Eastern Christian Books: Liturgical Dogmatics

Eastern Christian Books: Liturgical Dogmatics

Ignatius Press

But What Is He Doing to Promote Liturgical Aestheticism?

The Church evangelizes and is herself evangelized through the beauty of the Liturgy.Let us ask the grace of a personal and authentic encounter with the living Christ in the liturgical celebration,so that our lives might become a spiritual sacrifice offered to God.#GeneralAudience

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) February 3, 2021

Meanwhile...

DECREE on the Celebration of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus in the General Roman Calendarhttps://t.co/I7z9XMTsz1

— Pontifical Academy Life (@PontAcadLife) February 2, 2021

Receptivity

Crisis: Far from the Spirit of the Lord: On the Pope’s New Motu Proprio by Peter Kwasniewski

What we need to see, and see clearly, is this: the highest dignity of the baptized is to welcome Christ the Lord in Holy Communion. Period. Nothing else they do, no other function or service or activity, can compare to the Marian privilege of receiving God. When we elaborately multiply functions, services, and activities, we introduce distractions, invert priorities, build false hierarchies, and undermine simple faith, devotion, humility, and reverence. The participatio actuosa or actual participation of the faithful in the liturgy is not about doing, but about being, or more precisely, being a good recipient of the Word, so that this Word may be fruitful in us. It is not about busyness with much serving, but about contemplation, the union of love.

There is also the receptivity of the Son, who receives everything from the Father. Marian receptivity is symbolized by her, as a woman, becoming the Theotokos. Marian receptivity on a spiritual level is the receiving of the Divine Life by being a filia in Filio, just as the Son receives everything He is from the Father.

David Fagerberg's Latest

Coming this spring! https://t.co/FjyndtLycD

— Ignatius Press (@IgnatiusPress) January 5, 2021

Interview with Dr. Fagerberg

CWR: “Liturgical mysticism is the crowning of the Christian life” “Mystical” says Dr. David Fagerberg, “is not a character trait that only some people have … Our royal baptismal priesthood is an exercise of liturgical mysticism.”

One Can Do Anything with Allegory

Including preventing any future changes, even those that would seem to be sensible.

An Allegorical Rationale for the Ministers Sitting During the Gloria and Credo https://t.co/X44N7Ve9HV pic.twitter.com/U4YjVViHhA

— NLM (@NLMblog) October 26, 2020

Peter Kwasniewski

David Fagerberg Lecture on September 26

Dr. David Fagerberg of @NotreDame will be joining @LiturgySociety and the Center for Liturgy (@McGrathND) via Zoom on September 26, 2020 for a lecture on his recent book Liturgical Mysticism by @EmmausBooks: https://t.co/D4DQE7UMPR

— Timothy P. O'Malley (@timothypomalley) September 15, 2020

Weigel on Eucharistic Offering (or Sacrifice)

CWR Dispatch: Rediscovering Eucharistic Amazement by George Weigel
If Christ is not the principal actor in the celebration of the Eucharist, then the Mass is a social ritual, the community’s celebration of itself.


This caught my attention at first glance:

How many Catholics understand that we are called to the weekly celebration of the Eucharist so that, in union with Christ the Head of the Body, we might offer ourselves to the Father along with the eucharistic Christ who is offered?

But his reporting of the recent Vatican response on the proper form for Baptism in the Roman rite is of interest too:

The question the Congregation had to answer was whether Baptism is validly conferred by saying “In the name of the father and mother, the godfather and godmother, the family, the friends, and in the name of the community, we baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The answer was “No.” Why? Because the ancient formula, “I baptize you….” expresses the bedrock truth the Second Vatican Council inscribed in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “When anyone baptizes, it is Christ himself who baptizes.” To speak of “we” baptizing is to suggest that the Church invents the sacraments rather than her being created by the sacraments. And that, to cite an image from Father Robert Imbelli, is to decapitate the Body of Christ.

Christ is the principal actor in the sacramental drama of Baptism. Christ acts through the baptizer, to be sure. But it really is Christ who acts. Otherwise, Baptism would be merely a welcoming rite rather than the radical reconfiguration of a person to Christ as a member of his Mystical Body, the Church.

