Even apart from the liturgy, church life in the East has never become an exclusively clerical preserve. Lay theologians and preachers, permanent deacons and subdeacons, lay representation in the government of the Church are all common. And the Eastern clergyman, generally married, does not belong to a social class above his flock. Go into any Greek village in the cool of a summer evening, and you will find the local papas having an ouzo with the men of his flock, a villager distinguishable from his fellows only in coiffure and dress. Chanceries in the East are always overflowing with the laity, peasant and merchant as well as dignitary, who have come to seek a favor, redress a grievance, or to pay their respects.
This inevitably has its effect on worship, which in the East has remained a true leitourgia or public service of the whole community. Hence there is no question of any need for a ‘liturgical movement’ to bring the piety of the people back to its source in the prayer of the Church. The East has never known the separation of spirituality, theology and ecclesiology from liturgy, with the consequent denigration of piety into individualism finding its expression in private prayer, meditation, and devotions in the face of inaccessible, clericalized public rites.
Present strenuous efforts in the West to forge once again the link between individual piety and the public prayer of the Church highlight the case with which Easterners situate their spiritual life within the cadre of liturgical prayer. If we were to ask Eastern Christians which of their devotions were “private” and which “liturgical”, they would not know what we were talking about. It is all one: popular piety is liturgy, the very life of the local church.
– Robert Taft, SJ. “The Spirit of Eastern Christian Worship” in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. 2nd ed. (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2001), 153
June 11, 2008 at 6:12 pm
There are other important quotes, but I thought I would include this one, because it gives a good understanding of liturgy and communion and the problems had in the privitization of the mass:
“It is my own conviction that only a balanced theology of the Church can be the guiding norm for the shape of our celebration, and not the ‘devotion’ or desire or supposed ‘right’ to ‘exercise one’s priesthood’ or to ‘offer sacrifice’ or whatever of anyone, priest or otherwise. A 1980 commentary on ‘interritual concelebration’ — ordained ministers concelebrating at a Eucharist in a rite other than their own — issued by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches shows, I believe, that official Catholic thinking on concelebration is beginning to move in this direction. Respect for the integrity of the tradition of the local worshiping community as the concrete expression of ecclesial communion is the leitmotif of the document. The rite to be used is preferably that of the host church, contrary to previous legistlation that always gave precedence to the rite of the celebrant. And this document shows a far better sense of the basics than is usual in the discussions of clerical concelebration: namely, that the Eucharist is a communio, a celebration of unity, not a ritualization of division; that any liturgy is the service of the local church, not a private clerical devotion; that, consequently, its norms are determined by the broader ecclesial and pastoral demands of this communio, not by the devotional needs of the ministers, who are there to serve the Church, not themselves.” (”Eucharistic Concelebration”, ibid., p. 126-7).
June 12, 2008 at 7:48 am
I am not sure if Fr Taft is not straining for effect here, and I am not sure if he is doing as full a service to either tradtion as he thinks he is. It would seem he has certain stereotypes of North American Catholicism (stereotypes usually being true in some way, just partially so) of the preconciliar period much in mind here, and an idealized view of the other tradition.
June 12, 2008 at 8:07 am
Liam
First, I assume you know who Fr Taft is (since I see you often comment on liturgical issue), but I do not think many do. He is considered by many, Catholic and Orthodox, as the greatest living expert on the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Eastern tradition (and its development). So there is a lot to consider when one reads from him and his discussion of liturgy. I’ve met him; he is brilliant in his territory and gave some wonderful examples of eucharistic tradition in the East which explains why the eucharistic and liturgical differences do provide for actual differences in practice.
One could argue his discussion on the West is reductionistic; however, even then I do not think that is the case. I wish I could have included the whole article (and the whole book). If anyone is interested in liturgy, it is that good. And yes, he does address the West in relation to the East, and yes he does know the traditions well. Is he following certain stereotypes? I don’t think so; he’s experienced them in his own life and service, time and again, and it is not just North American Catholicism (while he did teach in the US at one time, he is now in Rome). His view of the East is not always idealized, the book has references for all kinds of odd traditions and developments in the East as well. However, what he said, at the core, is correct, and the way the West continues to have a private mass while the East does not, is indicative of the whole issue.
June 12, 2008 at 10:08 am
Henry,
I wonder what Fr. Taft has to say about western eucharistic practices apart from the Mass (i.e. adoration, benediction, reservation of the Eucharist, etc…)?
