www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Perspective...

From an Eastern perspective were the changes made during Vat. II, especially to the Liturgy of the Mass beneficial and necessary?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory to Him Forever!

Honestly, I see the reforms to the Latin liturgy during Vatican II, as making it more Eastern. We saw the altars become more like tables, the liturgy became less complicated, less Latin, etc. But then again you have the whole issue of the beauty of the roman liturgy that was changed by the reforms. These are just my observations.

Adam

I have been asked this question several times and find it hard to answer. From an Eastern standpoint, there really is no such thing as "reform" in the Western sence. Therefor, the changes were unnecessary. From a Western standpoint, however, the Liturgy was never as set as its Eastern counterpart. Therefore, change was not only historically correct but natural to progressive Western mentality and spirituality.

Dmitri

Dear Friends,

Well, I believe the Orthodox themselves did not like the liturgical changes.

Clearly, and for better or worse, the Novus Ordo was intended to make the liturgical culture of the Roman Church resemble closely that of mainstream Protestantism.

At the time the changes were initiated there was the view among some Cardinals that the Novus Ordo would simplify and "modernize" liturgical frameworks and prayer to "bring them up to date" with the busy schedules of modern man and his culture.

In so doing, the Novus Ordo tended to be stripped of a number of elements that contributed to the religious sense of awe, wonder, mystery etc.

It is nice that some wanted to delve into Eastern liturgy when reforming the Roman Mass.

But they should really study their own liturgical sources and history and stop trying to imitate Protestantism - and Orthodoxy.

The Roman Church could have improved on the strengths of the Tridentine liturgy, returning even more to the early Roman liturgical traditions.

As for Latin, they could have used national languages, along with Latin, to make it more understandable. Although with all this desire to return to Latin, one wonders who didn't understand that liturgical language!

I saw thousands of young people in Toronto in July pray with the Pope a number of prayers in Latin.

Frankly, I think the Novus Ordo experiment was and is a bust.

Rome should return "Ad Fontes" within its own great, historic liturgical traditions and bring back its traditional Liturgy of St Peter with augmentations based on the first thousand years rather than on the Protestant Deformation . . .oops . . . I can never find that delete button

Bring back fasting rules, bring back spiritual discipline and bring back the vertical sense of worship. Keep the horizontal stuff with social action.

This is not a criticism of the Roman Church, anymore than a deprecation of the Eastern Churches' Latinization is a criticism of Eastern Christianity.

Pax vobiscum, Fratres!

Alex

Just thought I would add that the ACTUAL reforms of the liturgy encouraged by Vatican II were not what we see in most Roman parishes today. As I understand it, Vatican II encouraged the use of Gregorian chant, moderate use of Latin, statues, and more lay participation in the liturgy. But even the "encouraging of reforms" opened the door to the liturgical revolution that is so prevalent in the Roman church today. Maybe they should have just left the Tridentine alone?

Adam

Dear Adam,

Yes, you raise an excellent point with respect to liturgical change.

Our bishops somehow thought that they would issue a decree stating which parts of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy "could be dispensed with" under special circumstances.

These included the Second Antiphon (why have a "Third Antiphon" if no Second?), the Litany for the Catechumens (I guess we've given up all hope for these) and some others.

And now the majority of our parishes use the "improved" Divine Liturgy (which they've improved "worse").

These "reforms" of our Liturgy were undertaken by people who really have a poor background in Eastern Liturgiology (not that I have a good one, but I know nonsense when I see it).

And they are now the rule of thumb rather than the exception.

I submit that the premises of both our bishops and Rome with respect to the Divine Liturgy/Mass are wrong and they should be corrected to reflect the intrinsic dignity, beauty and glory of the Eucharist as celebrated by both East and West.

Alex

I found a website yesterday about a church in the eparchy of Toronto, Canada. "St. Elias, Ukrainian Catholic Church." http://www.saintelias.com/ Looking through the website, it seemed very traditional and genuinely Eastern. I was especially impressed that they didn't have pews! Are you familiar with this temple, Alex?

Adam

They watned to have pews, but they couldn't afford them. (Joke)

Theosis, you have surfed well. If you are ever in the Toronto area, you should definately visit. And if you are not in the Toronto area, then you should make a point to come to the Toronto area.

Like Alex says: "It's worth the drive to Brampton."

Daniil

dear Odo

Do you mean Vat. II's changes in the Latin Church and it's Mass?

If so, I am not sure it is any of my business as a member of one of their Sister Churches. I think I should support them. Work to maintain Communion with them. etc. etc. But their appropriation of Vat.II for their own Church must be by their own prayerful and discerning following of the Holy Spirit.

