Oriental Perspectives on a Liturgical Revolution

In this edition of Oriens we are privileged to include the thoughts of an eastern Orthodox prelate or archimandrite. (An archimandrite is a monastic superior, the equivalent of an abbot in the western Church. Sometimes the title is also honorary equivalent to the Western "monsignor"). The following article is one view from the East about the "traditional question" in the West. Our writer has chosen to remain anonymous as is often the case with theologians who are monks.

From our perspective what is most important is the fact that the East is watching the development of this question in the West and that it is considered important by them. Realistically the only chance of corporate re-union that is possible in the foreseeable ecumenical future is with the Oriental churches. Discussion with the East on the nature of tradition and authority is of utmost importance for the future of Christian unity.

The author of this article is remarkably well informed about the state of play in the Roman Church and about its recent history. This article might be considered a little hard, even severe, in places, but straight talking is perhaps the best form of dialogue. At least it shows us that some in the Oriental churches are actively concerned about the future of the whole church of Christ. Perhaps we might take the lesson for ourselves. The difficulties which traditional Catholics face are not theirs alone. We must also be concerned for the whole Church.

---

Many signs gave reason for hope: John XXIII had been Apostolic Visitor and Apostolic Delegate in Balkan countries where Orthodox Christians are numerous. However, as Vatican II progressed, a feeling of unease grew. One had the impression that Pope John's health complaints, from which he would eventually die, did not allow him to guide the Council along the path he had set for it. And with the election of Pope Paul VI a not always perceptible change seemed to have taken place. The Rhine, indeed, swamped the Tiber, flooding sacristies along the way.

It took years for some Orthodox Christians to realise that they had far more in common with the Catholic Church as it was under Pope Pius XII than what is vaguely called the "Conciliar Church". It is unfortunate that some Catholics allow themselves to be accused of nostalgia because they prefer the days of Pius XII. Of course, one does not attempt, at least not here, to compare popes. Nevertheless, for anyone who has lived in a predominantly protestant country, such as the United Kingdom or the United States, and is old enough to remember, it is quite clear that the Catholic Church reached the height of her prestige, esteem and, yes, power under Pius XII, particularly from 1950 until his death in 1958. This should not be seen as a simplistic preference for one pope over another. The rate of conversions, which reached thousands each year in the United Kingdom and America, was overwhelming in the late 1940s and 1950s. The celebrated Archbishop Fulton Sheen, then auxiliary Bishop of New York, the Jesuits at Farm Street in London, the famed Actors' Chapel in downtown Manhattan, were responsible for the conversions of all races, colours and classes of people.

What attracted the crowds practically to break down the rectory doors seeking conversion? It was not the local bishop who sought to be palsy-walsy with every Tom, Dick and Harry. It was not the priest disguised as a layman passing himself off as Big Brother. It was not the mother superior of the local convent dressed like a guest star on an out of season sit-com. No it was something else which nourished and attracted. It was the Traditional Mass.

Quietly, among themselves, some Orthodox ask themselves what on earth possessed Catholics to attempt to overthrow and to destroy not only that which more than anything else united Catholics and Orthodox, but was the very life of Catholicism. The late Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Heenan, in one or other part of his autobiography, Not the Whole Truth and Crown of Thorns expressed disillusionment with the liturgical reform: "If many of the Council Fathers had known what would become of the liturgy, they would not have voted in favour of the Conciliar Liturgy on the Sacred Liturgy." A friend of this writer who was an Orthodox observer at Vatican II was perplexed by the change of perspective during the Council, but even more perplexed by the earthquake which followed the Council.

It may seem strange that an Orthodox prelate would want to comment on the Traditional Latin Liturgy. One must keep in mind how and when the universal Church's liturgies grew, developed and were canonised. They were not the result of Church functionaries sitting around desks in smoke filled offices. When our Lord decided to celebrate the first Mass, the Last Supper, He did not appoint a commission of apostles to prepare. When He gave the supreme act of love, His Most Holy Sacrifice of the Cross, He did not consult others as to how to go about His most sublime offering.

As we know the Church's liturgy grew and developed organically and was canonised during particularly privileged periods of Church history. As the Church's doctrine was clearly defined under the threat of heresy the liturgy developed also as a very special expression of the Church's teaching. The so-called Byzantine Liturgy became the principal liturgy in the Orient and the Latin Liturgy became predominant in the West.

Anyone who is familiar with both the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Traditional Latin Mass will be struck by how similar their structures are. This may not be apparent at first. But when one goes beyond local colour of expression (the various liturgies developed regionally in the early Church) the basic structure is the same. So much is this true that years ago when groups of westerners entered the Russian Orthodox Church they were allowed to adopt the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite (with a strengthened epiclesis).

