There are a lot of good points in here, but also, I think, some serious missteps.
First, it's NEVER a good idea to try to "pit" the East against the West, or vice versa. Each has its own genius and a very different arc of historical development and spiritual emphasis. You can't actually "cross-engineer" a hybrid of their best qualities, because, in fact, some of these qualities are mutually exclusive.
At the same time, we should not underestimate what the traditional Roman Rite and the Byzantine rite have in common, for it is much more profound than what separates them:
Thank you for helping me and clarifying my mistakes.
Yes, that article on active participation that you wrote for New Liturgical Movement clarifies prior paradoxes in my thinking, because contemplation can in fact be actively receptive. Having thought that contemplation was always passive for some reason, I posited that the Latin Rite to be fully lived thus required full engagement with the Divine Office in which one could take a more active role, and that the Roman Rite properly considered is the Mass + the Divine Office and thereby it is only complete in and of itself for you if you do both. However, contemplation as actively receptive fixes such a red herring sidestep in my own thinking.
The best qualities of each rite will still separately lead to the same end of growth in charity, right?
Tim is a supporter of the belief that Vatican II reforms should have led to merely some vernacular usage but the same structure and text, ending up with something, as an optional usage, similar to the Anglican Ordinariate, and that is still his, and to some degree, my, imagination for how things could go.
The major "reform" in practice, but really, return to tradition that should happen that I think we could agree on is more of the faithful joining in the Divine Office in addition to the Mass. Doing so would seem to aid those who might fail of their fault to receive the most grace possible from Mass, by either lack of attention (active receptivity) or of charity of heart.
Apologies for my poor takes on all this. I think I have a few quick sentence level changes that could at least eliminate the most glaring errors and will attempt those.
Regarding the vernacular, I know that Eastern-rite Catholics prize it greatly, but they should be aware that it is actually rather uncommon in the Eastern tradition, and a big emphasis on it is more common in the Western diaspora. Most Orthodox, for example, pray in a language that is pretty remote from their everyday language: the modern Greeks in ancient Koine, the modern Russians in a medieval Church Slavonic, and other examples can be given (see my NLM piece on "Two Brothers and a Stranger," cited in my first comment).
I think we Latin-rite Catholics should think more carefully about the huge benefits of retaining Latin, as I discuss here:
I really enjoyed this essay, thanks for writing! My wife found your Substack after seeing your post on Landertalk.
I'm a 62 year old Lander resident who joined the Catholic church in 2015 from a non-religious new-age background. I vastly prefer the TLM but mostly attend the NO here because of availability. A WCC friend asked if I have attended the Divine Liturgy, and asked why or why not. I said I had but only once. I keep thinking about that. It is so tempting to go, and to not suffer what I see as the Novus Ordo abuses.
I had come to the same DL/Roman Rite analogy you had, but with a slightly different perspective. I also see the DL as like the Libertarian option, but I see the NO/TLM as the Republican option. There is a LOT wrong with the Republican party, but it has the advantage of being a foundational and functioning institution of our current society. The Byzantine rite is not a part of my northern European or American heritage. As pleasant as the DL is, leaving the Roman rite feels like an abandonment.
I think choosing a form of worship is intensely personal. I would not presume unasked to direct someone how to worship, both because of my ignorance of religion and of the nature and needs of other individual people. I am however very opinionated about what I prefer.
I made a list of personal pros and cons about attending the DL here in Lander, some structural, some petty. There is a longer story behind each of these. I also realize some points compare the Divine liturgy to the TLM and some to the Novus Ordo Mass.
Pros of Attending the Divine Liturgy
No guitar or piano Masses.
No suppression of the Mass from church hierarchy.
No graffiti on or disfigurement of form, or caricature of worship.
Reverent.
Beautiful.
Heartfelt.
Genuine.
Transcendent.
Don't have to fight liturgical abuse.
Can simply worship in peace.
Don't have to fight at all - peaceful.
Cons
Too personal - hugging, no shoes.
Too involved, more outward, less inward.
Not my northern European heritage. Same problem I had with Hinduism.
Feels like abandoning of the TLM.
Not as martial - I'm inclined to martial thinking and the DL seems less of a warrior form of worship.
Less masculine than the TLM.
Not as powerful as the TLM.
Not as austere as the TLM, more showy.
More overstated than understated, not as reserved as the TLM.
Not as much silence as the TLM, or the opportunities for silence seem deflected.
What about the music? I confess ignorance of DL music. TLM music is sublime.
I'm not familiar with the DL form and it's awkward to passively watch to familiarize myself.
I'm celiac and low gluten communion is problematic.
Thank you for the comment. I was stepping in waters way to complex for me with this.
The analogy at the end was half a joke, but yes it also seems to subtlety bear out in terms of what type of person attends which rite.
Dr. Kwasniewski (extremely knowledgeable on all of this) suggested not to pit East against West, one against the other. In this the, I agree then with you and him, that God may call us to come to him through the Roman Rite or the Byzantine Rite.
