|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 4, 2008 13:02:35 GMT
There was some correspondence in the TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT recently about the depiction of angels carrying the prayers of the Mass to Heaven in church art. One correspondent stated that this was a distinctively Western practice - that the Orthodox Churches emphasise the view that the liturgy on earth participates immediately in the liturgy of Heaven, while the Latin Church has been more inclined to treat this participation as occurring at a distance (hence the idea of ministering angels transmitting it to heaven). This certainly seems to be characteristic of the different emphases of the Eastern and Western Churches, and may help to explain why the Orthodox have been much more reluctant to alter their liturgies than we have. This trend again goes back some distance before Vatican II - in the nineteenth century quite a lot of dioceses, notably in France, were "encouraged" to abandon their local liturgies which had survived Trent because of their antiquity, and to embrace the Roman ritual as an expression of loyalty to the Pope. The Orthodox, who see themselves as a federation of local churches, would have been very reluctant to do such a thing. I have even heard of traditionalists who have ended up converted to Orthodoxy on the grounds that the vandalism perpetrated under cover of Papal primacy is the end result of such trends and shows that the Orthodox understanding is superior. I suspect that such a view is misguided. We have a lot to learn from the Orthodox (despite the nuts in Christian Order who amuse themselves by suggesting the Orthodox are not really Christian at all but Neoplatonist) but their tradition seems to lead to a disturbing subservience to the state (witness the way the Orthodox authorities, having been subservient to the Soviet authorities after Vatican II, are now lending themselves to Vladimir Putin's propaganda) and their liturgical conservatism may reflect the fact that they have not yet been exposed to the same pressures we have. Meanwhiel, the unfortunate Greek Catholics of the Ukraine are getting the worst of both worlds as usual. If the Rorate Caeli blog is to be believed, Cardinal Husar and his allies are combining radical and forceful de-Latinisation (such as actively discouraging if not forbidding altogether such practices as the Rosary and the Way of the Cross) in order to get closer to the Orthodox. At the same time they are imposing vernacularisation (the replacement of Church Slavonic by vernacular Ukrainian) to an extent that the Orthodox would never contemplate. The result has been at least two schisms, one fostered by our old friend Bishop Williamson. What a tragedy for a church which underwent such martyrdom! CAVEAT - the Rorate Caeli account may be unbalanced; I have not yet seen a detailed statement of the pro-Husar case. Also, there was a strong tendency in the past to impose wholesale Latinisation on the Eastern Churches and some reaction against this is perfectly legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 5, 2008 11:02:12 GMT
I'd like to get the Archmandrite Serge Keleher's comments on the Husar issues. The Greek Catholics characteristically get the worst of both worlds. The original forced Latinisation could be read as forced Polonisation - and you are probably aware of the mutual attitudes of Poles and Ukrainians to one another. There is an equal zeal for de-Latinisation and the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of St Josaphat, backed by the SSPX emphasise the question of what is a traditionalist in the Greek Catholic context. The St Josaphat Fraternity, being pro-Latinisation are not traditionalists - they react against the words of St Pius X who extolled the pre-Nikhonite service books (ie, those used by the Russian Old Believers which date before the mid-17th century) with the words 'Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter' (no more, no less, no different). Vernacularisation can't be a good idea either and one wonders how it accomodates itself with the present Pope's liturgical policy and outreach to the Orthodox.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 14:53:38 GMT
To be fair I think at least some of the schismatics try to differentiate between forced Latinisation and the gradual adoption of some Latin practices over the centuries, and I suspect they have some legitimate gripes about the difference between discouraging Latin practices and aggressively suppressing them - but I don't know enough about the context. The SSJK is not the only schism - the RORATE CAELI report is that four priests have just announced they have been consecrated by an unnamed Greek-rite bishop (the comments box are engaging in speculation over this and one or two names have been mentioned) and have been excommunicated. They have quite specifically disowned any connection with SSJK and SSPX but make some of the same complaints. The point about what is a traditionalist in the Eastern Rites is very well taken; I have heard reports of Latin-rite traditionalists switching to Eastern rites and being dismayed to discover that these have such customs as communion in the hand, standing to receive etc, not as a conscious decision with some questionable implications, as in the LAtin Rite changes, but because that is the way they have always done it.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 5, 2008 15:55:06 GMT
Before I say any more, let me post the details regarding Eastern Catholicism in Ireland that I have to hand:
Archdiocese of Dublin: Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Ukrainian Greek Catholic) - 4 pm Sundays, St Kevin's Oratory of St Mary's Pro-Cathedral, Marlborough St, Dublin 1. Celebrant: Right Rev Archmandrite Serge Keleher.