This could not be done today with the New Mass. Several curious criteria seem to have inspired the liturgical reform. One seems to make a strange recourse to what was done in the Orient. Yet one forgets that as the Church's liturgies developed on a local level or regional level it can be rather eccentric to borrow from one liturgical tradition for another. For example, immediately after the imposition of hands during the ordination of an oriental priest the ordaining bishop places the Consecrated Host in the hands of the new priest. Like Our Lady who carried Our Lord in her most pure womb, the new priest holds the Lord's Body in his hands behind the altar during the Divine Liturgy. To adopt this practice in the West simply because it was done in the Orient would not only send mixed signals, it would be perceived as strange.

Another curious criterion seems to have been a certain liturgical archaeology. Antiquity is not an absolute value in and of itself. The Church's public worship reached a height of perfection slowly. If liturgical reformers get the date and century wrong the risk can be run of fostering the cult of antiquity rather than the perfect cult of Our Lord.

It might be indiscreet to mention, but one cannot help noticing a new kind of bishop being appointed here and there. Some seem to be "New Conservatives". One gets the impression that they have received a mandate to clean up the house. Much is done to restore healthy and holy Catholic life in their dioceses. The clergy is whipped into shape, the seminaries are re-ordered. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament has made a comeback in some places. Roman collars are brought out of storage, and some nuns are letting the hems down on their skirts. This is no mean feat and one has to raise one's biretta out of respect for the courageous bishop who dares to go against the advice of committees and advisors. 

That is why not even the New Mass in Latin will do. Like so much else of the liturgical reform, the prayers and orations of the New Mass, even in their original Latin text, have undergone such a subtle change that one does not always see that they are sometimes less spiritually beneficial than the prayers and orations of the Traditional Mass.

God no longer erupts into mans' existence and, respecting his freedom reforms Man's life with His grace. Often Our Lord is turned into a passive spectator who from an orchestra seat watches and is called upon to applaud Man's work.

One hopes to be forgiven for sounding a bell of alarm. In many places the situation seems to be improving. Vocations are rising, more people of various age groups are sitting in the pews and there is a move on the part of many young people to opt for chastity. However, one must be careful. Unless these signs of restoration are based on Tradition, the life-giving and nourishing traditional Mass, they will founder as trendy reactions. If the mentality which inspired some of the changes in the prayers in the New Mass (to limit ourselves only to the question of the prayers) is allowed to enter the consciousness of the Clergy and Faithful, any counter-reform or restoration will only be as endurable as man's enthusiasm and human forces.

The Oriental Christian cannot understand the apparent allergy on the part of many towards the Traditional Latin Mass. Much is made of easy slogans such as "no turning the clock back" and "spirit of the Council". Now another slogan has become popular among the new conservatives. One often hears the phrase "reform of the reform". A fierce debate is raging as to just what that will entail. Some who promote it feel that Vatican II was misunderstood or badly implemented. The liturgical reformers went too far and too quickly, it seems. Suggestions are being solicited in order to reform the reform; anything is welcome except the return of the Traditional Mass.

It is ironic, however, that this phrase was first used by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during a moment of particular exasperation. He wondered out loud one day why all Catholics are allowed to experiment except Traditional Catholics. With that quiet wit, for which he was known, he exclaimed that 'they must reform this reform'. 'They' being Church authorities who, the late French Archbishop felt, should allow Traditional Catholics to "make the experiment of tradition". The idea being, of course, that if one is going to allow various experiments, why not allow Tradition to be given a chance and see what comes out on top. It should be quite clear by now where the Traditional Mass has been restored there is an outburst of deep, serious solid Catholic life. Vocations, solid vocations, increase, piety grows, family life is protected, clerical discipline returns and, in spite of perplexity over the actions of some Pastors, real fidelity and love of priests and bishops appears.

It is particularly hurtful to see the sacrifice and difficulties the faithful are often made to undergo in order to assist at the traditional Mass. In at least one diocese the Traditional Catholics were forced to travel through very dangerous parts of the city where the natives were particularly restless. Automobiles were smashed, one risked life and limb to get to Mass.

As this writer read about their ordeal the thought occurred that a message was being sent out in order to counter what is in fact a misconception. It is generally thought that only certain classes and the aged are attracted by the Traditional Mass. If, therefore, they are made to travel through the poorer and more dangerous parts of a city they will open their eyes (without realising that some in fact risked permanently closing their eyes). This was also perhaps a way of dismissing the demands for the return to Tradition.

However, one need merely observe almost any congregation of Traditional Catholics to note that they are made up of all social and economic classes, all races and colours and ages. What is most encouraging is to see the rise in the number of young priests who discover or rediscover Tradition. That can hardly be attributed to nostalgia. In America one black (negress) nun, in religious life for decades, is founding a Traditional community of sisters. One African bishop welcomes into his diocese in Gabon a new community of traditional priests. He made use of all the Roman Church's Traditional splendour in order to ordain the community's priests according to the Traditional rite.

