www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Renewal of the Liturgy: An Eastern Novus Ordo?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Father Bless!

Dear Father Kimel:

What a blessing you are and so Orthodox. You must be a blessing to your congregation of faithful Anglicans who are probably just as Orthodox as you. I know this may sound scandalous to hardline Orthodox and Catholics, but I personally would not doubt that Our Lord visits your altar and I would receive a blessing from you

Now I dare anyone to say I am not ecumenical

What a wonderful addition to this our pearl of great price you are!

Please pray for me a sinner.

Father, Bless!

In Christ and the Theotokos,


Robert

Dear Administrator, et al.

You comments are all wonderfully noted. I have printed them all out for more thoughtful meditation later on. All I can say is what a blessing this Forum is; no matter what question one may have it can be answered here with pluriform points of view.

God bless all of you!

In Christ,


Robert

Alvin,

I couldn't have said it better!

Pope John Paul II would make a great Episcopal priest and you a great Catholic priest. Only if things were different.

Now all we need is for you to become Catholic and start preaching orthodoxy to your congregation.

"By their works shall you know them."

Isn't it remarkable how the Lord's words just seem to bubble up and transform our human existence.

Somehow, "Our God is a Great God" takes on a whole new meaning. Awesome!

Blessings!

Johan,

If you don't mind, please refrain from scandalizing the faithful by saying such things. They can only be detrimental.

Logos Teen

Just some final thoughts, Steve.

I was, as I mentioned, thoroughly trained in post-Vatican II liturgics. It was only about seven years ago or so that I began to began to question some of the things I had been taught. My eyes were opened when I reread Jungmann's *The Early Liturgy*, where he shows how prevalent eastward orientation was in the early Church. Somehow I had missed the section when I first read it, even though I had thoroughly underlined it! I called my liturgics professor and asked him about Jungmann arguments, and all he could say was, "Yes, very curious." I wasn't satisfied, so I contacted a liturgics professor who is recognized as one of the top liturgists in the world. I asked him how I could have received such fine liturgical training and yet never have been told about eastward orientation. His reply was illuminating: "We lied to you!" He went on to explain that post-Vatican II liturgists were so caught up in the ideology of versus populum that they simply ignored the contrary evidence. Well, the research has been done and the results are well known: There is virtually no early church precedent for the versus populum. It is a late twentieth century innovation. This fact alone should raise some serious questions post-Vatican II liturgical developments.

I am not a Roman Catholic. I therefore have no loyalty to the Tridentine rite. I'm just a simple Bible-believing Christian.

May I recommend to you three books: Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Aidan Nichols, Looking at the Liturgy, and Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.

In Messias,
Alvin+

Dear Fr. Kimel,

As always your post is insightful and challenging.

Reading it, I was struck again by the fact that things that can be said about the Mass celebrated by the priest facing away from the people can be said about the Mass celebrated by the priest facing the people. For example, in both the laity looks at the actions and hears the words and sees the symbol. Physically they see the priest and the altar and the Book and the chalice and the bread.

I am not sure that the questions about what or whom the priest or people look at are really at the heart of the matter. The words and the actions and the symbols are meant lead us outside of ourselves to the Eucharistic Act, the sacrificial thanksgiving. It seems to me that both Liturgies can lead us beyond ourselves and yet renew our embodiment as Christ. That is the real focus on us as community. We are renewed as the Body of Christ in and by the Liturgy so that we can offer the Liturgy.

The stream of consciousness of priest or people should to some degree give way to what is outside of self. The priest and people should be led to focus on what God is doing through His Son in His Body to help us worship Him as is His due, through the act of sacrificial love. Of course this is what the words and actions and the symbols are about. I would maintain that both Liturgies contain words and the actions and the symbols that can do all of that and bring us to participation in the Sacrificial Act of Jesus.

They are not the same, though. It follows that there are differences in the symbols used to convey meaning. One can see the beauty in the fact that our High Priest leads us to offering the sacrifice to the God who is Transcendent. It can be expressed when the priest looks away from the people and lifts the gifts to symbolize that fact or when the priest faces the people and lifts the gifts in offering symbolizing the same, for example.