I can't say I know of any eastern Church which distributes communion in the hand, but I find the statement credible. Certainly, most eastern churches distribute communion standing. Indeed the issue of kneeling is one of those issues which elicits debate as to whether it is forced Latinisation or gradual adoption of western customs. I have seen worshippers (a minority, but a significant minority) kneel for the consecration in a Russian Orthodox cathedral in St Petersburg where there is no question of forced Latinisation.
The second schism, if four priests are to be consecrated (and excommunicated) seems more serious than the first. The situation is delicate politically in Ukraine where there are significant numbers of Greek Catholics, principally in Ukrainian-speaking West Ukraine (the east is dominated by Russian-speaking Ukrainian Orthodox). This religious divide played a huge role in Yushchenko's election victory a couple of years ago.
But to return to another of Hibernicus'es points, raised elsewhere in this forum too, the Orthodox Church usually have a servile relationship towards whatever regime is in power.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 16:55:03 GMT
I may have got mixed up. I think I meant to say communion in both kinds rather than communion in the hand (Eastern churches often practice communion by intinction which excludes reception in the hand). In relation to this, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow has just died (hat tip to Catholic Perspective). Remember him in your prayers.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 18:46:35 GMT
Here is the link to the comments box on the relevant Rorate Caeli post, where responsibility for the schism and the extent to which de-latinisation should be pursued is being debated. It should be possible to track back from this to the original post. (The blog doesn't seem to be arranged so as to allow easy linking to individual posts, and this post is now about a week old). www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=1345980489463085807 Now I'm really gone!
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 8, 2008 12:20:17 GMT
I may have got mixed up. I think I meant to say communion in both kinds rather than communion in the hand (Eastern churches often practice communion by intinction which excludes reception in the hand). In relation to this, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow has just died (hat tip to Catholic Perspective). Remember him in your prayers. Yes - this makes more sense. Communion under both kinds is predominant in the eastern world, in particular by intinction. But it may be the case that some of the more remote churches - the Assyrian Church of the East, for example - might have hand communion - I don't know but that occured to me. The Byzantine rite (practiced by the Greek Catholics and Melkites) is what I am familiar with and it accounts for the practice in most of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox world. But there are many minority groups. Yes - pray for the Patriarch Alexey II, who was not from the anti-Catholic faction of Russian Orthodoxy. Pray also that a good successor be elected to succeed him.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2008 18:26:22 GMT
To raise the question of Latinisation: I regularly visit the Franciscan/Capuchin Church in Cork which is built in Romano-Byzantine style and dominated by a huge mosaic above the altar of Jesus enthroned as Pantocrator (ruler of the universe). This sort of mosaic is standard, at least in theory for Eastern Rite Churches - the Easterners tend to place more emphasis on Jesus's majesty and transcendence, we place more on His humanity and suffering. If this predominantly Eastern form of devotional art is acceptable in a Latin-rite church, why should the Stations of the Cross be unacceptable in an Eastern-Rite church?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 16, 2008 16:50:20 GMT
Another interesting point. Some years ago I came across an article (written, oddly enough, about 1910 by the horror writer Arthur Machen who was a High Church Anglican) replying to Low Church "anti-ritualists" who objected to the adoption of Catholic practices in Anglican services as un-Biblical. Machen pointed out that ample Biblical warrant for Catholic (and indeed Orthodox though he doesn't mention them) liturgical practices can be found in the Apocalypse of St. John, with its description of the court of heaven in whose dance our earthly liturgies participate. This was a real revelation to me, and I am sorry that it should have been so - because it is so obvious once it is pointed out. Previously I had only thought of the Apocalypse in relation to "signs of the End". Similarly, the many Old Testament descriptions of Temple worship are not superfluous, nor superseded by the righteous condemnations of hypocritical temple worshippers by the Prophets and by Our Lord. Our worship is the successor and fulfilment of the Temple worship and as worthy of careful preparation and beauty as it was. (Indeed, there was a strain of Protestant anti-semitism which denounced Caholics as judaizers on the grounds that we revived the Temple cult, just as - I regret to say it - Catholic anti-semites often denounced Protestants as judaizers on the grounds that like the Pharisees they practiced a religion of the book.) I suspect that much of the liturgical wreckovation in the English-speaking world derives from the unconcscious absorption of Low Church Protestant attitudes (and of the view that because Our Lord sanctified the poor and lowly by His example he should only be celebrated in a poor and lowly manner). I suspect it also has something to do with a reaction against the ceremonial pomp and power of old-style royal courts and the way in which ceremonial underpinned stratified social hierarchies. Discuss?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Dec 17, 2008 15:28:20 GMT
I wonder if the wreckovation was inspired by the modernistic view of aesthetics, which is incredibly elitist.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2008 17:37:27 GMT
