant is Father Frank, and the entrance hymn is . . ."

hawk

The ringing of bells alerting the faithful to stand as the priest, deacon, subdeacon, and acolytes are approaching from behind is enough of an opening announcement for me...

Alexis

Hawk,

The problem is that they have to have a different tone each time, so that the people don't find it "boring." This is an entertainment mentality and not conducive to worship. In fact, the Latin proverb repetitio est mater studiorum is applicable here, since it is the repetition that enables the greatest number of faithful to learn the psalm tone "by heart" and be able to join in.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Stuart,

One historical problem in this area is the fact that, canonically, prior to the 1970 missal there were only two forms of the Latin Rite Mass: the "high Mass" and the "low Mass." Since the former was too elaborate for regular congregational use in many parishes, while the latter was clearly intended for private masses, this left a huge gap in between. While the Liturgical Movement was endorsing the simple "sung Mass" for parishes, this form was unofficial and could only be used with the bishop's permission--which wasn't always forthcoming.

This is why the idea of congregational singing--and especially congregational chanting--seems so foreign to a large number of RCs, even though it's part of their spiritual heritage.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

"I've noticed a distinct difference between liturgies at which the opening announcement is, "Welcome to our gathering. Fr. Joe is are presider, and our gathering song is . . ." and those that star with "Welcome to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Our celebrant is Father Frank, and the entrance hymn is . . ."

My definitive bad experience with the Latin Rite occurred in a Catholic church in Bristol, Virginia (Diocese of Richmond). I was on vacation, and there was nothing else there. So, the priest processes to the altar, gives the blessing "The Lord be with you". The people responded, "And also with you" (uggh!). The priest then said, "Thank you". The loud thud was me falling out of a pew.

Which may be why I like liturgies that begin with, "Blessed is the Kingdom. . . " Tells you why we are there, and where we are going.