It is a matter of emphasis, in my opinion. Both Liturgies enable us to perform a truly sacrificial Eucharistic Action. Both re-present the Sacrificial action of the Lamb, Jesus, our Mediator, to His Father who is indeed the Holy One of Israel in the Holy Spirit. That is truly the sacrifice of His Body the Church. It is our participation in the Divine Liturgy of the Kingdom.

I recall that you suggested, on another thread, the East should come to respect and to appreciate the West and the West should come to respect and to appreciate the East. It seems to me that that is good advice.

There are those in the Western Church who find worship that using the Tridentine Liturgy enables them to worship as God desires. There are those in the Western Church who find that the the post-counciliar Liturgy enables them to do the same. The Church recognizes that. Both are true and proper Liturgies of the Western Church.

So, I posit a few more questions.

Are the differences in word and and action and symbol worth belittling either Liturgical Rite when they bring us to the same Sacrificial Action?

Don't both Liturgies lead us to the God who is Transcendent through His Immanence?

Doesn't that God comfort as well as challenge us?

Don't both liturgies have the ability to bring us to the state of awe that is proper to us?


Father, I appreciate the many of the points that you are making. They are good and true. Yet they do not present the only true and good perceptions of theological or liturgical reality

I cannot agree with some of your points, for example your assertion that,

"I am convinced that the versus populum represents a terrible violation of the structure of the liturgy. It cultivates a comfort with the holy God that is too comfortable, too easy. It domesticates him. I am reminded of Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. He is not a tame lion."

I have never found that to be the case. If that is indeed true somewhere among some Catholics, the problem is with catechesis, not the Liturgy.
Parts of your posting seems to reflect the concerns of clergy dealing the celebrating the Liturgy. They are real, but do they really offer support to determine that one or another Liturgy is less good as liturgy because of them?

The Liturgies are different; but, the fact is that the reality that happens in each Liturgy, Tridentine or Novus Ordo, is the same.

Isn't it possible that we have been gifted with both Liturgies to reflect some of the other facets of the Mystery of the Master of the Kindom who cannot be encompassed in any one expression?

So shouldn't we in the Western Church come to respect and appreciate the gifts that we have been given in each other and the Liturgies we use?

Thanks for hearing me out.


Steve

Alvin and Group,

If you study the history of Vatican II enough you will learn that the Churches fate was determine long before the council. There were even Post-Vatican II churches built before the council ended.

I truly believe in my heart that these Bishops mean well but were misguided. I will even go so far as to say many of the Bishops of Vatican II were holy men. However, the council is far from infalliable and like anything falliable only history will be the judge of the council, and that history has not been written yet. The Church has made big errors in past and will continue to do so. After all we are only human No matter how much I dislike the leadership in the Church I will forever remain faithful and prayerful. I might fuss and grip sometimes but as a lay person it is my right to do so.

What I stress is that we Byzantines have not been able to practice our faith as handed down in so long that we no longer know what that faith is. Before we can "reform" our faith we need to restore it, live it out, and then we may approach any "reforms" with the full knowledge of what we have and were we want to go.

Joahn,

"Alvin" is actually Fr. Alvin Kimel, a priest of the Episcopal Church. I am sure that you did not realize this when you addressed him with only his first name. I would like to take the opportunity of your post to ask everyone to use the clerical titles that are proper to one's Church. In this case, it would be either "Fr. Alvin" or "Fr. Kimel". Thanks!

Admin

Steve,

Can you please tell me where in Vatican II it states that the priest can "face the people�? I am not talking about Post-Vatican II documents but the council itself. If I am not mistaken the council never said anything about "facing the people." That invention was later introduced into the Church like giving communion in the hand was introduced.

In the past forty years, Vatican II has been used as a justification to release a wave of confusion and novelty unprecedented in Church history. It is my opinion that the �New Mass� as we now it today does not reflect the teachings of Vatican II but rather the invention of many Bishops on what they really wanted, for which they label as �the spirit of Vatican II.� It would not do me any good to quote you Pre-Vatican II documents. It is well understood today that Catholics who cite a pre-Conciliar teaching, which is apparently contrary to the popular interpretation of a particular Vatican II document, are subject to accusations of dissent or maltreatment as somehow "less than Catholic."