While I attend the Byzantine Rite on occasion, I am too unfamiliar with it to fully appreciate its beauty, and thus have never encountered sufficient reasons to switch over. Trying to enter more deeply into my own Roman tradition seems the best path for me at least, especially with the Divine Office, even as I also admire some more Byzantine/Orthodox practices like the Jesus Prayer.
As a relatively recent convert, and as someone who considers himself an English Catholic, whose main mass is the Ordinariate, even if I most frequently attend the TLM and NO; I find that my mind wonders the most during the NO. It's one of my own personal flaws, but it's certainly made worse in the NO.
Also, the TLM is certainly not 'unactive' in participation; I observe *more* participation there than in the NO masses. The responses are sung more, people actually sing the hymns. The priests are more available to the people. The TLM, which is done by the FSSP, and has masses every day, is effectively the beating of heart of the Catholic community where I live. And there is a great deal of cross over between the cathedral and the TLM church. This may be my own experience, and we certainly have our own issues, but what there is here is very good, and the positive relationship between the Trads and the NO types is probably as close as to the ideal as you can get
I think the differences are cultural. Ever been to a Greek wedding? Nothing wrong with Eastern culture, but westerners will think it strange. If we had the TLM standard in all western churches, there would be little eastern attraction. We would have a home!
As for the Roman Rite, I am nearly through with Michael Davies three volumes on the Liturgical Revolution. The NO was not designed to fix anything, but to sabotage. It was a revolt.
I attend the Novus Ordo because I am three hours away from the TLM. If my wife would move, I would move.
I also recommend Kennedy Hall for intel on the charismatic movement. It’s not good. I was raised evangelical charismatic and I recognize the crazy. Run away.
No, I am not an SSPX guy. I love those guys, but I am not in any camps. I just want the Church to come back out of its eclipse. It’s hard getting people to convert to this mess. Alas, we have no bold leaders or they are all sidelined.
There are a lot of good points in here, but also, I think, some serious missteps.
First, it's NEVER a good idea to try to "pit" the East against the West, or vice versa. Each has its own genius and a very different arc of historical development and spiritual emphasis. You can't actually "cross-engineer" a hybrid of their best qualities, because, in fact, some of these qualities are mutually exclusive.
See: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/06/let-latins-be-latins-and-greeks-greeks.html
At the same time, we should not underestimate what the traditional Roman Rite and the Byzantine rite have in common, for it is much more profound than what separates them:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/06/the-byzantine-liturgy-traditional-latin.html
Lastly, I think it is superficial to speak of the Latin Mass as not encouraging active participation at all levels, as I discuss here:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/12/how-traditional-latin-mass-fosters-more.html
I would like someday to meet up with you and Timothy Dominik in order to have a deep conversation about these points.
Thank you for helping me and clarifying my mistakes.
Yes, that article on active participation that you wrote for New Liturgical Movement clarifies prior paradoxes in my thinking, because contemplation can in fact be actively receptive. Having thought that contemplation was always passive for some reason, I posited that the Latin Rite to be fully lived thus required full engagement with the Divine Office in which one could take a more active role, and that the Roman Rite properly considered is the Mass + the Divine Office and thereby it is only complete in and of itself for you if you do both. However, contemplation as actively receptive fixes such a red herring sidestep in my own thinking.
The best qualities of each rite will still separately lead to the same end of growth in charity, right?
Tim is a supporter of the belief that Vatican II reforms should have led to merely some vernacular usage but the same structure and text, ending up with something, as an optional usage, similar to the Anglican Ordinariate, and that is still his, and to some degree, my, imagination for how things could go.
The major "reform" in practice, but really, return to tradition that should happen that I think we could agree on is more of the faithful joining in the Divine Office in addition to the Mass. Doing so would seem to aid those who might fail of their fault to receive the most grace possible from Mass, by either lack of attention (active receptivity) or of charity of heart.
Apologies for my poor takes on all this. I think I have a few quick sentence level changes that could at least eliminate the most glaring errors and will attempt those.
Thank you, James, these are tricky and complex questions, and your effort here is admirable in its effort to wrestle with them!
I certainly agree about the importance of the Divine Office and agree it is also more active for those who pray it, even privately. See:
https://onepeterfive.com/workers-fighters-prime/
Regarding the vernacular, I know that Eastern-rite Catholics prize it greatly, but they should be aware that it is actually rather uncommon in the Eastern tradition, and a big emphasis on it is more common in the Western diaspora. Most Orthodox, for example, pray in a language that is pretty remote from their everyday language: the modern Greeks in ancient Koine, the modern Russians in a medieval Church Slavonic, and other examples can be given (see my NLM piece on "Two Brothers and a Stranger," cited in my first comment).
I think we Latin-rite Catholics should think more carefully about the huge benefits of retaining Latin, as I discuss here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/06/why-latin-is-right-language-for-roman.html
God bless!