Active Participation

With the public celebration of Mass still limited in many parts of the country, many Catholic have been watching online and asking "what is active participation?" CNA asked two @FrJamesBradley and @PetriOP https://t.co/KJ7QZ6yPNL

— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) August 6, 2020

A Form of Latin Legalism?

We are pleased to offer our readers first English translation of the General Rubrics of the Missal promulgated by Pope Clement VIII, which remained in force until the reign of John XXIII. https://t.co/bIKrCdSLLX

— Canticum Salomonis (@Polignacus) July 17, 2020

Is there a connection between the Latin emphasis on rubrics and their conception of worship and sacrifice?

Music as Liturgy: Models from Ancient Syriac Christianity

Eastern Christian Books: Liturgical Mysticism

Eastern Christian Books: Liturgical Mysticism

Emmaus Academic

Participatio Actuosa

LSN: Catholics have a ‘right’ to good liturgy in accordance with Church’s ‘tradition and discipline’ by Peter Kwasniewski
The Catholic Church teaches that there is such a thing as a 'right to liturgy.'

Catholics have a ‘right’ to good liturgy in accordance with Church’s ‘tradition and discipline’ https://t.co/W5Moz0bQGy

— LifeSite Catholic (@LSNCatholic) May 17, 2020

[T]he generic concern for “active participation” in the liturgy eclipses the centrality of the specific and infinitely greater good of the Eucharistic sacrifice enacted by the priest on behalf of the people. Just as the right to life is unequivocally and primordially located in the right of each baby human to be born, so too the right to liturgy refers most of all to the right to “offer the holy oblation in peace” (as our Byzantine brethren say), to see and to experience the liturgy as the work of Christ in and for His Church, not as my or anyone else’s product.

There is no worship without people worshipping.

In the Catholic world, the “sign of peace,” the proliferation of lay ministers invading the sanctuary and handling the precious gifts, and execrably bad post-Communion songs, conspire to distract us from the miracle that has just occurred and prevent us from praying most fruitfully in union with Our Lord and with all the other members of His Mystical Body.

Maybe some progressives cite those as being examples of active patricipation, but they're not.It's rather a straw man argument.

We are given our natural life in order to acquire supernatural life, and this we are given for the sake of rising up to God in prayer and divine praise.

This is active participation.

[B]eing pro-liturgy does not mean getting as many lay people involved in as many ministries as possible.

Again, this is not what is generally meant by active participation among the proponents of the Latin liturgical movement of the 20th ce. Kwasniewski should be writing better than this.

This article by a Latin traditionalist is slightly better:
Participatio Activa & Participatio Actuosa by Andy Milam

But whether it's of the readings during the readings service or of the singing by the scholar or choir, listening without comprehension is not listening -- it's hearing. Intelligibility is important for both prayer and listening.Conscious activity that is without comprehension of the prayers or texts may be piety or devotion, but it's not participation in the liturgy. Participation dependent upon a lay missal with a translation into the vernacular may be possible for a few, but it probably isn't possible for all, and it won't be possible once the extra resources that enable the printing and purchase of such missals begins to dwindle.

The above essay does cite Msgr. Richard Schuler as an authority on actuosa participatio, as does Fr. Peter Stravinskas in a guest essay for NLM in 2016 (part 2).

Authorities  like Colman E. O’Neill, O.P. equate participation [in the liturgy] with offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving the Sacrament[s]:

(It is) that form of devout involvement in the liturgical action which, in the present conditions of the Church, best promotes the exercise of the common priesthood of the baptized; that is, their power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass with Christ and to receive the sacraments. It is clear that, concretely, this requires that the faithful understand the liturgical ceremonial; that they take part in it by bodily movements, standing, kneeling or sitting as the occasion may demand; that they join vocally in the parts which are intended for them. It also requires that they listen to, and understand, the Liturgy of the Word. It requires, too, that there be moments of silence when the impact of the whole ceremonial may be absorbed and deeply personalized.