If you mean the Changes and Reforms called for by Vat.II for the Eastern Catholic Churches and it's Liturgy, I would say DEFINITELY "beneficial and necessary". And, while we have made pretty amazing progress, given our history, historical baggage, where we have had to come from, WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO! "Let us go forth in peace"!

herb

ps: of course we have suffered some "collateral damage" given
1. our proximity to our Latin Sister Church;
2. our [as yet] lack of an "Orthodox Consciousness" and therefore
3. our misunderstanding of the application of Vat.II
when we slavishly and erroneously imitated the Latin Churches reforms, not discerning that what is sauce for the Goose may well not be sauce for the Goose's "sister-Goose".
So I'm thinking stuff like: extraOrdinary Communion ministers, the clergy facing west, not having an iconostas, nuns changing their own tridentine habits for exclusively secular dress [with no effort to appropriate the habits of their Orthodox counterparts] etc.

But as soon as we get that "Orthodox consciousness" thing....boy, Vat.II here we come! Full and total implementation!

Where the changes made in a "natural way", did the changes take place over a long period of time like the Divine Liturgy? Does anyone know if there was a large reaction to the Tridentine Mass when it first came to be used? Was it called "modern"?

I second Daniil's comment whole heartedly. It is more than worth the drive to Brampton. We make it at least once a year from way down here in the good ol' American prairie hinterlands up to St. Elias. A lighthouse in the storm. A living example of being Orthodox in communion with Rome. And if you are up there St. Nicholas in Toronto is a fine place too, as is Orangeville.

It is a difficult question to consider the Roman liturgical changes in an unbiased way from an Eastern perspective. While some of the more conservative Orthodox clergy believe the changes were negative, several Orthodox (including Father Alexander Schmemann) applauded some changes such as the liturgy in the vernacular and an attempt at greater congregational singing and participation.

But the question of liturgical development and restoration/reformation really is squarely on the shoulders of the Roman church. We should be honored to consult with her and give her our experience, but should not be armchair liturgical quarterbacks. We should let her decide the pace and extent of those changes.

The situation with the Tridentine Mass folks is (very) loosely analogous to the Old Believers. There is plenty of room for those who wish to adhere to an older liturgical usage to remain in communion. As some Orthodox jurisdictions (most notably the ROCOR) have entered into communion with some Old Believer communities, Rome has the Fraternity of St. Peter and other groups in communion which only adhere to the Old Mass. That in itself should not be a point of division or fractionation of Christian unity.

Dear Friends,

I have read the postings in this thread with great interest. If I understood it correctly the original posting asked if from an Eastern Perspective the changes made during Vatican II, especially the reforms of the Liturgy of the Mass were beneficial and necessary. The question itself contains several things which seem to me to require clarificiation.

So, I am writing to request clarification.

1. Is the topic under discussion whether the renewal of the Liturgy initiated by the Fathers of Vatican II was beneficial and necessary? Is the topic whether the renewal of the Liturgy that led to the the current Liturgy of the Roman Church was beneficial or necessary? Is the topic whether the Liturgy of the Roman Church as it is now is beneficial or necessary?

2. What criteria should be used to determine what was beneficial or necessary?

3. What is the Eastern perspective from which the judgements are to be made? Is there an Eastern teaching on the Western Liturgy?

Thanks,

Steve

I just picked up a book titled "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll. I've only read a few pages but it is very interesting. Back cover writes, "Saving sex for marriage. Attending the Latin Mass. Witnessing to others about Christ. Baby boomers largely rejected these trappings of traditional Christianity -- so why are their children embracing them with such fervor?" Has anyone read this book yet? Do you believe that the new generation of Christians are moving to Christian orthodoxy? That is why I was asking about the vat II changes, it seems the people around me are looking for pre-vat II Catholicism but it only exists in small pockets...your thoughts?

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
From the Maronite point of view, the Liturgical reforms of Vatican II have helped stop the drain on our Church in the West. Since we are the most latinized of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, our people for a long time would say why should I stay in the Maronite Church, what is the difference between it and the Roman Church?

The funny thing is that the American Maronite Churches are way ahead of those in Lebanon. Therefore, Maronites from the homeland, are shocked to see Maronite Churches that look more, and have liturgies that are more like the Syriac Orthodox.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Alex,

I read the posts which appear to offer your candid opinions on the Western Church's renewal and that of its Liturgical life. I certainly respect your right to them. However, among them are some that lead me to seek understanding. They seem to assume as truth some things which are at best arguable.

So, I'm writing to request some corroborating evidence and to ask you to share the Eastern Perspective from which you make them.

1. What evidence is there that the intent of the Council Fathers who initiated the process of the renewal was to Protestantize the liturgical culture of the Roman Church?

2. What is the evidence that those who implemented the renewal intended to protestantize anything?

3. To which sources containing "Protestant Deformations" ( I was a bit surprised by that!) did the Latin Church turn? You suggest that the Church turned to such sources to provide argumentation for the need for renewal or the process of renewal?

4. What evidence leads you to conclude that there are not fasting rules and spiritual discipline in the Roman Church?

5. What do you mean when you suggest that we separate the horizontal stuff as you call it from the vertical sense of worship?

