I am sorry but I just do not buy this as a excuse to continue a latinization. What did people do before such a latinization [Saturday evening Divine Liturgy] entered our Churches?
What did the Latins do before this abuse entered into the life of the Latin church?
These are great questions, because answers to them have the potential to be very illuminating. First, both comments, if I understand them correctly, contain a sense that, if a practice was not needed years ago, then there is no justification for it now. While this idea is essential to an antiquarian’s perspective, and can often color the perspectives of traditionalists; it is not, IMO, a correct one. Chesterton says this:
… the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone, you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.
So, for a (tangential) example, if you want to continue to celebrate Pascha on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, then you must adjust the calendar to correctly mark the time of the vernal equinox; just marking it as Mar 21 Julian, does not conserve the practice of Nicea, it corrupts it.
Another true and even more curious example: during the planning of the Big Dig in Boston, many people expressed the opinion that, since we didn’t need this highway in colonial Boston, why do we need it now?
So, I think it is worthwhile to consider some of the changes that have occurred in the past fifty years that have an impact on whether or not the idea of Saturday vigil liturgies - east or west - has some merit: increased obligation to work on Sunday; increased travel time to church; increased life expectancy accompanied by an increase in time bed-ridden with infirmities; elimination of Sunday evening/night services. I don’t think it takes much thought to realize how these changes in our lives might limit the possibility of attending Sunday morning services. Now I will agree that it would be great if we all were healthy, were immune from work obligations, and lived near to our parishes. But not every one has the luxury of securing all of these desirable situations.
Indeed even fifty years ago not all of these were possible; Latin churches in my (mill) town had masses Sunday night at 5PM and 7PM. At least the vigil mass is on the correct liturgical day.
The question that the church faces is how to act as a good shepherd to the flock that is living today - not thirty or fifty or one hundred or more years ago. A flock that can control its moral responses to the corruption that has been mainstreamed into our society, but is not completely in control of all aspects of their life - where and when they work, or their health. With a little more charity for those who are faced with the problem of how to be a good shepherd in these times, it would be possible to understand that the impetus for much of the change that we have seen is actually the impetus to conserve our Christian heritage against a torrent of change.
I think that they work with their flock in mind - what else, really - and that are doing a admirable job in a though situation. II might not agree with everything that they do, but driving is always much easier in the back seat. And I think that pointing to “Latin mindsets” just misses the mark, in a myriad of ways.
This goes for the new Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as well.
