Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Latvia & Liturgical Reform
(via Cardinal Rating)
In a recent 'Catholic World Report' interview (extracts from which appear below), Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop of Riga, Latvia, explained how the post-Vatican II changes in the liturgy were implemented in his country without the range of problems which have been encountered in other parts of the Catholic world.
(AD2000, May 2003) By 1972 we had the new Missal in Latvia, but it was not yet translated. We celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, so the people did not notice much change.
So we were already celebrating the liturgy according to the Roman Missal, in Latin. We read the Gospel in Latvian. If the entire Mass had been in Latvian, then maybe we would have faced towards the people. But we used Latin, and we couldn't "talk to them" in Latin, so there was no particular point in turning towards the people.
Consequently we did things in a step-by-step fashion. First we did the Mass in Latin. Then we started to translate the Lectionary. Finally we translated the whole Missal. When we were done with this, we turned towards the people for the Liturgy of the Word.
In the Liturgy of the Word, we are talking to the people, and they are listening to the Word of God. So at that point we should face them. But even today, after we are finished "talking to the people," we turn to the altar to prepare the elements and so forth.
We are not hurrying to turn around the altars. When we build smaller churches, even today, I do not have the altar built out from the wall. This is not a particularly significant matter. The Pope himself turns his back to the people in his own chapel.
The Second Vatican Council does not require facing the people, and I was fully aware of this. According to Vatican II, if it is better to face the people, then the priest should do so; if not, one can celebrate Mass in the old manner.
I think that the criticism [by Western liturgists of Eastern Europe's 'backwardness' in liturgical renewal, e.g., priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the people] is unjustified. These critics see only the outward appearance; they see that the altar has not been turned around. They ignore all the rest of the liturgical reform to focus on this one thing. But liturgical reform touches all of the Mass. There is a very significant difference between the texts of the Tridentine Missal and the texts that are given to us now.
I do not look upon it as an offence to anyone that the priest stands facing the altar to celebrate Mass, even in the Novus Ordo. The Pope knows that we are not in any particular rush to change this. When you make such a change, some people like it and some people don't, so you stir up controversy.
Our liturgical reforms, on the other hand, have been going on for 30 years, and the people do not feel any negative effects from the changes, because of the way they have been introduced and administered. The people are at peace.
Extremes
What happened outside Latvia happened rather quickly. The Council was not to blame, but the liturgical translators were at fault. The Council was not radical, but when the liturgists began formulating changes, all sorts of extremes emerged. They confused people's minds by what they did.
And we can even boast that our slow liturgical reform preserved old traditions that have been lost elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the tabernacle in the centre of the altar, with the Eucharist as the centre of the church rather than somewhere off to the side, and the confessionals.
I myself have seen (I will not say in what country) the tabernacle on the floor - in a corner on the floor. That is no way to honour Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I have seen an altar that has been erected from left-over logs: big split logs, placed cross-wise; and across these planks they put a tablecloth to cover it. And this was not in a mission territory, but in a traditionally Catholic country! So the fact that the Eucharist is still in the centre is the primary thing which we have preserved.
The other important thing that we preserved is the confessional. We have not taken them out of the churches, and therefore we have not shortened the lines of penitents. The confessionals are a sort of visible advertisement. The people are already in lines, and so someone who is fearful of going to confession will look at the lines and see that they are very long, and that makes it easier for him to get in line. No one whose faith is shaky will go by himself, and ask individually to see a priest for confession; instead, he will not go to confession at all.
Of course there is another big problem: that in many countries people have the idea that confession is no longer necessary. The result is that today, in many places, few people go to confess their sins, but they all go to Communion. I look on this as the biggest mistake that "reformers" have made. When they lifted the people onto their feet it was apparent to me that it would take two generations to get them back on their knees. And to get them to go to confess their sins, to make their individual confessions, after they have tossed that practice aside - I doubt that can be done.
But with us, individual confession has remained the norm. We have never given general absolution - that is to say, absolution for the whole congregation. That practice is for extreme circumstances, and with the obligation for individual confession later. It is better to go straight to the individual confession. If the people are already accustomed to that practice, then it is better to keep it. We look upon that as a matter in which Westerners can learn something from us.
In a recent 'Catholic World Report' interview (extracts from which appear below), Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop of Riga, Latvia, explained how the post-Vatican II changes in the liturgy were implemented in his country without the range of problems which have been encountered in other parts of the Catholic world.
(AD2000, May 2003) By 1972 we had the new Missal in Latvia, but it was not yet translated. We celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, so the people did not notice much change.
So we were already celebrating the liturgy according to the Roman Missal, in Latin. We read the Gospel in Latvian. If the entire Mass had been in Latvian, then maybe we would have faced towards the people. But we used Latin, and we couldn't "talk to them" in Latin, so there was no particular point in turning towards the people.
