I have never experienced Eastern liturgy as an arena for different theological tendencies. Western liturgy offers lots of creative options. Just one example: In a Roman Mass you can (and have to) select one of several Eucharistic Prayers, a lot of hymns (if any \u2013 you can even omit them), write the Prayer of the Faithful completely by yourself, chose from different options for the Opening Rite etc. All these options make it possible to adopt the liturgy to different communities and situations, but: They can also turn into an instrument of power. Those who arrange the liturgy exercise power over those who join the service without knowing what is going to happen. Western liturgical ministers are permanent decision-makers. There is no way to avoid this role, and it needs much theological knowledge and sense of responsibility to fulfill this role in a good manner.<\/p>\n
Eastern liturgical offices are much more regarded as roles in a sacred play. At first sight bishops, priests, deacons, and cantors are very dominant compared to the people. This gives Eastern liturgies a very hierarchical (and male dominated) touch. But all these ministers make almost no decisions at all on single liturgical elements. Even when the cantors chose the melodies for several chants, the texts themselves remain undiscussed. They are given, not chosen.<\/p>\n
Of course, this makes Eastern liturgies somehow inflexible (I learned that in English the word \u201cByzantine\u201d can mean \u201cinflexible\u201d, and it is obvious where this comes from). It takes decades of discussions among theologians and bishops before any minor changes can be adopted. But on the other hand, this inflexibility can be a spiritual value: Liturgy is a treasure that is traded to us by our predecessors and it is meant to be passed to our successors. It is like a flowing river that we get into and out of every now and then, but the river always stays the same.<\/p>\n
Do not misunderstand this as an objection to the liturgical reform by the Second Vatican Council. What I am talking about has to do with the general Western idea of permanent progress and improvement. We can see this much earlier than in the Second Vatican Council: at least since the beginning of the Middle Ages. The impact of this idea of permanent progress on how the Western world dealt and still deals with liturgy is obvious.<\/p>\n
Being an Eastern liturgical minister means nothing else than playing a role in a sacred play. While Western ministers so often exercise power over me as a simple churchgoer, Eastern ministers have never done.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Liturgy as a sacred roleplay in contrast to liturgy as an opportunity to exercise power over others.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":65,"featured_media":40612,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3117,43],"tags":[2343,3213],"class_list":["post-40611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-new-scholarship-new-ws","category-eastern-liturgy","tag-eastern-churches","tag-eastern-liturgy"],"yoast_head":"\n