While O'Neill does say that the laity should join vocally in the parts which are intended for them (but should they understand to what they are responding, and their own responses), and even concedes that they should understand the Liturgy of the Word, he does identify participation with the exercise of the common priesthood of the baptized, and it would be easy on the basis of that identification alone one could say that comprehension is not at all necessary, as some Latin traditionalists may do. Does one need to understand the texts of the Mass in order to offer it and to receive the Sacraments? Not at all. I think O'Neill's equating of the two is problematic for another reason, that he misunderstands what the common priesthood of the faithful is, as it is dependent upon the dominant Latin opinion of what makes the Eucharist a sacrifice. But more on that in another post.

Nicholas Denysenko on Possible Adaptations in Response to COVID-19

Pray Tell: COVID-19 and Orthodox Liturgical Reform: What’s Possible?

Denysenko gives 4 alternatives to public Divine Liturgies. The first:

Sunday Matins or Typica (in-church)

One way to have a Sunday gathering while maintaining physical distancing guidelines is to celebrate a non-Eucharistic service without exceeding the maximum number of people for a safe gathering. Sunday Matins (Orthros) is already appointed to the regular weekly cycle. Parishes that normally celebrate Vigil on Saturday evenings are familiar with resurrection Matins, as are communities of the Greek and Arabic traditions, who celebrate Matins on Sunday morning before the Divine Liturgy. Sunday Matins features psalmody, hymnography, the eleven “eothina” resurrection Gospel readings, and the Great Doxology (Gloria). The addition of a homily to Matins would create a Sunday service honoring the Lord’s resurrection of about one hour, an appropriate way to praise his resurrection while receiving nourishment from his word until it is safe to return to the received Divine Liturgy.
The Typica service offers a viable alternative to Matins. This service features psalmody and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and allows for the addition of the appointed Epistle and Gospel readings. Many faithful are already familiar with the Typica, as it is often celebrated by the laity or with a deacon presiding when the priest is absent. Matins and the Typica allow for two non-eucharistic Sunday gatherings that honor the requirements of physical distancing.

Having Matins as a substitute for the Divine Liturgy may be appropriate, but could it be done at home?

The first option is for a Typika service without Communion; the second option that Denysenko gives is  for some form of Communion service that can be based on the Typika, with a deacon presiding, but it seems that this would have to be done in a temple. The third option is distributing Holy Communion to the laity so that they may bring it home to share with others. Here Denysenko does not mention the possibility of Holy Communion being taken home with some sort of prayer service, like the Typika to accompany its reception. I would think that this is a possibility.

Either as a form of Communion service or not, the Typika could be done on Sunday. Would the laity have the necessary liturgical resources to be able to do a Typika service on the other days (without Communion) at home? Would that be a good replacement for daily celebration of the Divine Praises? I have heard it said that it is difficult to the Divine Praises at home, as multiple books required. But I read that a version of the Great Horologion is enough for home use.  

Besides Holy Transfiguration Monastery, their Great Horologion is also carried by SVS Press and Saint Nectarios Press.

St. Tikhon's Monastery Press  has their own verison.

Online: The Horologion and Psalter

Then there are alternatives to the Divine Praises that contain some version of the horologion, like Publican's Prayer Book. 

One More on Spiritual Communion

HPR: Epidemic and the Liturgical Reform by Dr. Joseph Shaw

It is not surprising to find that when medieval-style pestilence stalks the streets, the Church has to reach back into the past, before that brief gilded historical moment, for responses. The most obvious example is “spiritual communion”: the practice of uniting oneself in prayer to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, since one is not able to receive sacramentally. Our predecessors in the Faith used to do this at the great majority of the Masses they attended, either formally or informally, since they received Holy Communion only once or a few times a year. When I mentioned the practice as a response to the epidemic in a letter to the UK’s liberal Catholic weekly, The Tablet, the first response of one priest was ridicule. We wouldn’t, he wrote, have a “spiritual collection,” would we?¹

The concern that the faithful receive Holy Communion reverently and fruitfully, and not mechanically is correct. It might even be claimed that a Christian should even consider abstaining from Communion if necessary, because he does not have the right spiritual disposition, or the "minimum" that is needed for Communion to bear fruit. A spiritual father would have more to say in this regard and appropriate advice that has been fitted to an individual.

