Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means. Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else. Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church. Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope. Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites. Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.
Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.
The new Liturgy IS forced on everyone. The Missal of 1962 (aka, Tridentine Mass) is only allowed by epsicopal indult per the norms of the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei.

The only way the Missal of 1962 is usually only allowed in a diocese if there is a SSPX mission in that same diocese or near it. And if it is allowed, the Bishop places it in a small parish in the middle of nowhere: that's how it is in my archdiocese, Vancouver. It's in a hard to get to place, in the smallest church that I know of in the diocese.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
you can probably count on your hands the number of Psaltis in the "new territories" and "diaspora" who can actually read it.
I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation.  In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well. 

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue.  Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation.  http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.html 
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
greekischristian said:
But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.
Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.

I have no experience with Greek liturgies, and I have experience with only one Antiochian parish, which, being mostly converts, uses a mixture of Byzantine and Russian music. Frankly, the Byzantine stuff sounds like space noise to me, since it is preharmonic. Everyone else? I've sung for over a dozen weddings where I came as part of a hired choir. Slavic churches seem to take for granted that there will be a choir.

And the alternative to having a choir is not having a cantor; it is having the congregation sing all the responses, or having no singing at all. A cantor is a choir of one.

LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.
But that begs the question, doesn't it? Because if heterodoxy is the problem, then the Tikhonian solution of modifying the text to make it theologically acceptable is sufficient.
 

t0m_dR

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pedro said:
First, here is an article from the Greek Archdiocese of Denver; thankfully (lest we be accused of Greek-bashing again), not all Greek bishops are so tied to rite that they forget about episcopal intercommunion.
It is not "Greek-bashing". It is "Heresy-bashing"...Either the views derived from a Greek or from a Russian or an American, it doesn't really make a difference for a (real) Orthodox
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Keble said:
Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.
I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
ozgeorge said:
I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?
I wouldn't say that it hasn't been elaborated; it simply hasn't been elaborated to the same degree.

As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Keble said:
As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.
I think you missed my meaning.
My question is:
"Why is the Host used in the Western Rite Orthodox Eucharist made to resemble a Roman Catholic Communion wafer?"ÂÂ
Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Ozgeorge,

The pre-schism West used unleavened bread, at least form the 4th century.  However, while flat the Western Rite Host does not look really like a Latin Catholic Host in my experience.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?
The host being flattened and rounded is the more primitive tradition -- look at the prosphora used by the Coptic or Syrian rites. The pre-schism Western rites used a host of this sort as well. The thick cube used by the Byzantine rite is the odd one out.

It would make no sense for the Western rite to use a Byzantine-style cube, as there is no elaborate prothesis rite in which it is cut out. It would also make an extreme mess at the elevations, as the host itself is being lifted up, and crumbs would go everywhere.
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
I've not seen an Orthodox western rite eucharist, so maybe there's some failure of communication here. I'm simply going by contemporaneous Anglican practice. But again, to echo the form issue: what rules exist are extremely minimal. Leavening, shape, even the grain involved do not matter for Anglicans; the only rules for Roman Catholics are (a) wheat and (b) unleavened. I've seen matzo used, and it's perfectly legitimate. It's preferred to have something that doesn't crumb too easily but (if wafers aren't used) is easily broken up for distribution.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
Silouan said:
I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation. In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well.ÂÂ

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue. Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation. http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.htmlÂÂ
You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"! ::)

What are the "new territorties" vs the "diaspora"?

 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Elisha said:
You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"! ::)
To be exact, western notation is not an exact copy of Byzantine. The music/chant cannot be completely rendered faithful to that intended. That said, western IS better than NO notation and the loss of the total art.

What are the "new territorties" vs the "diaspora"?
"New territories" are the bishropics in Greece which have been under the EP for centuries, if not always. ozgeorge gave a good explanation as to how these are now administered for the EP by the Church of Greece (thank those wonderful Turks).
"Diaspora" - outside lands under no prior authority, I believe.
 