The fact is that prior Ecumenical Councils have been more reactive than proactive, only convened when there was an immediate need to discuss and clarify certain dogmatic controversies. The problem with Vatican II was that it was not called amidst a specific doctrinal crisis and its necessity was not apparent to all. Pope John XXIII called Vatican II a "pastoral" rather than dogmatic council.

The Second Vatican Council was unlike any other Council. This is not an insult but a historical fact. Steve, while it is certainly the case that non-infallible teachings are not optional, they can also not be interpreted in such a way which rejects or renders meaningless prior definitive pronouncements. If faced with apparent contradictions between the solemn definitions of previous Councils and a given interpretation of a Vatican II document, the proper Catholic response is to interpret the latter in light of the former, even if the new document itself suggests otherwise. As John XXIII said, previous teaching from Trent and Vatican I would be left intact, so any interpretation of Vatican II teaching, which is used to contradict a prior teaching, must be rejected.

The documents of the Second Vatican Council need to recognized for what they are: official, pastoral Church teachings that did not define any new or significantly alter any existing doctrine. As such, they cannot be used to contradict or render meaningless that which came before, nor can they be used as cudgels to intimidate Catholics into abandoning past teachings for novel interpretations. Therefore, Steve I see the chapter on Vatican II not yet written. If current trends hold true we may well see a reversal of the council. Remember, what one Pope did another can undue!

Actually, you do not find it, because you do not find a pre-concilar Roman requirement to face the wall. Pre-conciliar Roman Churches (unlike Orthodox) did not have freestanding altars. Therefore, the a priest had no choice. In France and Belgium, after churches were rebuilt with free standing altars after WWII, the priest faced altar and people, as no rubric required the priest's back to the people.

Even in Orthodoxy, where eastward is a principle, it is a secondary principle. The primary principle is to face the altar from whatever direction. Notice how priests stand for concelebration. Not in a row facing east, but around the altar, facing any direction.

Axios

If I remember correctly, even the old Roman Missal allowed for the celebration versus populum and it was done regularly in some of the old Roman basilicas. Moe

Dear Johan,

Thank you for your posting.

You make a number of good points.

Certainly, it apparent that the history of liturgical life in all of our Churches shows that very little is permanent! The clearest example is what happened when Pope John XXIII determined that there was need for renewal and, after consultation with the bishops, called them to Rome to convene the Council. As you point out, it is quite possible that some future Pope and Council might begin another renewal process in our Church. I can't see it happening any time soon, but I am not the arbiter of the future.

Somehow the notion has taken hold among some Catholics (and others, I think) that Vatican II's teachings were completely understood and that the documents promulgated had embedded in them those changes that should be implemented. They seem to think that when the Council was finished everything was crystal clear.

That simply is not accurate. It was not a given that much that would be, or should be, in place five, ten, thirty or forty years after the Council was described in detail and included in the documents. It is not true that the teachings of the Council and their ramifications were clearly understood or completely explained when the Council ended.

You are correct when you suggest that the past 40 years have been years of change in our Church. You are also correct when you point out that actual practices that came to be part of our Liturgical life were not completely specified in those documents.

According to many, the changes were concocted by some cabal of wild eyed leftists who were hell bent on the destruction of the Latin church and our Liturgy. I respectfully disagree.

Anyone who lived through that time and was familiar in the least with the working of the pre-counciliar Church can tell you that it was extremenly conservative, not in the sense of politically conservative, but in terms of keeping change at arm's length. This did not change overnight and many think that this is still a characteristic of the Church today.

The Popes (including Pope John Paul II) and all of the bishops (many still alive) who were the Fathers of the Council achieved ecclesiatical authority during the pre-counciliar years. It was these members of the hierarchy who undertook to teach us what the Council proclaimed. They empowered and oversaw those who guided the implementation of the changes it initiated.

That was an extremely complicated process that is still underway to this day. It was done and is being done carefully and overseen by our hierarchy including the appropriate parts of the Curia. The recent clarification on the translations to be used is one example of such activity.

Change at any time is difficult. Let me give an example from another field. A piece of research that I am familiar with suggests that the change process that begins when a text book is adopted in a school district takes five years to complete. It takes five years to reach the point where a text is fully incorporated into the curriculum!