June 12, 2008 at 10:19 am
Henry
Yes, I am fully aware of that. My point was written with that much in mind.
June 12, 2008 at 10:24 am
I should add that my personal liturgical sensibilities would probably be characterized as more Eastern than Western, but my historian’s training knows how those preferences addle perceptions of both traditions. I’ve certainly encountered people from the Eastern tradition who speak of their liturgical experiences include some of the things being complained of about the Western tradition.
Further, I guess I would share the caution of some in the East to the effect that the West should evaluate and manipulate its traditions less and experience them more, as it were. In other words, the very conversation we are having betrays a Western mindset about liturgy. At that point, one can enter a feedback loop or forego the pleasure.
June 12, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Is Father Taft the one who basically poured water all over the Holy See’s policy regarding a Patriarch for Ukranian Catholics? I remember some interview with him I believe in National Catholic Reporter several years back and he had hilarious comments on the Orthodox. None of it was politically correct but it was quite hilarious. It is well worth searching out this article as he pulls no punches regarding Orthodox presence in traditionally Catholic countries.
June 12, 2008 at 12:20 pm
http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/taft.htm
June 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Brian: He has many things to say, but it’s a wide issue. For example he describes an early practice, not really done now, where people would take home loaves of consecrated eucharist to use for the week, and that was how some would have frequent communion. Adoration, of course, he has a very Eastern view: icon, the eucharist is for communion. When talking about reserved eucharist, well, there is pre-sanctified liturgy, and also communion for the sick, however, the rest is indeed meant to be consumed traditionally, and continues to be the case in the East. The development of the West with its eucharistic adoration, which is a fine tradition for the West, is nonetheless peculiar, but then there were some peculiar things done in the east (such as St Macrina putting the eucharist all over her body for healing, which he talked about in a lecture). So again it is not just “The West only has its oddities and developments” but really, he does point out that this is the case in the East just as much.
When talking about frequency of liturgy and whether it should be “Sunday only” as in some traditions, or “every day” in others, I think one can understand where he is coming from in liturgical studies. “As for the question of frequency, if tradition is ‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,’ then for communion the older norn is daily availability. For mass, the only general norm between the two extremes of ‘daily’ or ‘only on Sundays and feasts’ is that of adaptation to the pastoral needs of the time and place within each tradition. All attempts to construct ideologies that absolutize one or another usage; to say that all ‘good priests’ say mass daily; or that only ‘eschatological Sunday’ is a suitable eucharistic day; are simply cliche, products of the unhistorical mind” (same book, “The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History”, 109-110.
June 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Liam:
I was going to post that. Yes. But back to our conversation. I thought you would know who he is (and if you have not read this book and interested in liturgical discussions, I do recommend it greatly), but again, I also figure many do not and so thought I would point out who he was in my response to help things along.
As a historian, Taft also understands the point you are making, and I would agree. It is easy to see through a bias. That’s often the issue on VN and the debates which go on here on many issues. And when I discuss theological/spiritual/liturgical issues, while Catholic, I also come about the discussion with my Eastern sensibilities as well. I know it is a bias, and as such it cuts two ways, an interesting hermeneutical lens, but it can also be blinding.