Pedro

Archon
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Greenville, SC
Let me say that I've enjoyed this thread.  GiC, I want to commend you for bringing up the contrast between living tradition vs. "reconstructed" tradition; it's about the only point folks have made that could stand against the current western rite experiment.  It's still apparent to me, though, that this is a legitimate move on behalf of Antioch and ROCOR.  My comments below will attempt to explain why.

greekischristian said:
Pedro,
How outlandish of me to refer to the Instructions that my former Metropolitan, of Most Blessed Memory, gave on the matter. Heaven forbid I would have sought the advoce of my Bishop.
Yes, yes, you even reply as he did to the Rev. Paul Schneider, Vicar of the Western Rite.  Allusion noted.  ;)

We are in a difficult pastoral posistion of having to deal with Priests and Parishes who, while under the Great and Ancient Patriarchate of Anitoch, have divorced themselves from the Tradition of the said patriarchate.
Divorced?  Hardly, as Antioch has allowed them to do this.  It's not as if they came in, then went western rite!

Thus, the decrees of the Metropolitan directed HIS Priests not to involve themselves in this radical departure from the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Churches
Again, departure?  Divorce?  First, this is not an originally Eastern-Rite (ER) parish network that decided to strip down the ER so they could be something else.  They are western in character.  Secondly, I can completely understand his saying, "no concelebration with them," as you'd have to be bi-ritually ordained by your bishop to concelebrate; I don't know of anyone who's ever been qualified to do that since Ss. Cyril and Methodius (maybe St. John Maximovitch?).  But to say "no contact with them, don't attend their services" is to turn a blind eye to the diversity that's always existed within the Church for various reasons.

(Strange how people will be up in arms about the removal of a few prayers to shorten a service, but will openly support a complete and utter destruction of the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Church),
No one's attempting to destroy the Eastern Rite.  Calm down and stop overreacting.  This, as I've said, is western in character, and in no way is set up to effect change within ER parishes.  We are, however, affirming that which is already Orthodox within the anglican and RC rites and filling in the rest as Orthodox.  You're right in saying that it's not the same as what Episcopalians and Catholics do, as are you right in saying that what any western rite parish is doing is not the same as what happened pre-schism.  But liturgies have always had give-and-take throughout the centuries, with this region pulling from that region's liturgy to put this prayer here or there, etc.  No, it's not done willy-nilly--much deliberation and prayer should go into this--but it has been done.  Often.

forbade Priests who did not dress themselves in the Vestments of the Church from Celebrating in HIS Churches (Heaven forbid we require priests to dress like priests, wouldn't it just be great if we could have Clown Liturgies instead?), and sought to protect the Faithful under HIS Omophorion from this departure from Orthodox Tradition.
I know this was already addressed, but why the jump from western rite (a venerable practice which has had its place in the Church) from necessarily making the way for Clown Liturgies (a joke which is a mere innovation with no apostolic support)?

As I am opposed to the Unia in the Latin Church, consistancy requires me to hold a similar view of the so-called 'western rite,' for me to take a more sympathetic posistion would require that either I accept the intrusion of the Unia as legitimage or embrace the hypocracy of conflicting posistions, neither of which I find acceptable.
Pardon me, but bull.  The Unia was set up as a direct effort to pull Orthodox parishes into communion with Rome (and, thus, heresy, divorcing them from the Church's dogma).  The Unia is based on prosetylization, while the WRO are groups of western Christians who have themselves, of their own volition, come over to the Church.  None of this "Episcopalians in communion with Antioch," identity crisis nonsense.

The easiest solution would be for the so-called 'western rite' parishes to start acting Orthodox, and embrace the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Eastern.  For western rite parishes to start acting eastern and embrace the traditions of the Byzantine Rite.  This is what should be said.  As has been mentioned, rite means absolutely nothing in terms of belief.  Correct doctrine, along with apostolic, eucharistic worship which has been approved by a canonically recognized Orthodox bishop is what makes one Orthodox.  Period.

ozgeorge said:
why make the Host look unOrthodox?
As yBeayf correctly stated, the more ancient (and still extant) tradition was the wafer-esque style.  It's just that it doesn't look Byzantine.  Byzantine =/= Orthodox.

Finally, to address GiC's comments about accepting the rites of heterodox bishops (i.e., the Archbishop of Canterbury) who return with their flocks to the Church, well, I'd say that'll never happen short of a miracle, but let's say it did.  You'd still wind up with something FAR removed from the Eastern traditions and something that, really, would only be about a step away from what the AOAA WR is doing now.  So I ask: apart from the formality that the WRO would (in this hypothetical situation) now have their own, WR bishop to be WR (in almost the exact same way) under, how would the problem which the late Metr. Antony perceived be any different?  We'd still have a western "foreign element" within a Church that has long been exclusively eastern (really, exclusively monoritual, thanks to the 13th Century decree that wiped out all other eastern liturgies in favor of the imperial one) worshipping in a way that is distinct (not divorced) from the eastern liturgies, and that is almost identical to what the AOAAWRV is doing now.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Thank you, Pedro. 