Consequently we did things in a step-by-step fashion. First we did the Mass in Latin. Then we started to translate the Lectionary. Finally we translated the whole Missal. When we were done with this, we turned towards the people for the Liturgy of the Word.
In the Liturgy of the Word, we are talking to the people, and they are listening to the Word of God. So at that point we should face them. But even today, after we are finished "talking to the people," we turn to the altar to prepare the elements and so forth.
We are not hurrying to turn around the altars. When we build smaller churches, even today, I do not have the altar built out from the wall. This is not a particularly significant matter. The Pope himself turns his back to the people in his own chapel.
The Second Vatican Council does not require facing the people, and I was fully aware of this. According to Vatican II, if it is better to face the people, then the priest should do so; if not, one can celebrate Mass in the old manner.
I think that the criticism [by Western liturgists of Eastern Europe's 'backwardness' in liturgical renewal, e.g., priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the people] is unjustified. These critics see only the outward appearance; they see that the altar has not been turned around. They ignore all the rest of the liturgical reform to focus on this one thing. But liturgical reform touches all of the Mass. There is a very significant difference between the texts of the Tridentine Missal and the texts that are given to us now.
I do not look upon it as an offence to anyone that the priest stands facing the altar to celebrate Mass, even in the Novus Ordo. The Pope knows that we are not in any particular rush to change this. When you make such a change, some people like it and some people don't, so you stir up controversy.
Our liturgical reforms, on the other hand, have been going on for 30 years, and the people do not feel any negative effects from the changes, because of the way they have been introduced and administered. The people are at peace.
Extremes
What happened outside Latvia happened rather quickly. The Council was not to blame, but the liturgical translators were at fault. The Council was not radical, but when the liturgists began formulating changes, all sorts of extremes emerged. They confused people's minds by what they did.
And we can even boast that our slow liturgical reform preserved old traditions that have been lost elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the tabernacle in the centre of the altar, with the Eucharist as the centre of the church rather than somewhere off to the side, and the confessionals.
I myself have seen (I will not say in what country) the tabernacle on the floor - in a corner on the floor. That is no way to honour Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I have seen an altar that has been erected from left-over logs: big split logs, placed cross-wise; and across these planks they put a tablecloth to cover it. And this was not in a mission territory, but in a traditionally Catholic country! So the fact that the Eucharist is still in the centre is the primary thing which we have preserved.
The other important thing that we preserved is the confessional. We have not taken them out of the churches, and therefore we have not shortened the lines of penitents. The confessionals are a sort of visible advertisement. The people are already in lines, and so someone who is fearful of going to confession will look at the lines and see that they are very long, and that makes it easier for him to get in line. No one whose faith is shaky will go by himself, and ask individually to see a priest for confession; instead, he will not go to confession at all.
Of course there is another big problem: that in many countries people have the idea that confession is no longer necessary. The result is that today, in many places, few people go to confess their sins, but they all go to Communion. I look on this as the biggest mistake that "reformers" have made. When they lifted the people onto their feet it was apparent to me that it would take two generations to get them back on their knees. And to get them to go to confess their sins, to make their individual confessions, after they have tossed that practice aside - I doubt that can be done.
But with us, individual confession has remained the norm. We have never given general absolution - that is to say, absolution for the whole congregation. That practice is for extreme circumstances, and with the obligation for individual confession later. It is better to go straight to the individual confession. If the people are already accustomed to that practice, then it is better to keep it. We look upon that as a matter in which Westerners can learn something from us.
Labels: Confession, Eucharist, Holy Father, Latin, Liturgy, News, Novus Ordo, Roman Missal, Second Vatican Council, Traditionalism, Viewpoints
Comments:
<< Home
Let me start w tis, "I do enjoy Latin Mass and thinx Latin. I also like and love the Mass and many of the liturgies in our beloved but also old and large and faraway and behemothic Mother Church."
Now also allow me to further add; Let's not REGRESS in the matters pertaining to an already "uninteresting" liturgy, manners of the RC Ch. With VC2 in the '60s and '70s, the RC Ch has finally come to terms with a very changed world tat's was also racing fwd in changes; sociologically and personal attitudes. If it were not for VC2, I, and many others, may not be attracted to tis archaic church. The RC Ch wld remained very much like the Avery-Dulles model tat aptly describes the pre-VC2 RC Ch - a very Pharisaic church almost devoid of life, full of to do and not to do and the order of the day is not the deep and rich spirituality of great minds, doctors and many of the church (such as Ss Theresas', Johns and including the likes of Simone Weil, John Wesley, Teilhard Chardin etc....) and personal relationship with Jesus (and Mary and the Saints and Angels etc...) but plenty of emphasis on this to do and that to complete and.... the list goes on - so like the very religious pple during Jesus' time, the very same religious that crucified the infinite embodiment of love and compassion.