6. What is the Eastern Perspective which led you to the conclusions that are the basis for questions 1 - 5?

Here's why I'm asking:

I was a seminary student during most of the years of the Second Vatican Council and for the initial period of implementing the changes. It was a most exciting time.

It was especially exciting to study theology from source documents that were produced by a sitting Council as well as the more traditonal texts. Hearing from bishops and periti who were involved in the workings of the Council was most informative.

At the time and in the years since, I listened and learned. And I questioned. I thought that that was important to do since I was being educated to help others understand and to live in a renewed Church.

I heard the call of the Council Fathers for us to return to our roots to find ways to renew the life of the Chruch. This work was to help us find ways to inculturate into our time the teaching and practices of the Church.

Through the process of the renewal, we learned much. We came to know that as a Church we were to given the task to help our brothers and sisters to meet Christ. In each Liturgy, Christ brings us to the Trinity as we offer His Body and in the same liturgical action forms us so that we become His Body, the Church. We become what we are in the Liturgy to bring the Trinity into the world around us.

There was no focus on protestantizing anything. I have never found credible evidence of any such focus on the part of Vatican leaders or national church leaders or renewers to do this. For the life of me, I have never read or heard from a credible source that the intent of changing our Liturgy was to protestantize Catholic liturgical culture.

Not one credible citation found in years of reading and studying. No evidence that even a small peice of the reasons for what the Church was undertaking was to do as you suggest.

Yet this canard keeps reappearing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share that information with me.

If memory serves me correctly, one of the points of pride for most protestant churches during those years was that they were not "liturgical."
Perhaps I missed something.

There were, to be sure, changes. They were daunting and to some degree still are to those of us raised in the thought and practices of the Roman Church in the years before Vatican II.

The Fathers of the Council and the Popes who initiated the renewal process could or maybe should have done a number of things differently. It depends on to whom we listen or whose writings we read. The Popes who have overseen the continuation of the renewal and the changes could have chosen to do otherwise. They didn't.

There was a loss of much of the use Latin that characterized the pre-Vatican II Roman Church. Most of the music that we heard at High Masses was not used much at all. Both are things of beauty. The look and sound was different, but as we learned the reality of what was pre-Vatican II Liturgy and is Novus Ordo Liturgy is the same. They are simply different because of legitimate differences in theological insights that inform the liturgical practices that exist in our Church, it seems to me.

The changes caused pain and for some the pain is still extremely intense. One result of action brought on by that pain is the Indult. The Tridentine Liturgy is once again used in the Roman Church. Unfortunately, another result of action caused by the pain has been the self separation of some of our brothers and sisters from communion with our Church.

Nothing that I have read or heard then, in the ensuing years, or even here today, leads me to conclude that the changes were made lightly or were unnecessary or not beneficial. They were serious changes made for serious reasons as stated in Council documents or those written since by our competent authorities.

The Fathers of the Council included Patriarchs and bishops of Eastern Churches in union with Rome. I think it speaks well of the universality of the Catholic Communion that they were sought out as a resource. All of our bishops, then, prayerfully and, we believe, guided by the Spirit began the renewal of the Roman Church. Others, as prayerfully and guided by the same Spirit continue the renewal to this day.

I find it strange that you critique Council Fathers and the implementers for turning to the East to find things which are part of our common patrimony. I understood us to be going to a part of our roots when we went to them as well as to sources reflecting the history of our own Patrimony!

It is distressing to hear our liturgical renewal and its implementation called an "experiment" which is a "bust".

I realize that this reaction of mine is true at least in part because of the painful process of growth of the change process we're talking about. The renewal process enabled me and the greater part of my brothers and sisters in the Roman Church to understand what the Church was being called to do.

The challenge of renewing our way of thinking led me and them to appreciate another way of thinking about and doing something that is the core of our lives. I try to remember that others do not have that experience and do not share what we've learned. It is tough to remember that at times.

Yet, we, in the Roman Church experienced the process and the results of what you appear to cavalierly to call an experiment. We experienced a growth process that was and is called the renewal process. The "bust" left us with a vibrant and coherent liturgy easily understandable. It includes horizontal and vertical in a way that is, in my experience, an especially Western approach to spirituality.

Hardly the result of an experiment nor a bust, it seems to me. As I understood and understand it, our Church was not trying to imitate anyone. We were renewing ourselves to better be Christ in the world in which we live. We were being ourselves.

All of that being said, I have some final questions.

You say this.

"This is not a criticism of the Roman Church, anymore than a deprecation of the Eastern Churches' Latinization is a criticism of Eastern Christianity."

What does that mean? Isn't latinization a no no as far as most posters here are concerned. You have offered opinions which seem to trash the work of a generation or more of my brothers or sisters and our bishops along with the Popes who have overseen this process.

We are Western Christians members of the Roman Church with which you are in communion. We have done this thing because we believe that the Spirit has guided us to do it. It expresses who we are and causes us to be who we are. We are proud of it.

I know that you've presented your opinions and I appreciate that. But, if what you've said is not a criticism, what is it?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve