What if Liturgical Reform Had Proceeded Differently?
stonespring
Shipmate
What if Liturgical Reform movements of the 20th century had just translated texts into the the contemporary vernacular using formal equivalence without changing the texts themselves? Attempts to be more inclusive, to accommodate diversity in theological opinion or liturgical practice, or to better reflect the modern experience could be through adding additional (perhaps optional) new prayers to the historical ones rather than replacing the historical ones, editing the historical ones, or relegating the historical ones to a rarely-used optional status?
I'm not sure if what I just wrote was clear. What I mean is, if you are applying this in the RCC and have the Tridentine Rite RCC Mass to begin with, translate it into the vernacular and leave it largely alone but, where change is desired, add prayers to it rather than delete, edit, shorten, or replace anything. The new prayers could be optional, but the original historical prayers should not be optional (ie, the Roman Canon would remain the only Eucharistic Prayer for the RCC's Latin Rite).
The rubrics would largely stay the same, too, except of course to make more of whatever was said sotto voce said out loud and to involve the laity more in readings and prayers (without changing the texts of the prayers). Lectionary reform is probably a topic for another thread, but perhaps more readings could have been added or existing readings could have been lengthened without changing the historical readings.
This might have been more difficult to do in denominations where many congregations had been using non-authorized liturgical texts or using authorized ones but straying very widely for the rubrics for a very long time. It also might have been more difficult in denominations that were trying to give control over liturgy to the church body in each country or region, which might require composing new liturgies to reflect different national identities and in particular non-Western cultures. Therefore, this may have been particularly difficult within Anglicanism. If one tried to do it in Anglicanism, I suppose it would have been starting with the authorized prayers in each jurisdiction prior to the reforms of the mid-twentieth century, except perhaps in newly decolonized areas that would have understandably wanted their own liturgies. However, within the Latin Rite of the RCC, I think this might have been a good way to avoid the liturgy wars and the resultant self-segregation into different liturgical camps that happened in the RCC in the West, in particular in the English-speaking world.
I'm not saying that historical texts should not have been changed at all (the problematic Tridentine prayers for the Jewish people in the Good Friday litany should definitely have been changed). And involving women and LGBTQ+ people more in liturgy, church governance, and even holy orders could also have continued apace in those denominations where that occurred. I just don't see why liturgy had to get so wrapped up in the politics of the culture wars, or at least why that had to happen to the extent that it did. I don't think all the battles about liturgy were really about liturgy and were instead proxy battles for larger cultural and political issues, especially in churches where liturgical reform was proceeding much faster than reform on issues of gender, sexuality, etc., so people projected their conflicts in those other areas onto liturgy.
Maybe I'm just naive and this would have been impossible.
I'm not sure if what I just wrote was clear. What I mean is, if you are applying this in the RCC and have the Tridentine Rite RCC Mass to begin with, translate it into the vernacular and leave it largely alone but, where change is desired, add prayers to it rather than delete, edit, shorten, or replace anything. The new prayers could be optional, but the original historical prayers should not be optional (ie, the Roman Canon would remain the only Eucharistic Prayer for the RCC's Latin Rite).
The rubrics would largely stay the same, too, except of course to make more of whatever was said sotto voce said out loud and to involve the laity more in readings and prayers (without changing the texts of the prayers). Lectionary reform is probably a topic for another thread, but perhaps more readings could have been added or existing readings could have been lengthened without changing the historical readings.
This might have been more difficult to do in denominations where many congregations had been using non-authorized liturgical texts or using authorized ones but straying very widely for the rubrics for a very long time. It also might have been more difficult in denominations that were trying to give control over liturgy to the church body in each country or region, which might require composing new liturgies to reflect different national identities and in particular non-Western cultures. Therefore, this may have been particularly difficult within Anglicanism. If one tried to do it in Anglicanism, I suppose it would have been starting with the authorized prayers in each jurisdiction prior to the reforms of the mid-twentieth century, except perhaps in newly decolonized areas that would have understandably wanted their own liturgies. However, within the Latin Rite of the RCC, I think this might have been a good way to avoid the liturgy wars and the resultant self-segregation into different liturgical camps that happened in the RCC in the West, in particular in the English-speaking world.
I'm not saying that historical texts should not have been changed at all (the problematic Tridentine prayers for the Jewish people in the Good Friday litany should definitely have been changed). And involving women and LGBTQ+ people more in liturgy, church governance, and even holy orders could also have continued apace in those denominations where that occurred. I just don't see why liturgy had to get so wrapped up in the politics of the culture wars, or at least why that had to happen to the extent that it did. I don't think all the battles about liturgy were really about liturgy and were instead proxy battles for larger cultural and political issues, especially in churches where liturgical reform was proceeding much faster than reform on issues of gender, sexuality, etc., so people projected their conflicts in those other areas onto liturgy.
Maybe I'm just naive and this would have been impossible.
Comments
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
and
The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
The culture wars (which we in the UK are largely spared) spread across society. Liturgy is just one of the areas they infect. Liturgy has become a weapon in that nastiness, not the cause of it.
Having been adjacent to different factions in the past, I see the difference as being between those who feel that liturgy is a part of our response to the world about us, and those who are more inspired by liturgy as arching over it. They might both be right.
My point in the OP is similar to what you are saying. Clericalism, in my opinion, is more a symptom of the way liturgy is prayed, the involvement in the laity in praying it, and the general ecclesial culture in which it is prayed that is one of the texts of the prayers themselves. I think the best way to address clericalism is to change the way the church is governed, the way clergy are chosen and trained, the missional focus of church activities, and the laity's conception of itself. Although the rubrics of the liturgy (especially with regards to lay involvement) are an important part of such reform, and new prayers probably need to be added to old prayers to address current societal concerns, I am not sure that traditional liturgies (in those communions that use them) need to be textually altered to the degree that they were in the mid-twentieth century in order to achieve these ends, and I worry that a lot of theological and spiritual richness that is not above the head of an active and empowered congregation can be lost in such rapid and wholesale editing of historical liturgical texts. The type of editing that concerns me most, as I have said, is the kind that deletes, shortens, or replaces portions of the liturgy rather than adds to it.
And the unfortunate consequence of the type of liturgical reform that has happened in many communions is the historical liturgical texts themselves, let alone any traditional way of celebrating them, have become politicized and associated with reactionary attitudes to sex and gender and right-wing politics.
Most of what I know about (and it isn't that much) applies to the Latin Rite of the RCC and to Anglicanism in the US (and, although I know less about it, in England), so it could be that the process and effects of the liturgical reform movement in Reformed Churches (as well as in Methodism) were completely different. Are you saying that you don't think united church bodies like the United Church of Canada would have been formed without liturgical reforms in their founding churches in an ecumenical direction? I acknowledge that creating ecumenical liturgies requires ecumenical discussion which can bring churches closer together, and having liturgies in churches that are similar to the liturgies in other churches makes it easier to visit other churches to worship with fellow Christians, which in turn facilitates ecumenical discussion that could result in church union.
Do reformed and Methodist churches have a lot more freedom in how they put a service together and whether or not they use prescribed liturgical formulas than RCs, Orthodox, Anglicans, and many Lutherans (I really don't know about the history of Liturgical Reform in Lutheranism so anyone in the know should contribute to the discussion)? Wouldn't this mean that Liturgical Reform in Reformed and Methodist churches, while certain to generate controversy because there will always be people opposed to all kinds of liturgical change or ecumenism, is a bit easier because those traditions are less liturgically prescriptive? Please correct me if I'm getting this completely wrong.
British Reformed churches, primarily Presbyterians, for various historical reasons rejected set liturgies. In American Presbyterianism, this has meant that rather than liturgies we have Directories for Worship, after the pattern of the Westminster Directory for Worship. Sometimes referred to as “liturgies of only rubrics,” the directories prescribe and proscribe various matters with regard to worship, but with limited exceptions (again, primarily related to the sacraments) do not prescribe specific words, and leave much room for freedom.
American Presbyterianism has long been suspicious of “set forms.” When the first American Book of Common Worship was published around the turn of the 20th Century, it had to be emphasized on the title page that it was “For Voluntary Use.” The 1970 Worshipbook, however, was a turning point, both in entry into the ecumenical Liturgical Movement and in recovery of a Sunday liturgy centered (in theory if not in practice) on the Eucharist as well as the sermon. The 1993 and 2018 editions of The Book of Common Worship have very much continued that trend, and American Presbyterian Worship, at least in the PC(USA), looks very different now from how it would have looked 100 years ago. But there is still a fair amount of freedom.
I’m not sure “easier” is the right word. The issues and pressure points are different, but can be just as contentious. This is especially so in some more conservative corners of American Presbyterianism, where there is still adherence to the regulative principle, making any liturgical reform suspect.
We do follow the basic outline of the Common Mass, and we generally follow the Revised Common Lectionary for our readings.
I think our strength has long been in our congregational singing, where you will find both traditional and contemporary hymns blended together. The ELCA's new Worship Book has a more international flavor to it than previous Hymnals.
Of note, the Lutheran Book of Occasional Rites is very similar to the Occasional Rites of the Roman Church--and I presume the Anglican church. Once when I was a patient in an ICU there was an RC priest that came in to give the rite of anointing and healing for a patient next to me. I repeated the whole liturgy along with him. He noted that and came over to speak with me. I told him I was a Lutheran minister and he smiled.
Seems to me some of the more "non-liturgical" traditions are more rigid in their order of service than liturgical communions. I note a few of them are beginning to print orders of service that are more in line with the common mass as well.
The churches that created them own them and are at liberty to change them if they no longer serve a useful purpose.
If people choose to use them as weapons in their culture war the people to blame for that are those who indulge in such things, not those who have custody of the liturgy. Neither should liturgists be looking over their shoulders to make sure they are not offending this or that special interest group with other extra-liturgical agendas.
Similar to what he describes, the structure of the liturgy commended (but not commanded) in the PC(USA)’s Directory follows the general outline of the Western liturgy/mass, and the flow would be familiar to those from more liturgical traditions—at least it would if the Eucharist is celebrated. That is what our liturgical practice moved to in the mid-20th C.
In my experience, American Methodist worship is less likely to follow that pattern, though that it purely anecdata on my part.
Or to put it another way, the liturgy was made for the people, not the people for the liturgy.
I agree to a point. But if the purpose of the liturgy is to enable authentic worship, and if the language of the liturgy gets in the way of that purpose, then the liturgy is not doing what it is intended to do.
I agree, but antennae need to be trained to detect politically motivated faux-outrage.
I'm not sure that is the position of some defenders of the Prayer Book. Many seem to treat the Book of Common Prayer as if it were handed to Cranmer from above, and its survival through the fires of the 16th and 17th centuries to become the 1662 text proof of its divinity. Touching the text then becomes anything from sacrilege to heresy.
Clergy are people too. Not all liturgists are clerics.
The Liturgical Movement had nothing to do with Canadian Church Union, it was a case of three churches who likes hymn sandwiches got together and didn't fuss to much about minutiae. There was a greater hint of ecumencalism.when the first service books were produced, but a the three uniting churches were close enough already that nothing scared the horses.
The Liturgical Movement did return Holy Communion increased from bare quarterly by law to monthly or better. Eucharistic theology got higher too, Memorialism abated. The Sacrament part got much more emphasis and it showed. It shows in baptism to where greater sacramentalism us present, for instance see the famous French Reformed Baptismal Blessing.
I jest because I have seen blank faces on Prayerbook Society types who huff and puff about the purity and magnificence of the BCP when I tell them that the BCP Order of Holy Communion was not in all likelihood the Order followed by the Early Church.
On the other hand, the problematic assumption by Liturgical Movement people that I question is the notion that our 21st century liturgy must be absolutely based on the order prescribed in the early church. The issue is of course, whatever we deem as the liturgy of the early church is at best an imperfect historical reconstruction. The notion for example, that the four fold pattern of "take, bless, break and distribute" is universal in the early church has been discredited.
Gregory Dix's Shape of the Liturgy was sent from heaven long before 1920. It just took seekers a while to trace the footsteps of the holy grail.
The counter to it seems to me to be non-liturgical and what for want of a better term I’ll call semi-liturgical* traditions. Non-liturgical and semi-liturgical traditions have generally had a corpus of familiar hymnody, but never had parts of the mass or internalized prayers—beyond the Lord’s Prayer, the psalms and maybe a few components of the traditional ordo—to draw from, yet I wouldn’t be willing to say they lacked in spiritual resources to draw from. They just have had a different set of spiritual resources. Perhaps something similar is happening here: a set of spiritual resources that are hard for some of us to recognize, but that are nevertheless quite helpful for some.
Good to see you, btw.
* By “semi-liturgical,” I mean those traditions such as the Reformed or maybe Methodist, where there is no liturgy that must be followed, but where worship is generally conducted according to certain expectations and assumptions, generally follows a structure recognizable as deriving from or consistent with the Western ordo, and often includes components associated with that ordo, such as creeds, responses, liturgical greetings, etc., even if the exact words vary from place to place or Sunday to Sunday. If someone has a better term, I happy to hear it.
Thanks, brother ... Nice to be back ... An anecdote ... In her last year, my late mother in law (may she Rest in Peace) lived and moved and had her being in a "Memory Care" senior living place ... One Sunday, some very pleasant earnest ("Praise Band") young people came in to conduct *worship* for the folks ... Afterward, one of the expressed disappointment that "nobody was singing along" ... Ummmm ... They ... didn't ... know ... the ... songs ...
But yes, even the most (supposedly) non-"liturgical" traditions follow a tradition of an order of worship that is fairly the same Sunday to Sunday ... But the order contains few to none "ordinaries" that are sung by the congregation consistently week by week, year after year -- No "Gloria," or "Proper Preface" or "Sanctus" or "Agnus Dei" ... So the people mostly listen to a happy concert ...
And, yes, even a (supposedly) non-Credal Baptist has a "Creed," a central Article of which is ... "No Creed for us" ...
The claim was that But the resources you describe have never been part of what Christians in non-liturgical traditions have drawn on. The elderly in non-liturgical traditions don’t draw on them now, and for the most part never have.
So either they are lacking in spiritual resources, or they draw on other spiritual resources—possibly resources that those in liturgical traditions don’t take as much advantage of as they could.
My point is most certainly not that the resources inherent in liturgical traditions are not valuable and worth maintaining. I value them highly, even though I’m from what I’ve described as a semi-liturgical tradition. Rather, my point is that the resources provided by liturgical traditions—things like ordinaries that are repeated week after week, year after year—are not inherently superior to other resources, much less the only resources available.
To suggest otherwise poses a real risk of condescension through suggestion that those in liturgical traditions are more spiritual than those in non-liturgical traditions.
Elderly People of Faith of a non-Liturgical Tradition -- as observed above -- have hymns and familiar Bible passages that are deeply embedded in experience and therefore memory ...
But if a visiting "Praise Band" regularly performs *the*newest*latest* praise songs, it goes in one ear and out the other ... If the Bible versions/translations come at us like passing freight trains, it is ever harder for us to internalize The Word ...
Having been now a parish pastor for 45+ years, I have seen a disturbing general trend of church musicians giving performances rather than leading worship ...
Speaking as someone who loves choral evensong I would have to say that there's nothing new there.