This is true of a simple adoption of a textbook. The changes initiated by Vatican II are infinitly more complex and life altering. That might help to explain the confusion that resulted during implementation. It might help to explain why after 40 years the renewal is still being debated and fine tuned as it is being implemented.

The changes that you suggest were simply released were actually developed carefully and examined carefully and argued over for years. You suggest that "Vatican II has been used as a justification to release a wave of confusion and novelty unprecedented in Church history." That is not what I experienced or what was described in my schooling or in the press of the time or in the time since.

The experience that I remember in the church was an exhaustive and exhausting process to faithfully implement what was directed by the Council Fathers. Like any change over time it was not perfect and the results are still not completely realized to this day. You are correct when you say that the final chapter of the book on Vatican II has not been written, in my estimation.

The change process was complicated after the Council. There was the fact that the counciliar teaching on the church and on the role of bishops in the Church stressed the need for counciliar collaboration on the national and regional and international levels in the governance of the Church.

This was a relatively new process for our bishops and resulted in new ecclesial bodies such as the national bodies of Bishops and the international synods of Bishops. Of course, the Curia also played a major part in the implementation.

In short, the development and implementation of the renewed liturgy and other changes did not appear from out of nowhere in my experience. Like the other changes, it took place over a period of years including much research and study to discover our authentic traditions.

The notion of systemic and other change was a shock to the system of those of us raised in the pre-counciliar Latin church. The experience of change was, quite frankly, horrendous for many and not easy for most of us. Possibly there were addicts to change who enjoyed it; but, I did not and do not know any of these addicts. :rolleyes:

This, I think, might help to explain the sense of novelty that you cite during the implementation. It had been so long since there was a significant systemic change, that when such change happened in our understanding of Church and our Liturgy, it was truly novel in the best sense of that word. It was new!

Implementation was uneven and mistakes were inevitible and were made, in my opinion. I think, for example, that the process would have been better if provision were made to preserve the Tridentine liturgy along with the Novus Ordo. But, those in charge of the process evidently felt otherwise. Perhaps they did not want to cause major divisions and problems with acceptance of the changes at a time when the pain of change was greatest. I do not know.

I was fortunate to experience this history from the vantage of a Latin Seminary with access to professors some of whom were experts at the council and others who participated in the implementation. It was an exciting time because the Church saw the Council and the implementation as part of the working of the Spirit to renew His people. There was joy as we came to understand and to embrace the changes.

Given all of that, I must respectfully disagree when you suggest that the Novus Ordo does not reflect or grow out of the teachings of Vatican II. The Pope who promulgated it was a council Father and many of the Bishops and experts who had a hand in its formation were at the Council, too.

I must respectfully disagree also with your assertion that the Council is or was somehow problematic. In the view of the Church it was the working of the Holy Spirit. The Popes and the Council did not formally declare any teaching to be infallible.

That is true. However, teachings there were and it is appropriate to give at least religious assent to its teachings among members of our Church. If I remember correctly, this is because its teachings are examples of teachings arising from the ordinary teaching authority or magisterium of the Church.

Since I am not familiar with any defined doctrine of a previous Council that was contradicted by the teachings of Vatican II or by the implementation of or liturgical changes, I cannot comment on what, to my knowledge, has not happened.

Johan, I am truly happy that you are concerned for the Church. I am too.

I simply have a different vantage and see things differently from you. I have not belittled the Tridentine Liturgy; it was the Liturgy of the Church for a good potion of my life. In fact it is still an approved Liturgy. I love it, too. How could I not treasure it?

The fact that I also relish the Mass celebrated according to the new order promulgated by Pope Paul VI does not diminish that. The "new" Mass is the Mass, too. It reflects the teachings of the Council, in my opinion, and expresses the nuances of our understanding of ourselves and what we do that arose from the Council.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Axios and Moe,

Thank you.

Steve

And thank you Steve. You make a beautiful post. I would only add that not only shoudl VC2 be seen as not a decree establishing new practices but as allowing an evolution to follow it, but it must be recognized that an incredable amount of preparation preceeded it, by centuries. This was not a sudden reform.

We hear things to the contrary because the far pre-concilar generation has now died out.

As i siad before, if you read Catholic publications from the 1930's, 1940's and 1050's you see most all of the liturgical principles of VC2 laid out and praised.

Axios