The Orthodox-is-only-Byzantine idea could possibly lead to what was posted on GEnie back in the dim times, that the *only* acceptable music to worship God was Byzantine Chant.  God, I think, can hear worship in many ways that Humanity has come up with.

If both St. Tikhon and St. John of San Francisco did not think ill of "Western" worship in general as being Orthodoxible (to mangle the language) I should think that their thoughts  count for much more then some random laypeople.

Ebor

 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
That said, western IS better than NO notation and the loss of the total art.
Indeed.  The Saint Anthony's project has made the traditional music of the Divine Liturgy much more accesible to those who do not know Greek nor Byzantine notation.  But I think more steps have to be taken before Byzantine chant really catches on in English - primarily good liturgical translations are desperately needed.  Many of the ones in use today that strive to be uber modern and ridiculously banal, IMO.  They may capture the meaning, but they have neither the flow nor spirit of the Greek.  So until something that is more or less the standard translation in English speaking countries that flows and is memorized easily is used, Orthodox worship in English will just grow more and more chaotic. ÂÂ
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
that the *only* acceptable music to worship God was Byzantine Chant.
I don't think that anyone has really said that here.  But if you look at the various musical traditions within the ancient rites they are are fairly similar.  i.e. there are no instruments and a great deal of simplicity.  Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses.   
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Silouan said:
I don't think that anyone has really said that here.ÂÂ
No, as I wrote, a person on GEnie (a text only place from over a decade ago) wrote that *only* Byzantine Chant was acceptable to God. It wasn't here on OC.net.  I've been on-line for a good while.

But if you look at the various musical traditions within the ancient rites they are are fairly similar. i.e. there are no instruments and a great deal of simplicity. Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses. ÂÂ
And how would not God hear worship and praise from Human Beings while using polyphony or instruments, I wonder.  There is a myriad of musics in the world.  Why should that of only one time/place/group be the only one?

Ebor

 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
I didn't say God wouldn't hear such people or music.  I said that the traditional music of the church is chant in its various forms, thus that is what should be used for liturgical music. 
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Deacon Lance said:
The pre-schism West used unleavened bread, at least form the 4th century.ÂÂ
I'm obviously not making myself clear.
The filioque also predates the schism- that doesn't make it Orthodox and worth including in the Western Rite.

Deacon Lance said:
However, while flat the Western Rite Host does not look really like a Latin Catholic Host in my experience.
Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:
The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy. http://westernorthodox.com/greekdenver
And so my question remains unanswered.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And so my question remains unanswered.
No it doesn't. The leavened, round, and flattened loaf is the more ancient form, still found in some of the non-Chalcedonian rites, and used in the West before the schism. A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
Silouan said:
Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses.   
From what I've heard, my parish does the most Znammeny of any OCA parish, among other forms of chant.  We only do the more complex modern choral type pieces on rare occasions.  I find it interesting that many parishes do a lot of modern choral-like pieces, as I was unaware by seeing my parish as a reference point.  I hope chant really makes a resurgence, since it really is beautiful.  I also find it interesting how many Russians like the modern stuff and think of it as the norm.....as if liturgical music was always that way.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
yBeayf said:
A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.
Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post about this.
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
ozgeorge said:
Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:

"The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy."

And so my question remains unanswered.
It also says, as a preface to this article: "This short piece, while containing some incorrect information, is presented on WesternOrthodox.com to show that not all bishops and clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) hold the same unfavourable views on the Antiochian Western Rite that Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony of San Francisco does."

(The emphasis is mine.) Nor is it anything more than the website of one particular parish. What exactly it means in terms of genuine praxis is quite unclear, and I think the question will have to go unanswered even so far as it not being at all clear what any particular parish actually uses.

Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?
The answer is-- there IS no answer! Elevations aren't rubricated in the western rite service book.