June 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Here are a few more quotes, from the same book, in case anyone is interested:
“So, from my experience, I am tempted to think that the contemporary Western mania for variety in liturgy is because the liturgy is often done so poorly — sometimes appallingly so — that people are scrambling to escape the impasse by forever trying something new.” (65; “Sunday in the Byzantine tradition)
“Does this mean that everything is relative? Hardly, for there is a common tradition underneath all this. It shows, I think, that only the sacrifice of Christ has absolute value. Attempts to assign the same value to its sacrament are vain. Furthermore, this sacrament is an ecclesial, not a private matter, and the celebration of this ecclesial communion involves more than just the Eucharist itself, which cannot be considered in isolation. Purely devotional or individual norms that do not take into account this whole context have no legitimacy.” (109; “The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History”)
“It was this koinonia, and it alone, that determined the shape of the Eucharist in the early Church. One community, one table, one Eucharist was the universal rule. And it remains still in much of the Christian East. A recovery of this vision is the only way out of the devotional narcissism prevalent in Latin priestly spirituality. What is important is that the gifts be blessed so that all may share them. Whether or not I am the presbyter that says the prayer of blessing is irrelevant: to do so is a ministry, not a prerogative.” (128; “Ex Oriente Lux? Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration”)
“Contemporary compartmentalization of life into clearly defined and mutually exclusive categories, and the even more recent limitation of parish liturgical life to the Eucharist, were foreign to the early Church, whose life was liturgical in that it was a community whose every activity was leitourgia, a public service of the one Body of Christ.” (145; “The Spirit of Eastern Christian Worship”)
“The Latin Church since the Middle Ages has suffered a gradual privatization of the Eucharist into a personal devotion of the priest, who had ‘his’ daily mass, and a monasticization of matins and vespers, formerly the morning and evening prayer of the whole Christian community. Eastern worship, being both native and traditional, has remained closer to its popular roots and more communal. It goes without saying that ‘private mass’ is foreign to the Eastern spirit, and concelebration is practiced as a manifestation of the unity of the local church in one Eucharist, not in order to provide presbyters with the opportunity of satisfying their private devotion while avoiding the abuse of private or even solitary masses.” (150, ibid)
June 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“All attempts to construct ideologies that absolutize one or another usage . . . are simply cliche, products of the unhistorical mind.”
Now, *there’s* a statement I would like more people to be familiar with.
It’s very easy for people with modern sensibilities to fall into the trap of ideology. Much easier than we suspect. Because ideology is like mental air that we breath. But it’s very anachronistic, and as such dishonors people because it privileges the concept over the person.
June 12, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Liam
Yes, and I think that is central to Taft’s understanding of liturgical theology and studies. And it is something I agree with as well. It is not to be relativistic, either, and think anything is possible, but there is an understanding of pastoral (and cultural) concerns to engage with as well.
I know some of the other quotes are “juicy.” It’s because those were the ones I took down in citation from his book. The book is quite good and far more moderate than those quotes; however, much of it is lengthy exposition, sometimes dull for those not interested in these things, and several pages long to make his points. My hands couldn’t handle that.
June 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm
My sense is that one has to be careful quoting Taft when he’s articulating what seems to be general principles, because it would seem he would understand them to be hedged around with lots of qualifications. So it makes it a bit dangerous to quote him out of context.
Anyway, my own sense is that the Eastern liturgical tradition has had its share of different kinds of disconnection between what and how many of the faithful pray during the Divine Liturgy and What’s Going On Over There, as it were. It may be less frequent as congregations get smaller and thus more concentrated with those who are more intentional in their praxis, and perhaps that explains descriptively what others might mistake as prescriptive or causal.
And I would add that it is quite impossible to rewind liturgical development in either tradition to, let’s say, the sixth century. While I would not go as far as the Ecumenical Patriarch as to talk of ontological differences between the traditions, I think we need to respect the idea that, even if certain developments seem to conflict with certain ideals of liturgical theology, it is prudent to look first to see how the Spirit may have moved in those developments despite the seeming conflict (or indeed, how the Spirit might have preferred the development to something that merely appears coherent to our addled intellects).
My particular concern comes from the experience of witnessing any number of Catholics affect a preference for certain practices from the Eastern tradition but with very little sense that those practices are part of a larger warp and weft. For example, the parlor trick of invoking Nicaea I against kneeling – to which a suitable parlor trick response would be “when you’re ready to do the liturgical prostrations of the penitential times, then we can perhaps talk”…
June 12, 2008 at 1:20 pm
So it would be in that mode that one would describe how the Spirit might have been behind the development of private liturgy and stipended intentions in the Western tradition.
June 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Liam
There are many issues one could have with that assertion.
1)It could be used to justify any abuse. “The Spirit might have been behind the development of” — selling indulgences; priests with concubines; etc.
2) Even if one takes for granted there is truth, it must be asked, why and how and how far is it to go, and is it only for a temporary pastoral situation or something else. For example, I do think there is a problem in the Western tradition which allows for communion before confirmation, though I can see (and Taft, did, too) the Spirit working in St Pius X for his affirmation of more frequent communion and even encouraging the youth to take communion. Now, many people think that is the end of it, and say “see, it is the Spirit, let’s keep it this way.” I say nay. I think, as with many others, there is a need to restore the order of baptism-confirmation-communion, while acknowledging that pastoral sensitivity and dispensation might allow for what happened under St Pius X.
