www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Fr Robert Taft says a history lesson is needed

Since I described the idea that Chrysostom is an abbreviation of Basil as a "popular fallacy", I'm not sure why you would imply that there is a need to instruct me on the same point.

The use of the Liturgy of Saint James in the Eastern Orthodox Church has never died out. Its use has become more popular of late. As an Orthodox Archbishop who was a close friend until he died some thirty years ago was wont to say "if I wish to serve the Liturgy of Saint James I am not required to become a Monophysite"!

Fr. Serge

I wasn't instructing. Sorry if it appeared so. I also never said that the Liturgy of St. James died out, only that it fell into disuse from the 7th century onward. I believe that it has always been used, at least occasionally, by the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.

On when it can be celebrated, I think a bishop as liturgiarch of his diocese can pretty much do what he wants, though most generally follow the typicon of their particular Church. But shouldn't a presbyter be governed either by the typicon or by the directives of his bishops, with regard to which liturgies to celebrate?

What planet does Fr Taft live on? Has he experienced the typcal Mass at the typical Catholic congregation here in the U.S.? I presume that he has. I also presume that he has not been scandalized. Given the terrible music and superficial songs, the informality and irreverence, the monopolistic song leader belting into the microphone, thus making i impossible for anyone else to sing, the pathetic preaching, --given the absence of beauty and grace, how can anyone be positively formed and transformed by these liturgies? They are spiritually and ascetically disastrous. They are no less disastrous because they were "approved" by church hierarchs.

Yes, Father Taft has experienced these horrors - like most of us, he strives to avoid them. I wouldn't even dare tell you about another horror which he mentioned to me recently.

A history lesson is truly likely to help - at the very least, by telling us that a "write-your-own Mass" is not likely to succeed!

Fr. Serge

Fr Kimel, what is a typical Mass, and what is a typical Catholic congregation in the U.S.? Indeed, I have found many different levels of beauty, inspiration and devotion as well as the simply banal in both. "Star differs from star in beauty and intensity", or something like that. It's always tempting to caricaturize, and it's easy to do. I've experienced the monks at St Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, MA celebrate the Novus Ordo with dignity, devotion and extraordinary beauty, accompanied by guitars, no less. The liturgies of the Catholic Church are equal in dignity, importance, antiquity and beauty, and all have developed quite organically. To say otherwise is a crime. Stop the Latin bashing, guys.

Utroque,

What about us Latins? Can we not say what we think of the Novus Ordo?

The liturgies of the Catholic Church are not all equal in dignity, importance, antiquity, or beauty. That is just patently false. The Novus Ordo is not as old as the Traditional Rites, obviously. That's jsut a historical fact. Perhaps the other descriptions are [i]technically[/u] up for debate, but in my mind, not really.

I don't agree that it's a crime to speak the truth.

Alexis

Paragraph Four of the Introduction to Sacrosanctum Concilium states that, "HMC holds that all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity." Your disagreement is with HMC not me. The Novus Ordo is the officially sanctioned revision of the very ancient Roman Rite and has restored elements of that rite which predate Trent. It is not a crime to speak the truth, but it is a crime to treat with contempt that which is holy. To suggest that the intelligent, humble and saintly Pope Paul VI was duped and deceived by a canonical band of "loose cannons" under the leadership of Archbishop Bugnini is, I find, quite despicable, and so does Fr. Robert Taft. Enough said.

I don't much care whether it is despicable or not. As an historian, my only concern is whether it is true. There's quite enough evidence out there to suggest that it is. And Paul VI might have been saintly, but he was frequently duped, sad to say. Need an example? "Ostpolitik".

I can only take it that you don't know who Fr Kimel is to accuse him of Latin bashing. And yes Paul VI was duped - a personally holy and orthodox man, he should never (more than anything for his own sake) have had the responsibility of being Pope of Rome thrust upon him: he was too gentle and kindly a man to resist the likes of Bugnini and his ilk. In his later days he even lamented himself that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the church during his reign.