Praying the Anaphora Out Loud

Vocal Reading of Prayers by John Nichiporuk



Related:

Leonardo Lugaresi on Televised Masses

Sandro Magister: “To Be Or Not To Be.” The Capital Question of Masses on TV

Another Opinion Piece Against Watching Televised or Livestreamed Masses

Rorate Caeli: Tired of Streaming Masses? An Alternative Option for How Families may worship in Spirit and in Truth in this time of Crisis. by Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

Two points:
1. His recommendation is for people to not watched live-streamed Masses but do the following:

I offer here a suggestion as to what a family might be doing on Sunday morning without the Mass being available at this time. Gather the family together. Let a parent begin by reading the Introit of the Day, followed by the Collect of the Mass. Then let one of the children read the Epistle for that day, followed by the Alleluia verse by another child. Then a parent reads the Gospel of the day with all standing. This is followed by a brief silence and then a Family Rosary. And that is Sunday worship for that day, and it is fine and it is good and bestows grace.

I think they should instead start praying the liturgy of the hours, whether in its full form or something adapted from the domestic church, and they can start with Sunday, Vespers on Saturday, Morning Prayer on Sunday, and second Vespers on Sunday. But this may be difficult for many to learn on their own; why haven't parishes been promoting the liturgy of the hours? Well, we know it wasn't a priority for parish life in the so-called "reforms" that happened after Vatican II, though some EF parishes may celebrate them.

2. The author offers a perspective on the Mass that is predominantly Latin in its principles:

The Church has always understood the Mass as a supernatural event in which the priest, and the congregation assisting him, “bring down” the eternal, bring down heaven in some sense, in doing what Jesus asked us to do: in mei memoria. “Therefore with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven….” The precept of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is of course based on the Commandment to worship God. And this worship in spirit and truth is the offering of the Holy Sacrifice that is the source of grace for the forgiveness of sins that makes possible eternal life in God.
...

What does this have to do with streaming Masses? The Mass is a supernatural event that takes place in a particular place and time. The priest and people are not mere observers of the event. They take part in this supernatural event that happens on Sunday in a certain time and place. Their real presence “enables” the supernatural event to take place that brings about the Real Presence.

It has the advantage of being readily intelligible to the average Latin. But it could be elaborated more in a catechetically useful way, with a discussion of the priesthood of the faithful, though "traditionalist" Latins might be loathe to do that.

Rubrics for the Laity in the EF?

NLM: Should the Postures of the Laity at the Traditional Latin Mass Be Regulated, Legislated, or Revised? by Peter Kwasniewski



Kwasniewski takes a laissez-faire position on this question, and that is appropriate, though it may be counter to the mindset of many Latin traditionalists, who will insist upon kneeling as the appropriate posture for certain parts of the Mass, etc.

There is but one further angle to examine: the Problem of Pews. Since nearly every Catholic church in the West is now equipped with pews, usually bolted down for permanence, the topic is far more speculative than what we have discussed heretofore, and deserving of a separate treatment.

The two questions are intertwined so I await for the next part of his discussion. There is also the first ecumenical council's prohibition of kneeling on Sundays, but Latin traditionalists think the patriarchate of Rome is above that. And then there are sentiments like this expressed in comboxes and elsewhere:

I like the fact that the TLM has no rubrics for the laity at all -- including posture. It underscores the fact that the congregation (to be blunt) has absolutely nothing to do with the activity of the Mass. The priest offers the Mass. The server (clerical role) makes the responses. The schola (clerical role) sings the chant. None of this, at least in the missal or rubrics, is appointed for the congregation.

In Agreement with Robert Spaemann

Communio: A Keyhole for Unbelievers? The Public Character of Cultus and the Broadcasting of the Mass on TV by Robert Spaemann

Sandro Magister: The Pope Against Masses on TV: "This Is Not the Church" and For and Against Mass on TV. A Letter from the United Kingdom