June 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Henry
You misunderstand (I had hoped you wouldn’t and decided not to disclaim in advance the misreading, realizing that I could be misread). It’s not an assertion but a temperment/attitude of allowing facts to be viewed before deductive principles. And I think the questions you next ask would be quite appropriate – but they would be more honest than rhetorical with the attitude I recommend here.
And I have been one who has been saying on the Internet since the mid-1990s that the greatest liturgical revolution in the Roman rite in the 20th century was not Vatican II but that of Pius X. So understand that I think the Pian goals of (1) greater sacramental participation by the laity, and (2) moving decisively away from liturgical minimalism that relies desperately on ex opere operato, were monumental and we are still teasing out the implications of those things. I do think it was Providential that these monumental moves were undertaken in the decade before much of Christendom entered a 75-year blood bath – I wonder what would have happened without them.
June 12, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Liam
It could be read as an assertion. However, there is an implicit hermeneutic with that temperment which, imo, is not one that is “allowing facts to be viewed before deductive principles.” I am not against elements of it, but I just wanted to respond with the kind of issues I have with such a statement being said without caveats.
And you are right, and I’ve said through the years too, that if people want to understand liturgical reform, look no further than St Pius X. And I think we both agree, there is indeed much that is of God in it. However, as I have also said about it, some of what he did I think were meant to serve only as a beginning, but have led, because they were not continued, to be the end and have led to confusion (like how confirmation/chrismation is treated by many in the West). This, I do not think, is the fault of St Pius X, however, nor the Spirit, but the human response to what transpired.
June 12, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I should add, to shed further light on my personal preferences, that in my ideal world:
1. Parishes would be small enough so that the entire community can celebrate together the liturgy under its pastor and deacon (ideally, there should be one of each for each parish, and no more, except retirees in residence). This of course means that parishes would be small enough to be truly riven by people really knowing each other (oh, yes, they might also love each other more, but historical experience indicates that familiarity among fallen human beings is more likely to breed contempt, while anonymity breeds to harmony of ignorance) – and this would be much more spiritually challenging, even agonistic in a Greek kind of way, if you catch my drift. I’ve been in large communities and small ones. Small ones, over the long term, are harder. So this is no dewy-eyed idealism here.
2. Dioceses would be small enough for the ordinary to visit a few days each year in each parish. The practice of having auxiliary bishops should fade into history. Administrative efficiencies would be optimized at the provincial or regional level.) See above for cautionary realism.
3. Bishops would be presumed to be wed to their diocese for life except (1) to be elevated to the metropolitan level within their province, and to the patriarchal level from there, and (2) for grave cause in service of the greater good of the local and universal church. I don’t think I need to spell out the cautionary realism on this one.
4. I will leave to your imagination how I think pastors and bishops should be discerned.
I can see the Spirit moving in historical developments that are the opposite of this. So I would be careful not to jump to castigate the developments as inherently bad or ill-founded. I just don’t think that precludes revisiting them now or in the future.
June 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm
This is a little off topic, but as I recall, Fr. Taft was asked to vet the recent Revised Divine Liturgy for the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. The content of the letter/review he wrote, however, were not widely available for public review. Henry, do you know if he’s released those documents regarding the RDL or given his opinion on the matter?
-Mike J.
June 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Oh Liam thank you so much for fnding that article. I recalled reading it onece and spent a good deal of time trying to reread it
I go on and off talking with Orthodox on the net because to be honest the whole thing can be tedious.
However that article makes great points and was a blunt as I recalled
June 12, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I have found that experience often conflicts with theology when thinking on liturgical matters. But it is not merely a conflcit between experience and ideology. Take this example: Lately, I have been questioning my own practice of frequent communion, based on a personal observation that infequent communion with more prep. time seems to yield greater fruit (in my life).
But there is a rich theology in the west, both before and after Pius X, of frequent communion. It gives us an insight into the real nature of the eucharistic celebration that goes beyond immediate experience. It is a theology that is prone to abuse, no doubt. Side altars and simulataneous private Masses are some examples of this.
Experience vs. knowledge.. how does one put these conflicting strands of into practice? Is it better to trust my own experience? Or is it possible that I have yet to discover or acknowledge the benefits of frequent communion?
