Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Eastern Rites and Orthodox
ROME, AUG. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
With respect to our July 21 comments on attending Mass in Eastern Catholic Churches, a question on file from a reader in New York raised an interesting point.
Our correspondent wrote: "I want to ask a question about Catholics of the Roman rite attending liturgies of the Eastern rites. I've noticed that some committed, serious Catholics regularly attend other rites (Maronite and Melkite, for example) for what it seems to me to be purely aesthetic reasons. I'm sure it's uncharitable for me to be whining about such people, and I'm not totally unsympathetic --we've all attended Masses that, while valid and licit, were not exactly reverent and numinous. But it strikes me as odd to abandon 'your' rite because you like the music and rituals of another. Is there anything 'wrong' with this?"
I would be hesitant to condemn such people, as each person's spiritual journey can take many paths, some temporary and others permanent. Attending another rite for aesthetic reasons might seem superficial, but there is no way of knowing if that is not Providence's way of leading someone toward a deeper understanding of the underlying mystery.
It is also true that experiencing other rites is usually a positive experience. On the one hand it opens up the treasure trove of the universal Church's unity-in-diversity. On the other hand it can also lead to an appreciation of one's own rite when properly celebrated.
I believe this last point is important because there is sometimes a hidden bias against the Roman rite, especially in its ordinary form -- a bias that sees the venerable Eastern rites as being somehow intrinsically more authentic, more reverent, and with a deeper sense of the sacred.
This is most likely the case with aberrations of the Roman rite as mentioned by our reader. It is also probably true that the inherent flexibility of the Roman rite makes it more easily subject to poor-quality celebrations than the relatively unchanging Eastern rites.
When the Roman rite is properly celebrated, however, it can be as spiritual and as reverent as any Eastern rite. It will be briefer, to be sure, and it will also be more sober in its expressions, but then brevity and sobriety have always been characteristics of the Roman liturgy.
I have met many Eastern Catholics who expressed great appreciation for the Roman rite. Some esteem the sense of participation of the faithful, which is less present in some Eastern rites. Others cherish the sublime beauty and variety of the Gregorian chants for the ordinary of the Mass compared to the relative invariability of their tones. Thus aesthetic appreciation can run both ways.
Therefore it is not a case of one being better than the other but of each one being a legitimate and holy effort to offer up a worthy sacrifice to the Lord.
With respect to our July 21 comments on attending Mass in Eastern Catholic Churches, a question on file from a reader in New York raised an interesting point.
Our correspondent wrote: "I want to ask a question about Catholics of the Roman rite attending liturgies of the Eastern rites. I've noticed that some committed, serious Catholics regularly attend other rites (Maronite and Melkite, for example) for what it seems to me to be purely aesthetic reasons. I'm sure it's uncharitable for me to be whining about such people, and I'm not totally unsympathetic --we've all attended Masses that, while valid and licit, were not exactly reverent and numinous. But it strikes me as odd to abandon 'your' rite because you like the music and rituals of another. Is there anything 'wrong' with this?"
I would be hesitant to condemn such people, as each person's spiritual journey can take many paths, some temporary and others permanent. Attending another rite for aesthetic reasons might seem superficial, but there is no way of knowing if that is not Providence's way of leading someone toward a deeper understanding of the underlying mystery.
It is also true that experiencing other rites is usually a positive experience. On the one hand it opens up the treasure trove of the universal Church's unity-in-diversity. On the other hand it can also lead to an appreciation of one's own rite when properly celebrated.
I believe this last point is important because there is sometimes a hidden bias against the Roman rite, especially in its ordinary form -- a bias that sees the venerable Eastern rites as being somehow intrinsically more authentic, more reverent, and with a deeper sense of the sacred.
This is most likely the case with aberrations of the Roman rite as mentioned by our reader. It is also probably true that the inherent flexibility of the Roman rite makes it more easily subject to poor-quality celebrations than the relatively unchanging Eastern rites.
When the Roman rite is properly celebrated, however, it can be as spiritual and as reverent as any Eastern rite. It will be briefer, to be sure, and it will also be more sober in its expressions, but then brevity and sobriety have always been characteristics of the Roman liturgy.
I have met many Eastern Catholics who expressed great appreciation for the Roman rite. Some esteem the sense of participation of the faithful, which is less present in some Eastern rites. Others cherish the sublime beauty and variety of the Gregorian chants for the ordinary of the Mass compared to the relative invariability of their tones. Thus aesthetic appreciation can run both ways.
Therefore it is not a case of one being better than the other but of each one being a legitimate and holy effort to offer up a worthy sacrifice to the Lord.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home