Thanks for the ping.
As an Orthodox Christian, I of course think that maintaining texts of liturgical services in an unbroken tradition is vital. The N.O. masses radically broke that tradition. It is not that liturgical services can't change -- they most obviously can, do, and must. Our "fossilized" services have undergone many small changes around the periphery -- particularly additions.
But genuine changes happen so slowly as to be perceptible only by looking back across centuries. The N.O. was a radical break in the actual texts -- the only place such a thing had happened before in Christendom was during the Protestant Reformation.
As an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that liturgy must be in a liturgical dialect close enough to the vernacular that it can be a natural language of prayer with minimal effort. To me, the Latin mass falls flat on its face on those grounds. Native Italian or Spanish-speakers, maybe. Irish, Germans, Americans.... Chinese?
This sets up a real class-system, in terms of who can really learn, memorize, and digest the services. There have been times when liturgical languages with no relation to the native languages have been imposed in the Orthodox world: Greek imposed for a time in Arabic-speaking countries and in Bulgaria under the Ottomans, Slavonic being standard-issue in Romania for a time. It didn't have good spiritual effects.
Reading a libretto and becoming familiar with a foreign language just isn't the same. This move to the vernacular was something very positive about Vat II for Catholics. I can only regret that for some reason that English tranlations use a very tin-eared version of the language, and seemingly deliberately mistranslated certain things.
As an Orthodox Christian, not only the words must be part of an unbroken tradition, but also liturgical action (e.g. is the priest facing the same direction that Christian priests faced for 2 millenia?), vestments, iconography, chant traditions, architecture... must be part of an unbroken tradition. Again, what I see in N.O. parishes on these scores is sorely lacking. There were radical changes and breaks after Vatican II that really had no precedent.
What is interesting is that in the attempt to make the Mass more "accessible," it seems to have actually been made more complex -- so many choices, so many options, so many variations on liturgical action at the discretion of the priest. There should be one core text of the Liturgy, with the only variations being the propers of the feasts and seasons.
Anyway, those are my observations from the outside. I think that from what I have read of B16's writings, he would favor a traditionally served mass in good vernacular, with a text based on that of the Tridentine, but reformed according to the lights of Vatican II. His writings certainly indicate that he would dearly love to turn around and face the right direction when serving... But he of course understands that one radical upheaval in a generation is probably one too many, and adding another wouldn't necessarily be good. I suspect he will little by little lead by example.
Though a "close" liturgical language has generally been the case within the patriarchate of Constantinople, it hasn't always been the case in the other ones. Coptic doesn't really have any close living relatives; Alexandria still uses it, and I seem to remember the Ethiopians still use it as well in addition to Ge'ez. The Chaldean and Malabar Churches still use Syriac, which is not at all related to the vernaculars in those areas. Also, the Italo-Albanians use Greek, so there's even some precedence in Byzantine areas.
I hear what you're saying though--it's nice to have a liturgical language form where people aren't Latin/Greek speaking: Slavonic, Malayam, Ge'ez. But for whatever reason, it hasn't *generally* been the case in the Latin church until recently, although I should point out that for 300 years, Masses at the Indian missions in North America were in Latin and in "Indian". Liturgical forms of Huron, Mohawk, Algonquin and other languages were just starting to coalesce in the 1800s; unfortunately the subsequent liturgical mess broke that wonderful tradition.
And I'm in total accord with your sentiments on B16 and implementing true liturgical reform.
*Argueable. As a Cardinal, Ratzinger had this to say
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.
IMO, there wasn't a radical break.
Also, the great Liturgical historian (whom Pope Benedict praises highly), Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ, noted It is not the fact of antiquity that makes liturgical customs valuable, but their fulness of content and their expressive value. Even newer ceremonies, like the priest's blessing at the end of Mass, can possess a great beauty.
As an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that liturgy must be in a liturgical dialect close enough to the vernacular that it can be a natural language of prayer with minimal effort. To me, the Latin mass falls flat on its face on those grounds. Native Italian or Spanish-speakers, maybe. Irish, Germans, Americans.... Chinese?
*Agreed. That is also my personal opinion.
This sets up a real class-system, in terms of who can really learn, memorize, and digest the services. There have been times when liturgical languages with no relation to the native languages have been imposed in the Orthodox world: Greek imposed for a time in Arabic-speaking countries and in Bulgaria under the Ottomans, Slavonic being standard-issue in Romania for a time. It didn't have good spiritual effects.
*Agreed. That is one reason I posted the directions of the 17th Century S.C. which, note, followed Trent and Quo Primum, the "proof text" so many of my brethren cite to "prove" the Pauline Rite and a vernacular Liturgy is anathema to God.
Reading a libretto and becoming familiar with a foreign language just isn't the same. This move to the vernacular was something very positive about Vat II for Catholics. I can only regret that for some reason that English tranlations use a very tin-eared version of the language, and seemingly deliberately mistranslated certain things.
* I'll admit it was a big change for me, at first. Now, I can feel comfort in either the Indult or the Pauline Rite but the many converts I know prefer the vernacular. IMO, so do the vast majority of my fellow pew denizens
As an Orthodox Christian, not only the words must be part of an unbroken tradition, but also liturgical action (e.g. is the priest facing the same direction that Christian priests faced for 2 millenia?), vestments, iconography, chant traditions, architecture... must be part of an unbroken tradition. Again, what I see in N.O. parishes on these scores is sorely lacking. There were radical changes and breaks after Vatican II that really had no precedent.
*Amen, brother. Amen that is except for a few things. Jungmann, In one case, in fact, we are told of a direct interference by a German ruler in the shaping of the liturgy of Rome; when Henry II came to the Eternal City for his imperial coronation in 1014, he asked as a favor that at Rome also the Credo be sung at Mass as long was the case in the North.
What is interesting is that in the attempt to make the Mass more "accessible," it seems to have actually been made more complex -- so many choices, so many options, so many variations on liturgical action at the discretion of the priest. There should be one core text of the Liturgy, with the only variations being the propers of the feasts and seasons.
* I am semi-serious when I say liturgical regulations should be reduced in size so as to fit on an index card but that assumes Seminary training in authentic liturgy in a Diocese with an orthodox Bishop who really does Teach, Rule, and Sanctify. (It also assumes a Missal/Missals aproved by Rome) IMO, the Bishop should have near plenipotentiary power when it comes to the Liturgy but I know that is an opinion both private and isolated.
Anyway, those are my observations from the outside. I think that from what I have read of B16's writings, he would favor a traditionally served mass in good vernacular, with a text based on that of the Tridentine, but reformed according to the lights of Vatican II. His writings certainly indicate that he would dearly love to turn around and face the right direction when serving... But he of course understands that one radical upheaval in a generation is probably one too many, and adding another wouldn't necessarily be good. I suspect he will little by little lead by example.
*Agreed. Thanks for the response. You and Mr. K are treasures.