There’s an assumption here: if. At least with regard to praise music, my experience is that assumption is sometimes true, sometimes not. I know too many people—and I don’t just mean the musicians in the praise bands—for whom that style of music resonates and for whom many of those songs do work into their memories to discount their experiences simply because it differs from mine.
As for Bible translations, my experience is that most congregations will pick one and stick to it. I’d be surprised if many among my tribe regularly use anything other than the NRSV, and that’s what is used for all liturgical resources.
Having been involved in church music for over 50 years, and being a hymn writer, I agree it’s disturbing and inappropriate. I also agree with @Alan29 that it’s nothing new, and that liturgical traditions have never been immune to it.
In one parish I served Interim, during the "contemporary service" the Apostles Creed had become "God created me, Jesus loves me, the Spirit guides me ..." and in another the Praise Band leader (who was neither a Lutheran nor a member of the congregation) was openly offended when I attended a worship planning meeting ... His hostile words still ring in my ears -- "What are you doing here ... ???"
Cafeteria-style worship (in my experience) means lots of jello and candy ... We N.A. Lutherans for a while had a counter worship movement called "Blended Worship," led by a wonderful teacher, Marva Dawn ... But the movement has lost its steam, sadly ..
Also, Marva Dawn had influence beyond the Lutherans. Many Presbyterian congregations I know, including mine, found and continue to find her approach beneficial.
In my direct experience of a goodly number of ELCA parishes which I served interim, yes here in Metro Minnesota and exurban also, the "contemporary worship" services are generally designed and led by a "Praise Band" ... This is not least of the reasons I now whenever possible go to Mass or the Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy instead ...
I may have overstated the no “praise bands” a little—instruments at the contemporary services are as likely to be acoustic guitar as electric, typically include piano and maybe things like flute, and drums are as likely to be conga drums as drum kits, so not necessarily what I think of as a “praise band.” The contemporary services tend to be the early Sunday morning service.
I’m in NC, fwiw.
The "Praise Band" -- new*songs*every*Sunday -- trend is/was part and parcel of the infamous "Entertainment Evangelism" idea (like hiring faux nun Whoopee Goldberg to jazz up the place) ... The plan was (1) to provide a happy fun showtime that would pull in neophytes and disaffected *formers* ... (2) and then LATER to bring them into more substantial encounters ... Unfortunately, #2 generally didn't/doesn't happen ... The Interim parish I mentioned (above) in which the Praise Band leader was offended when I came to a worship planning meeting had Sunday mornings led by a *Jeff*and*Jill* cheery chatty duo, who concluded Sunday worship by intoning (I'm not making this up), "Enjoy the game ..." .. So much for, "Go in Peace. Serve the Lord ..." ... "Thanks be to God ..."
And that reflects part of the weakness of much of the "Lutheran" way and of virtually all of the Protest Ant sects, i.e., a wild proliferation such that order goes away, replaced by a confusing array of too many choices, like the cereal aisle in the grocery store X 1,000 ... By contrast, a worshiper can go almost anywhere in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox world and take an active part in worship rather than taking in a mini concert ...
Does a conga line take the place of a procession? (I know that there probably is no procession, someone will just walk in from one side or the other and there's nothing all that wrong with that.)
No, but I have seen “Siyahamba” as a recessional.
Likewise. And loved it. It is a joy-filled slice of Africa and I have Africa deep in my being.
But I was once at an induction in the very far north of NZ where the congregation starting singing "This is the Year of Jeremiah/Methuselah/Aquarius/Whoever" and then congo-lined around the church for about ten minutes that felt like eternities in hell, with the (bad) band so loud my piles were rattling, and the two inducting bishops looking on with all the benignity of Queen Victoria having a pap smear.
Seriously, that sounds horrible. Thankfully, I have yet to see a conga line in church.
One of the huge disadvantages of "contemporary" church music is that there hasn't been enough time for the winnowing process to screen out the junk or even the *so*so* ...