If the pope want Mass in Latin, why not try it in Greek or Aramaic, too. Just like the original one. I personally find the Tridentine Mass to be a corruption and over embelishment of the pure, simple original Mass. Reminds me very much of the Israelites in the OT when King Darius allowed them to return to their homeland after many years in exile.
-Wang-
Do u dare to publish my views?
Now also allow me to further add; Let's not REGRESS in the matters pertaining to an already "uninteresting" liturgy, manners of the RC Ch. With VC2 in the '60s and '70s, the RC Ch has finally come to terms with a very changed world tat's was also racing fwd in changes; sociologically and personal attitudes. If it were not for VC2, I, and many others, may not be attracted to tis archaic church. The RC Ch wld remained very much like the Avery-Dulles model tat aptly describes the pre-VC2 RC Ch - a very Pharisaic church almost devoid of life, full of to do and not to do and the order of the day is not the deep and rich spirituality of great minds, doctors and many of the church (such as Ss Theresas', Johns and including the likes of Simone Weil, John Wesley, Teilhard Chardin etc....) and personal relationship with Jesus (and Mary and the Saints and Angels etc...) but plenty of emphasis on this to do and that to complete and.... the list goes on - so like the very religious pple during Jesus' time, the very same religious that crucified the infinite embodiment of love and compassion.
If the pope want Mass in Latin, why not try it in Greek or Aramaic, too. Just like the original one. I personally find the Tridentine Mass to be a corruption and over embelishment of the pure, simple original Mass. Reminds me very much of the Israelites in the OT when King Darius allowed them to return to their homeland after many years in exile.
-Wang-
Do u dare to publish my views?
# posted by 
: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:35:00 AM
: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:35:00 AM
PLEASE SEE: http://deo-juvante.blogspot.com/2007/05/pre-conciliar-church-dull.html
Original Mass? Then perhaps, we should also attend Mass reclined along L-shaped altars.
The Canon of St. Vincent Lerin. In his Commonitorium, St. Vincent discerns what is pure from what is corrupt, to distinguish truth from plain opinion, to determine orthodoxy from faulty. "We must hold what has been held always, every-where and by all; this is truly and properly Catholic... this can be obtained if we follow universality, antiquity, consent."
I'm going to present a very real problem today in the Church...
... maybe the pre-concilar church was to strict on "this to do and that to complete", but it was becasue of this that the throngs of people believed in the Real Presence(RP). They had both outward and inward respect and devotion to Jesus most present in the Holy Eucharist. Look at what is going on today... belief in the RP has diminished, many no longer acknowledge the presence of the Altar or Tabernacle, receive communion without prior confession (I presume this based on the shortened confessional lines), etc... Lack of "this to do and that to complete" has also led to priests saying Masses that are irreverent at all; one hand consecrations, "ah.. take this a... [looks round] all of you and t'eat it. This is myyyyy body [nods head] that is given up for you [waves host]", hosts being kept in unworthy vessels, etc...
I cry and my heart breaks to see our Lord being treated without reverence.
Bl. Pope Pius IX, AMANTISSIMI REDEMPTORIS, "Nothing is greater or holier than the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, in which the body and blood of Christ are offered to God for the salvation of all. Holy Mother the Church has always been careful and diligent in order that the Mass be celebrated by priests with clean and pure hearts. It should be celebrated with the proper splendor of sacred ceremonies and rites so that the greatness of this mystery will shine forth all the more even from external appearances. This will also arouse the faithful to the contemplation of divine things hidden in such an admirable and venerable sacrifice. And with like solicitude and devotion, the same most holy Mother has never ceased to urge, exhort, and influence her faithful sons to frequently attend this divine sacrifice with due piety, veneration and devotion. She teaches that they must at all cost be present at it on all holy days of obligation, with their minds and eyes religiously intent on that from which the divine mercy and an abundance of all good things might be acquired."
Original Mass? Then perhaps, we should also attend Mass reclined along L-shaped altars.
The Canon of St. Vincent Lerin. In his Commonitorium, St. Vincent discerns what is pure from what is corrupt, to distinguish truth from plain opinion, to determine orthodoxy from faulty. "We must hold what has been held always, every-where and by all; this is truly and properly Catholic... this can be obtained if we follow universality, antiquity, consent."
I'm going to present a very real problem today in the Church...
... maybe the pre-concilar church was to strict on "this to do and that to complete", but it was becasue of this that the throngs of people believed in the Real Presence(RP). They had both outward and inward respect and devotion to Jesus most present in the Holy Eucharist. Look at what is going on today... belief in the RP has diminished, many no longer acknowledge the presence of the Altar or Tabernacle, receive communion without prior confession (I presume this based on the shortened confessional lines), etc... Lack of "this to do and that to complete" has also led to priests saying Masses that are irreverent at all; one hand consecrations, "ah.. take this a... [looks round] all of you and t'eat it. This is myyyyy body [nods head] that is given up for you [waves host]", hosts being kept in unworthy vessels, etc...