More of the same. Ah, well, your talking to yourselves, or, at least, preaching to the choir. There's an old Irish tale which maintains that if the devil wants to get into the church he joins the choir. I do not think the aging pontiff was referring to the Novus Ordo that he sanctioned when referring to the "Smoke of Satan". You must remember his most humble requiem that he himself requested. It did set an example that has been followed since. He was no fool. I was not referring to Fr Kimel, but to the general tone of the posts in this thread

"There's quite enough evidence out there to suggest that it is."

Well, there is also quite enough evidence out there to suggest that it is not. In your quest for the truth as an historian, you ought to be more open to your sources. I might suggest Archbishop Piero Marini as one. "

"Ostpolitik"? I believe a Slavic cardinal was elected Pope Paul VI's successor. Fancy that.

Well, let us not forget John Paul I. He was a Pope too, after all.

Utroque,

If you noticed from my post, my biggest problem with your wording was "antiquity." The Novus Ordo is younger than my parents (and I'm just 22).

I have no doubt that all the rites of the Church are also equal in "right." But one wouldn't know it from 1969 to July 2007, when the idea that the Traditional Rites were abrogated was attempted to be forced down the faithful's throats. In fact, it is still often presented as such by most of the Latin bishops, though each passing day brings with it a small victory for Tradition in this regard.

Alexis

It's an "Ordo", younger brother, sort of like a revised typikon of the very ancient Roman Rite, and it was not forced down anyone's throat. It is the Roman Rite in current use throughout most of the western church. As I have said over and over again it was received with a great deal of enthusiasm by the vast majority of the faithful in the western church, Stuart snide remarks about bishops notwithstanding. I am old enough to have seen awful abuses in both the Novus Ordo and what is now called the the Extraordinary Form. American priests, for the most part, had a most unpleasant, flat way of pronouncing Latin.

L-A:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

For better or for worse, the introduction of the current liturgical use was the way the Church responded to the Vatican Council. The Council bishops called for a thorough liturgical reform. What that came to look like we all have had exposure to over the past 45 years. At no point did anyone hold the idea that the Vatican Council's directives on liturgy were to be ignored. And this latter position seems to be the case for those who have so adamantly opposed the reform. That there may be a need for a "reform of the reform" is an open question, which I, myself, welcome. Even the leader of the SSPX at its inception, voted for the reform at the Council. It was only later that he began his opposition.

Nothing was "shoved down" anyone's throat. The liturgical reform as it moved along was the ongoing life of the Latin Church as called for by its ecumenical council. And the whole idea that this was somehow a forced issue minimizes the reality that the Holy Spirit is alive and well, intimately involved in the whole process. If not, then the Church is not the Church and is down a dead end. To say that borders on blasphemy.

I, for one, lived through the same period that our fellow, utroque, traveled. In fact, I got a lot of "up close and personal" in the way this reform was carried out and how it affected people--people who stopped going to church altogether come back when it's time for a funeral in the family and all the old wounds get picked open. Sloppy liturgy was the order of the day. Older clergy tried to preserve some decorum, but so many of the younger guys thought this whole thing was a call for a "free-for-all" when it came to how they would officiate, often causing more scandal than increase in piety.

The Council also came back to the idea that the bishop of the palce was to be the principle liturgical figure in his diocese, something that had been lost. The fact that no one saw a bishop for the most part except when he came out to confirm or ordain spoke to that era. So we still have a long way to go with the ongoing reform of the liturgical life of the Latin Church, but it's not something that was not widely desired by both bishops and laity of that era.

BOB

Bob and Utroque,

Thank you for your comments.

We will have to agree to disagree concerning whether the idea that the Traditional Rites were abrogated/totally replaced by the New Rites was "forced down the faithful's throats," as I said.

History (and today, too) is rife with examples of hierarchs and others in position of Church leadership on a war path to make sure that everyone knew the Traditional Rites were abrogated. For some, in my opinion, it bordered on a demonic obsession.

Our Holy Father has gratefully dispelled the misconception that the Traditional Rites were abrogated in his motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum.

But to deny that the impression given to the faithful and priests by many in power that the only possibility was "the new way or no way" is misrepresentative on its face, in my opinion.

Alexis