June 13, 2008 at 12:02 am
Brian,
That’s a bit moralistic though isn’t it? I know what you mean in that we need to be aware of who we are receiving. However, your point about knowledge and experience is interesting because I think we live in an abstract way most of the time, having a figure of Jesus in our minds when we receive Him. Rather, because we have experienced joy in receiving Christ at some time t, do you really think it is really because you are prepared? Now, theology says that the more you are disposed to handing yourself to Christ, the more graces you will receive. But I think a person who is not well prepared, and most of us are not probably, can benefit in the sense of attaining union with Christ. Sometimes my mind wanders off in Mass and yet we pray, “Lord, I am not worthy…” and I am reminded of my state.
I think what is important is not so much of “preparing.” What is important in life is not so much how much we have done to prepare, but at this moment in time, right now, can we say, “I am Yours” with affection and gratitude? Even if it doesn’t feel right, when we are walking down to receive Him, we need to be able to make the judgment who we are receiving. I think infrequent communion places too much on our wills, on our judgments, on our ideas of how we should receive Christ rather than the object fact that Christ is present and He is begging us to come to Him. How do we know that He is begging? Because the priest has consecrated the bread. The Church makes the Eucharist. We have certainty that God begs for our hearts, especially in the Eucharist, because the Church, in the Spirit, gives us the certainty that we are not alone.
Now, trusting your own experience means judging the correspondence between the object and the needs of the heart. There were times when I experienced a great joy when receiving the Eucharist. Why is this so? Because I have this wonder I keep going to Mass. Once you go, once you commune with Christ, the more certainty you will have and the more wonder you will have. It is not that the Eucharist “yield greater fruit.” Certainly that is how we will know who the Eucharist is. But what is important is not the effects of the Eucharist but the Eucharist himself. True knowledge that comes from experience, then, is an act of judgment, an act of reason. Despite not feeling prepared, because you know who it is, no matter what your state is (of course mortal sin aside), the important point is whether you can judge who you are receiving. That is really what a witness is, a person who can judge reality as it really is because he has judged it according to the needs of his heart.
I hope that helps a little.
June 13, 2008 at 4:01 am
Mike,
No, I don’t know if it has been made public or not (but don’t understand the need for it to be so).
June 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Henry,
Curiosity, mainly. As you point out, Taft’s opinion is highly respected and I would like to know what he thought of the translation changes made to the liturgy.
-Mike
August 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I have been studying theologies for a while now. Both Eastern and Western. I collected a large mass of knowledge in sacramental, moral, and dogmatic theology. I have a wide collection of books, so I feel I can handle most objections when asked, though I am no card carrying apologist with a Pontifical Catechis certificate.
You hear various arguments, on grace and efficacy of works: faith alone or baptism and faith. Well baptism is a good work, produced by Jesus Christ. So I believe in Faith as a work, and effected by an external rite called baptism — which is the sacrament of faith.
Yet, I find it very interesting and even obnoxious that the New Church of Vatican II (which claims to be the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church) has established a foreign rite to suppress the traditionl Latin Tridentine Catholic praxis (from the Council of Trent) to the point of invalidating the grace of baptism in this Novus Ordo rite. I’m not sure what is the mainstream Protestant stance on this new baptism?
In fact, I recently read this new scholarly book on the topic entitled “Praxis Obnoxia: A Moral-Theological Conclusion On The New Modernist Rite of Baptism.”
http://www.lulu.com/content/3824207
I am very impressed with it, and I cannot refute its arguments, scholarship — tons of quotes from theologians, doctors, councils, and Popes. Basically, the book proves the new rite of baptism is null and void–that means there is no valid baptism in the Vatican II church, and thus no valid sacraments and no salvation in that sect. It seems “very weird”, I admit at first, but the facts are the facts, and I had to read the book a few times to really grasp the significance of what has happened since 1960s. Once you get the book you cannot put it down, it is so intense in scholastic volume.
I even spent some days of hours in the Gordon-Conwell College libraries to talk to some doctors, and even had a debate with a Greek Orthodox Professor from Harvard on this topic of conditional rebaptism or economia or oikonomia.
Not sure what’s your stance? It seems Saint Cyprian would of rebaptized people coming from the New Church to the traditional Orthodox Catholic Church of the Romans.
Any opinions on this? A book review perhaps? Are you familar with “Praxis Obnoxia”? I must say this is a “Hot Topic” with Traditionalists and Conservatives.