Michno (std. modern Episcopal praxis) has up to four elevations: at the offertory, during the institution narrative, at the doxology (the big elevation), and at "gifts of God". Only the last comes after the fraction. To confuse matters, older BCPs rubricate the fraction during the institution narrative. The WR service book, however, puts it in the modern location.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Keble said:
The WR service book, however, puts it in the modern location.
Is that before or after the breaking?
And yes, that is a leading question of sorts....I think the idea of flattening the Host to prevent fragments falling at elevation is a pretty crumby (  ;) !)  reason if the Body is elevated after fraction anyway.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
The Host is elevated at the Institution Narrative, the concluding Doxology, and the Agnus Dei.  Only the Agnus Dei occurs after fraction.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Deacon Lance said:
The Host is elevated at the Institution Narrative, the concluding Doxology, and the Agnus Dei. Only the Agnus Dei occurs after fraction.
Can the Host be elevated in the Paten? Do the rubrics absolutely rule this out?
Also, how is the Body broken in the Western Rite? Is a Lance used or is it broken by hand?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
"I'm obviously not making myself clear.
The filioque also predates the schism- that doesn't make it Orthodox and worth including in the Western Rite."

The Filioque was introduced by the Spanish and was resisted by Rome until 1008.  Unleavened bread was used by St. Sylvester, St. Gregory Dialogos, St. Leo, St. Ambrose, St. Isidore, etc.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  One was a practice the Orthodox always rejected, the other was one the Orthodox not only accepted but practiced if one accepts that pre-schism Latin saints were Orthodox. ÂÂ

"Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:

'The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy.'"

Resembles in that it is flattened and round.  One can easily distinguish between a Western Rite Host and Roman Rite Host.  The WR Host is light brown with obvious thickness in comparison to the completely flat and white RR Host.

Fr. Deacon Lance


 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
The purpose of the elevation is to show it to the people and rubrics (at least the Roman Rite rubrics state the Host is to be elvated alone with both hands.  The Host is broken by hand as well.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?
I'm mainly familiar with the Roman rite, not having had much exposure to the Anglican usage. It's elevated at roughly the same points as Keble mentioned.

The crumb problem would mainly come about if one insisted on a Byzantine-style cube, that had been cut out of a larger loaf of bread. It would be possible to have a tall, prosphora-looking host, but what would be the point? Just to make it look a little bit Eastern? It would be foreign to the right, which has always used a round, flat bread.

Can the Host be elevated in the Paten? Do the rubrics absolutely rule this out?
Also, how is the Body broken in the Western Rite? Is a Lance used or is it broken by hand?
In the Roman rite, during the anaphora, the host is not sitting on the paten. The paten is either laid aside or held by the subdeacon with a humeral veil, while the host lays on the altar itself. At the doxology, the priest makes the sign of the cross with the host over the chalice, and when the host is held up before communion it is also being held by the priest directly. The only time it is elevated with the paten is at the offertory. Because the priest touches the host so much directly, there is a rubric that from the time of consecration to the ablutions after communion, the priest is not allowed to separate his thumbs and forefingers except while touching the host.

It would of course be possible to change the service so the host is always elevated with the paten, but that would be introducing a foreign element into the rite, and also taking away one of the major functions of the subdeacon.

When the host is broken, it is done by hand.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jennifer said:
I'd love to attend a Western Orthodox parish but unfortunately there aren't any close to me.  

I figured most of you would agree with me.  I find it strange that many Eastern Catholics think differently about this.  I've observed a lot of discussions about this on Catholic and Eastern Catholic boards and it almost seems like the ECs who would go to an RC Mass are seen as being somehow less 'eastern.'  
What they are is anti-dogmatists. Unfortunately. Their "union" with Rome is as false as it can get. Most of them are in belief Eastern Orthodox, but for some reason think it right for them to be united with Rome.  :-\

[EDIT]: Oops. Can someone delete this post if possible?
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can't really imagine putting myself in this situation. I would never attend a Byzantine-Rite Catholic church for religious reasons (I might go for a social reason, such as the wedding of a friend, but not take part). But the liturgy is such a huge part of my spiritual experience that I can't imagine trying to satisfy that profound need with anything else--however Orthodox the Western-Rite believers may be.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
yBeayf said:
A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.
Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post about this.
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?
Yes, broken before elevation. It's broken over the chalice, so none of the crumbs are lost.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
This is what I was wondering about, too. Any rererence to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Hermogenes said:
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
This is what I was wondering about, too. Any rererence to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.
Your post is completely incorrect.  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are not local variants but totally seperate Rites from the Roman.  They are also both well documented and attested to by manuscripts from before the late Middle Ages.  The oldest Manuscript Latin Missal still around is a one Mozarabic ca. 1100s
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Hermogenes said:
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
This is what I was wondering about, too. Any reference to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.
Your post is completely incorrect.  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are not local variants but totally seperate Rites from the Roman.  They are also both well documented and attested to by manuscripts from before the late Middle Ages.  The oldest Manuscript Latin Missal still around is a one Mozarabic ca. 1100s
Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies. You may be correct about the date of the earliest Missal (there was no established norm for what a Missal ought to contain in 1100 in order to be complete), but only in the narrowest and most literal sense of a Missal, vs., say, a Graduale. However, the two earliest St. Gallen manuscripts date from the end of the Ninth Century. 1100 is quite late, for the purposes of this discussion. In any case, I would very much doubt any two experts would agree on how the liturgies in that missal ought to be celebrated, any more than they agree on the interpretation of the St. Gallen Mss. "Documented and attested to" is a very long way indeed from "complete and performable." Such is the state of our understanding. But I mentioned these two rites only as an aside.