I cry and my heart breaks to see our Lord being treated without reverence.
Bl. Pope Pius IX, AMANTISSIMI REDEMPTORIS, "Nothing is greater or holier than the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, in which the body and blood of Christ are offered to God for the salvation of all. Holy Mother the Church has always been careful and diligent in order that the Mass be celebrated by priests with clean and pure hearts. It should be celebrated with the proper splendor of sacred ceremonies and rites so that the greatness of this mystery will shine forth all the more even from external appearances. This will also arouse the faithful to the contemplation of divine things hidden in such an admirable and venerable sacrifice. And with like solicitude and devotion, the same most holy Mother has never ceased to urge, exhort, and influence her faithful sons to frequently attend this divine sacrifice with due piety, veneration and devotion. She teaches that they must at all cost be present at it on all holy days of obligation, with their minds and eyes religiously intent on that from which the divine mercy and an abundance of all good things might be acquired."
We can change anything and possibly everything, save for the respect and reverence due to our great God and King, Jesus Christ, most present in the Holy Eucharist.
Yes, I agree that we give full reverence and adoratn to God n Holy Host. RP in Tabernacle for sure. But to use old and outdated exhortations of holy men of the past to rule and regulate today's pple to follow their mannerism of reverence and respect of RP.... won't work for most! Furthermore, if we were to adopt the manners of pre-VC2 today, it won't improve the situatn of reverence to the RP. Look at society today, there is a real sociological shift in the societal behaviour - no more unquestioning subordination. Obedience is withering in watever culture/society. Man learns to exert his personal identity and space. Traits of existentialism pervades. Can't use old skins for new wine. At the end of the day, each man is given an inalienable right to free choice as to how he behaves towards anything including RP. Also, we must recognise that a person who show little piety to RP but is truly compassionate to his fellow man and to himself can be a much holier person than another who is so pious and observes rituals to the last letter. Piety is not holiness. When these 2 clash, piety always wins in this earthly world but not necessarily in the next.
Another point, if we were to hold dear St Vincent Canon to be unchageable for all time eternity (just like in the papal councils which ordered all their declarations to be true and forever) then the RC Ch stagnates. Btw, if one really look into tis truth and catholicity concepts of St Vincent Lerin, it does not necessarily mean tat it has to be a widely practised matter/belief. And wat he held as pure and true was useful for his time - not unlike the moral theology of St Augustine. wont go too deeply into tis or will hv to write volumes.
I dare say, if VC2 had not occurred, more will leave and doubt the RC Ch. It's a freedom of choice. And to leave the RC Ch and then move fwd to embrace another Ch or faith with deeper vigour and conscience may not be a bad thing. I've seen lousy RCs leaving their faith and becoming fantastic humans as Protestants and Buddhist, living more Christ-like lives! Ok back to if there is no-VC2, There'll be even less attendance in RC Ch. Dear old Mother will lose it relevance and will not relate adequately w the majority of the ppl in today's world, thought, attitudes and demands. Our Protestant brothers will far more attractive and alluring and let's remember and respect that the Holy Spirit is very much present in them and also achieving very very much thru them and with them.
Thanx, DJ.
Pax vobiscum!
Post a Comment
Another point, if we were to hold dear St Vincent Canon to be unchageable for all time eternity (just like in the papal councils which ordered all their declarations to be true and forever) then the RC Ch stagnates. Btw, if one really look into tis truth and catholicity concepts of St Vincent Lerin, it does not necessarily mean tat it has to be a widely practised matter/belief. And wat he held as pure and true was useful for his time - not unlike the moral theology of St Augustine. wont go too deeply into tis or will hv to write volumes.
I dare say, if VC2 had not occurred, more will leave and doubt the RC Ch. It's a freedom of choice. And to leave the RC Ch and then move fwd to embrace another Ch or faith with deeper vigour and conscience may not be a bad thing. I've seen lousy RCs leaving their faith and becoming fantastic humans as Protestants and Buddhist, living more Christ-like lives! Ok back to if there is no-VC2, There'll be even less attendance in RC Ch. Dear old Mother will lose it relevance and will not relate adequately w the majority of the ppl in today's world, thought, attitudes and demands. Our Protestant brothers will far more attractive and alluring and let's remember and respect that the Holy Spirit is very much present in them and also achieving very very much thru them and with them.
Thanx, DJ.
Pax vobiscum!
# posted by : Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:30:00 AM
: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:30:00 AMSubscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