The importance of the Traditional Mass is much more than aesthetic preference (the Latin, beautiful music, fine vestments etc.) It is a question of Faith. The New Mass - which even not particularly traditional Churchmen agree can be improved - was invented during troubled times. It is interesting that back in 1949 Pope Pius XII had thought of convening a council. For that purpose he appointed a secret commission to study the project and report to the then Holy Office. The Pope appointed a trusted Archbishop to the commission and a Belgian Jesuit from the University of Louvain as its secretary. Pope Pius set a clear and definite goal and agenda for the future council. However, the secretary, influenced by the nouvelle théologie managed to disrupt the commission's workings. He presented Pius with a conciliar agenda which, far from the Pope's mind, reflected the erroneous views of the New Theology.

With that deep sense of elegance born of long experienced wisdom of government and prudence Pope Pius refused to be drawn into the trap of the new theologians, refusing to allow a council to be manipulated and influenced by pernicious ideas in the air. He merely announced to the commission, as well as to the great Cardinal Ruffini of Palermo, whose idea the council had been, that Pius would leave the council to a younger successor. Using some of the greatest encyclicals of that great and long pontificate Pope Pius XII then proceeded to rule by decree as it were. Mediator Dei, Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis, among other encyclicals, became the landmark of his reign from 1939 until his death in 1958 which was crowned by his solemn definition of the Assumption of the Mother of God into Heaven.

When the Church's doctrine, liturgy and faith is under threat and the men who should assist in protecting and defending it are divided, under siege and influenced by erroneous opinions it is the duty of the Vicar of Christ to clear the air. Otherwise those erroneous opinions will find their way into the workings of a Council. This is especially true when the period of history does not benefit from the presence of great Fathers and doctors of the Faith such as one sees during the first centuries of the Church's history.

The total breakdown in metaphysics as well as sound theology troubled the workings of Vatican II and even more so its implementation. Even if one does not reject Vatican II one can see often the ambiguity of some of its texts did not fully protect the post-conciliar era from the internal confusion which the Catholic Church has never known in all her history. The New Mass became symptomatic, to a certain degree, of this confusion. The post-conciliar liturgical reform, just to name one of many reforms, became a statement, to some degree, of troubled times. Man became the centre, personalist philosophy guided much of the reform as well as Church thought and life. It was no longer Our Lord whose Incarnation, life death and resurrection, were seen as life-giving. It was Man himself, merely inspired by Our Lord's good example who called the shots.

That explains why even where there seems to be a restoration of Catholic life it is shallow and of brief duration. One bishop in a northern European country thought of almost everything in order to restore his diocese to full and healthy Catholic life. He himself took his cassock out of storage. He built a new seminary. He distanced himself from some of the sillier shenanigans of his national episcopal conference. He even encouraged the New Mass in Latin (with the Missa De Angelis overworked!) It all came crashing down. The "new conservative" priests whom he ordained, trained and undernourished with vague ideas caused a scene which would be comic if it were not so tragic. The zealous bishop in question seems to have forgotten one thing. There can be, as was said before, no serious durable counter reform until and unless there is a serious return to the Traditional Mass. It is that Mass which will allow Our Lord to return to the centre of Church life and the long overdue counter reform.

The Traditional Mass like its Oriental 'counterpart' is a sacred drama in which beauty is not to be underestimated. Beauty is merely the right order of things which teach us how God lives and operates. The offertory of the Traditional Mass, for example, is not only a masterpiece of civilisation. Its sublime beauty of form and words teach us prepare us and lead us to the most important act in history.

Like the Byzantine Divine Liturgy every gesture of the Traditional Mass brings man closer to God as it uplifts man from the prosaic of pedestrian existence to the throne of the celestial court. During the early centuries some of the Fathers of the Church became so uplifted as the Divine Liturgy progressed (especially at the Cherubic Hymn) that the presence of the heavenly court became almost tangible and they proceeded in the celebration transfixed. This experience is not unusual even today, especially in some monasteries. But it is also not unusual where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated with fervour. Padre Pio often was lifted out of himself as his Mass progressed towards the consecration. The beauty, the sacred gestures, the clarity of doctrine of the Traditional Mass is meant to uplift man so that he becomes united in prayer with Our Lord and even more united in Faith and Charity with his neighbor. We do not face each other, but look towards the Orient from whence shall come our help. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Orient, continues to pray and offer Himself in and for us. We, who look towards the Orient, pray in Him to the Father whose sovereign Majesty requires the cult of right and perfect worship until His Kingdom comes.

Return to Oriens, Summer, 1998

Return to Oriens home page