A comment on another post brought up the question of rites in the Church as connected to local custom, or to devotion. Now, the Rites, which are enshrined in history and the earliest evangelization in the Church from the Apostles, are the approved ecclesiastical translations or versions of the Mass, including the Mass of St. John Chrysostom (and influences of St. Basil), which is used by several of the Byzantine communions, such as the Ruthenians and Ukrainians. Now, a Mass, the Liturgy of the Church, is not the same as a devotion. Devotions, such as the rosary or novenas, or individual prayers, have been associated with the Mass, but not part of the Mass. These properly belong before or after the Liturgy.
In the New Mass, which has just been promulgated, a clearer interpretation of the Latin has been given to the public. Hopefully, the thousands of aberrational additions, which occur daily in the world, and I see a few of these in Great Britain, will be cleared away through obedience to the new translation. A community cannot decide what it wants to do here and there. There is a logic and a ritual sense to every part of the Mass.
Of course, as a Latin Mass attender, when I can find one where I am, I prefer the ritual which has been the Mass of the Ages.
I think the confusion is the idea of inculturalization, which many of us feel destroyed not only the solemnity of the Mass, but changed the entire approach to the Mass. Too much culture is not the same as the Rites. What is the difference, one may ask? I think the answer would lie in one's understanding of Tradition. Tradition in the Church is that which has been handed down. The Church, that is the hierarchy, decides what is Tradition and what is not. Being a Catholic means trusting in this Tradition, obeying the limits and enjoying the freedom within that Tradition. Being all things to all men does not mean adding bits and pieces to a set form. That the form may have developed organically does not mean one confuses devotion with ritual.
As noted above, the Byzantine Liturgy is a written form, just as the Tridentine Mass is a written and approved form. I have been to many, many Byzantine Divine Liturgies, as a Byzantine myself, approved by the bishop as I was living in an area for several years which did not have an approved Latin Rite. I attended both the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Divine Liturgies. These were the same except for the language and the chants, as the Mass is the same. A language difference is not a devotional difference. A difference in chant modes is not a devotional difference. The Divine Liturgy is a formula of prayer and worship which has been revealed through the Tradition of the Church, and it is not a local difference added by the laity. And, as one partially from Eastern European background, I can assure one that the Byzantine Liturgy transcends nationalities.
The new Ordinariate Mass, which is in the making, will reflect the Anglo-Catholic heritage of the Church in England, but it will not include devotions, but that which is intrinsic to the Liturgy. One may call this Mass national, but it transcends that definition, as the Ordinariates are found worldwide. The Anglican Usage is also a form which I have attended, and the form is a ritual not devotional. There is a logic which forms ritual.
One of the grave errors following Vatican II has been the disrespect of the Eucharist with too many cultural invasions into the solemnity of the Mass. We all can list our nightmare scenarios.
Now, granted the topic was not such a horror as wild dancing, drums, or various types of feminist processions, but a beautiful prayer. The problem is not the devotion itself, but the change in the Liturgy to suit various groupings. This mindset, that the laity have a right to insert or change the set forms of the Liturgy, is the problem. The New Mass allows us all an opportunity to pull back from these aberrations to a set ritual. Perhaps the insertion of one prayer seems trivial, but the form of the Mass is compromised.
Now, if such permissions are granted locally, I think this begs the question as to whether we have a unified vision of worship or not. I have lived in many countries. I am distressed by the insertion of local customs into the Liturgy. This is one reason why I love the TLM. The Liturgy should be above and beyond my personal preferences for devotions. It should remain objective and not subjective, like the work of sublime revelation and art that it is. One must be able to judge the difference between devotions and parts of the Mass or Divine Liturgy intrinsic to the Sacrifice of Our Lord in the Eucharist.