Depends which modernist view we are talking about. Some influences would include (1) functionalism, the view that ornament obscures function which should be clearly visible in the architectural forms used - oddly enough Pugin defined Gothic architecture in functionalist terms and denounced classical architecture as inauthentic in precisely the same way that modernists denounce Puginesque Gothic as inauthentic. Part of the problem is that there is genuine disagreement about what the function of a church is - someone who sees a Church as an image of heaven and a place of sacrifice will produce something different from those who see it primarily as a communal meeting-place for ritual meals. (2) A certain form of populism, a belief that colour and ornament are forms of mystification which shut out the audience and that plainness and simplicity are better suited to the plain people - even if the plain people themselves prefer colour and excitement. To some extent this is a projection of one's own tastes onto the world - Le Corbusier seems genuinely to have enjoyed living in rooms built like a monk's cell - he was a great admirer of monastic architecture - and didn't realise than not everyone felt the same way; and his disciples often forget that the colours and materials he used were specifically designed for the bright sun of the Mediterranean and con't automatically suit our colder, wetter, darker climate. To some extent it reflected an egalitarian reaction against the pomp and hierarchical display of pre-1914 Europe (again with some reason; many liturgical practices are founded on court ceremonial, and the romantic monarchist types often found among traditionalists often to confuse the two) though it has been remarked that many architects and planners who praise the simplicity of brutalist architecture as well suited to the lives of the poor generally avoid living in such architecture themselves. (3) I also think there's something bourgeois about this. In a poor country like nineteenth-century Ireland people look for oases of beauty and comfort set aside from the everyday. The comfortable citizens of a wealthy country often have a nostalgic fondness for the simple life, especially if they have not experiencd it at first hand. This helps to explain why Killarney Cathedral in the nineteenth century had such beautiful plasterwork, and why in the late twentieth century Bishop Casey wreckovated it to expose the bare stone.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 20, 2008 1:33:18 GMT
I think there seems to be a general loss of the sense of the sacred, or a tendency to see it in pantheist terms a la John Moriarty. The idea that designating a particular place as sacred and set apart to God is idolatrous appears to have crept in from Protestantism. There's also an issue of practicality. Modern urban populations are very fluid and move around more than peasants, or even the factory workers of the Industrial Age. Think of all the ninetenth-century stone churches built to cater for Catholic ethnic groups and left abandoned when they moved out to the suburbs a few generations later. Mobility is one driving force behind the demand for simplicity.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 31, 2008 11:36:33 GMT
There was a piece on Thomas Merton in the CATHOLIC TIMES a few weeks ago which I meant to post on at the time and forgot abut, and which is relevant to our discussion here. The author (a priest who knew Merton in his last years) praised the later Merton's view of the religious experience as perpetual seeking. He went on as an example of this to praise Annibale Bugnini's simplification of the papal litury on the ground that elaborate ceremonies placed a difference between the Pope and the congregation (he quoted Bugnini's own words on this, and noted that Paul VI's practice showed that he endorsed them) and went on to lament that elaborate ceremonial was creeping back; he opined that such features as rows of candlesticks on an altar shut out the congregation. I think what we have here is close to the heart of the dispute about liturgy. This priest seemed to adopt the view that the search is an end in itself, and that anything which distracts from the search (as he sees it) should be cast aside. Let us grant that some forms of devotion and certain types of liturgical fussiness, can come to be treated as ends in themsleves and beome idols. That said, surely the point of searching is not to wander endlessly but to try to reach our destination; and liturgy which embodies and reflects the glories of Heaven where the same Sacrifice is offered is not a distraction from the Search but intrinsic to it. I think many of the changes do derive from seeing the experience of the search as an end in itself and from hostility to the idea that it should also embody our Destination. The reforms also seem to reflect the idea that litury should be as transparent as possible for the benefit of the uninitiated; but I can think of quite a few early C20 converts who said they were attracted to the Old Rite not because they understood it at first glance but because it conveyed a sense that at its core there was a confident Reality waiting for those wishing to seek and find.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 5, 2009 0:08:48 GMT
I wonder if the wreckovation was inspired by the modernistic view of aesthetics, which is incredibly elitist. I think this is an important point. Someone from one of the societies committed to the preservation of old buildings accused "ignorant and vainglorious parish priests" (I think ignorant and vainglorious may have been a quotation from some older book) of doing all the harm. I can easily believe that between a confused deference to the middle-ranking Church authorities after Vatican II, regardless of how outrageous their demands were, and a naive wish to be "contemporary", many priests collaborated in destroying beautiful churches. Only today I have heard of the altar cards for the Extraordinary Form being found in a second-hand shop in Wexford because a priest had gone into a retirement home. Other members of our congregation are trying to find out where his Altar Missal might have gone, not to mention the Sacred Vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 5, 2009 14:57:07 GMT
Michael,
I think a lot of stuff - vestments, missals, sacred vessells - ended up in skips. And I wonder what motivated the destroying clergy.
Alaisdir.
|
|