For those who want a deeper dive into why the Tridentine rite is the Roman Rite at full maturity, not in need of further reform:
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622
I really enjoyed this essay, thanks for writing! My wife found your Substack after seeing your post on Landertalk.
I'm a 62 year old Lander resident who joined the Catholic church in 2015 from a non-religious new-age background. I vastly prefer the TLM but mostly attend the NO here because of availability. A WCC friend asked if I have attended the Divine Liturgy, and asked why or why not. I said I had but only once. I keep thinking about that. It is so tempting to go, and to not suffer what I see as the Novus Ordo abuses.
I had come to the same DL/Roman Rite analogy you had, but with a slightly different perspective. I also see the DL as like the Libertarian option, but I see the NO/TLM as the Republican option. There is a LOT wrong with the Republican party, but it has the advantage of being a foundational and functioning institution of our current society. The Byzantine rite is not a part of my northern European or American heritage. As pleasant as the DL is, leaving the Roman rite feels like an abandonment.
I think choosing a form of worship is intensely personal. I would not presume unasked to direct someone how to worship, both because of my ignorance of religion and of the nature and needs of other individual people. I am however very opinionated about what I prefer.
I made a list of personal pros and cons about attending the DL here in Lander, some structural, some petty. There is a longer story behind each of these. I also realize some points compare the Divine liturgy to the TLM and some to the Novus Ordo Mass.
Pros of Attending the Divine Liturgy
No guitar or piano Masses.
No suppression of the Mass from church hierarchy.
No graffiti on or disfigurement of form, or caricature of worship.
Reverent.
Beautiful.
Heartfelt.
Genuine.
Transcendent.
Don't have to fight liturgical abuse.
Can simply worship in peace.
Don't have to fight at all - peaceful.
Cons
Too personal - hugging, no shoes.
Too involved, more outward, less inward.
Not my northern European heritage. Same problem I had with Hinduism.
Feels like abandoning of the TLM.
Not as martial - I'm inclined to martial thinking and the DL seems less of a warrior form of worship.
Less masculine than the TLM.
Not as powerful as the TLM.
Not as austere as the TLM, more showy.
More overstated than understated, not as reserved as the TLM.
Not as much silence as the TLM, or the opportunities for silence seem deflected.
What about the music? I confess ignorance of DL music. TLM music is sublime.
I'm not familiar with the DL form and it's awkward to passively watch to familiarize myself.
I'm celiac and low gluten communion is problematic.
Thank you for the comment. I was stepping in waters way to complex for me with this.
The analogy at the end was half a joke, but yes it also seems to subtlety bear out in terms of what type of person attends which rite.
Dr. Kwasniewski (extremely knowledgeable on all of this) suggested not to pit East against West, one against the other. In this the, I agree then with you and him, that God may call us to come to him through the Roman Rite or the Byzantine Rite.
While I attend the Byzantine Rite on occasion, I am too unfamiliar with it to fully appreciate its beauty, and thus have never encountered sufficient reasons to switch over. Trying to enter more deeply into my own Roman tradition seems the best path for me at least, especially with the Divine Office, even as I also admire some more Byzantine/Orthodox practices like the Jesus Prayer.
As a relatively recent convert, and as someone who considers himself an English Catholic, whose main mass is the Ordinariate, even if I most frequently attend the TLM and NO; I find that my mind wonders the most during the NO. It's one of my own personal flaws, but it's certainly made worse in the NO.
Also, the TLM is certainly not 'unactive' in participation; I observe *more* participation there than in the NO masses. The responses are sung more, people actually sing the hymns. The priests are more available to the people. The TLM, which is done by the FSSP, and has masses every day, is effectively the beating of heart of the Catholic community where I live. And there is a great deal of cross over between the cathedral and the TLM church. This may be my own experience, and we certainly have our own issues, but what there is here is very good, and the positive relationship between the Trads and the NO types is probably as close as to the ideal as you can get
If it’s not in Old Slavonic, it’s not the Byzantine Rite. Please find a ROCOR parish.
I think the differences are cultural. Ever been to a Greek wedding? Nothing wrong with Eastern culture, but westerners will think it strange. If we had the TLM standard in all western churches, there would be little eastern attraction. We would have a home!
As for the Roman Rite, I am nearly through with Michael Davies three volumes on the Liturgical Revolution. The NO was not designed to fix anything, but to sabotage. It was a revolt.
I attend the Novus Ordo because I am three hours away from the TLM. If my wife would move, I would move.
I also recommend Kennedy Hall for intel on the charismatic movement. It’s not good. I was raised evangelical charismatic and I recognize the crazy. Run away.
No, I am not an SSPX guy. I love those guys, but I am not in any camps. I just want the Church to come back out of its eclipse. It’s hard getting people to convert to this mess. Alas, we have no bold leaders or they are all sidelined.