As to the Sarum Rite, which was the topic of discussion, I would simply inquire: Do Mss. exist of (more or less) complete texts of the Sarum-Rite liturgy, including rubrics, from before the middle of the 11th Century? A Sarum Missal is known to have been complied by St. Norbert in 1078 (he was a Norman bishop who came over with the Conqueror), and there are still extant an Antiphonale and Graduale from the 13th Century, as well as a monastic Antiphonary, F. 160, also 13th Century (from Worcester cathedral), reprinted in Paléographie Musicale, v. 12. Those are very thin sources upon which to base an assertion of orthodoxy. And that was my whole point.

Of course, earlier references to a Sarum Rite abound. But that is all they are: references.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Hermogenes said:
Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies.
Yes, they use Latin and are in the Western family of Rites as opposed to Eastern but they are quite distinct.  I will concede the Roman and Ambrosian Masses are very close.  However, besides the Mass, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites have recognizably different Divine Offices and Sacrament rituals.

The Byzantine and Armenian Rites also follow the same general outline but that does not make them one Rite.

For Comparison:

The Ordinary of the Mozarabic Missal
http://www.mercaba.org/LITURGIA/Mozarabe/ordinario_latin.htm#RITUS INITIALES

The Ordinary of the Roman Missal
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

The Ordinary of the Ambrosian  Missal
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Ambrosian%20Liturgy.pdf
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Hermogenes said:
Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies.
Yes, they use Latin and are in the Western family of Rites as opposed to Eastern but they are quite distinct.  I will concede the Roman and Ambrosian Masses are very close.  However, besides the Mass, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites have recognizably different Divine Offices and Sacrament rituals.

The Byzantine and Armenian Rites also follow the same general outline but that does not make them one Rite.

For Comparison:

The Ordinary of the Mozarabic Missal
http://www.mercaba.org/LITURGIA/Mozarabe/ordinario_latin.htm#RITUS INITIALES

The Ordinary of the Roman Missal
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

The Ordinary of the Ambrosian  Missal
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Ambrosian%20Liturgy.pdf
I am familiar with Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, and I am familiar with the ways in which they differ from Roman usage. My comments on those rites was an aside in my original post, and not the main point. The main point was my belief that any claims for the existence of an orthodox Sarum rite as a basis for an orthodox Western liturgy could not be substantiated. I had understood this thread was more to do with liturgical theology and practice than with philology or musicology.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Well as the Sarum is a variant of the Roman Rite, it depends on how legitimate you find the Roman Rite.  Given that the Sarum use came from France with the Normans and some Orthodox claim England was Orthodox until the William the Conquerer, I imagine some would find it objectionable.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Deacon Lance said:
. . .the Sarum use came from France with the Normans. . .
This is a very unfair simplification.

Re: Norman Additions to Sarum
From: Fr. Aidan


This is an excellent question. The short answer is that there is not a single known change or discrepancy between the liturgy of pre-Conquest Sarum and post-Conquest Sarum. According to some scholars, there was zero change. But, that said, the Use of Sarum as it comes down to us looks very suspiciously like the Use of Rouen. Of course we don't know of any change in the liturgy of Rouen from pre-May 1054 to post-May 1054, nor for the following century. Those were the days of not much change in the spirituality and content of the Western liturgy.

The real changes that would impact on the theology of the Liturgy, people's experience of it, really are found in the late 12th century and 13th century: the insertion of an elevation at the "Words of Institution," and so forth.

These latter, changed features are not in the Sarum service books I am familiar with, which have been blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis
 
Top