www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Saturday Night Fever

I'm picking up on the Administrator's suggestion and taking the question durak raise to a different thread:


Maybe the real question is how did the Latins end up with the restoration of the Vigil Liturgy?

The concept the Vigil Liturgies was preserved by the Byzantine East while the Latin west abandoned it. In the preconciliar period, Latins could not even have afternoon Liturgy.

Through Latinization, American Byzantines lost the practice as well.

The Roman liturgical movement clearly references the example of the East when they worked to restore Vigil Liturgies, first in the monasteries.

The Roman restoration of the Holy week services ("the crown jewel of the Liturgical Movement") also borrowed heavily from the east.

Face to face confession would be another eastern practice considered by the West after the Council.

Vernacular Liturgy. Collegiality. Parish Councils. Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenism. Communion standing up and in both kinds. Married deacons.

Reform to the Romans, tradition to us.

And with every legitimate guard against Latinization, we too have borrowed correctly from them. I would present first and foremost, frequent communion.

Diaconal ministry beyond the liturgical. Improved seminary education. Religious women in the active apostolate. Preaching the Word as an part of the Liturgy.


My dear friends, I think everything I have written in quite solid and widely held. if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

K.

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Kurt,

I just wanted to raise the issue of the Vigil Liturgy.

You are more than correct in saying it is an integral part of Eastern practice.

But the Saturday Night Mass isn't really like a "Vigil" at all, is it?

It is more like a convenience to keep all of Sunday open . . .

The Vigil in the Eastern sense begins with Saturday evening Vespers and proceeds to Matins with the Hours before the Sunday Liturgy, its Crown, begins.

Formerly, the Vigil was always understood in terms of the Horologion and the continuous reading of the Psalter, as monks used to do all night on Saturday evening, ending with the laudatory Psalms 148-150 at Matins.

My RC Church has Vigils reserved for Christmas Eve and Easter at the end of which is a Mass.

But I don't think that Saturday evening Mass qualifies as a "Vigil" even by current western standards.

When I asked our Latin bishop about it, he simply said the Church wanted to give "more options" to the laity to "fulfill their Sunday obligation."

Alex

Alex,

Different people can characterize it different ways. Obviously, those who attend the Vigil Liturgy do so as their principal celebration of the Sabbath.

Some have maintained the dual description of the evening Liturgy (Vigil and convinence) it is the former that is prefered by the so-called liberal liturgists and the latter prefered by the so-called conservatives focused on the observanc eof the law.

K.

Dear Kurt,

I wasn't about to place this issue in the liberal/conservative context, but I wouldn't disagree with the way you've characterized it.

The point is that such a Vigil is really not in the sense that it is not related to any segment of the Horologion or Office or Psalter to make it qualify as a Vigil in the true sense of the word.

The Divine Liturgy has, historically, and in both East and West, been seen as the crown or ending of the Vigil understood best by the Eastern term "Podvig."

If the West borrowed from the East here, it completely took the Mass out of the real context of what a Vigil truly is.

In my church, liberals pray the Vespers and the Matins alongside conservatives before the Divine Liturgy on the Day of the Resurrection or Sunday.

Did you have anything else to say on the matter ?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Yes, you are right. Historically the Vigil Liturgy was in the context of the Hours. At some point, its parochial use (as opposed to monastic) was just with two of the Hours (Vespers, Matins). In our own time, this departure from the former practice has been further modified for parochial use so sodmetimes none of the Hours are prayed by the parish.

The parish, I would think, should both follow what practice makes pastoral sense in theit community, but educate the parishioners to the monastic practice so the people understand the context even if they do not follow it.

Are we in harmomy (or in symphony, at least) here?

K.

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Kurt,

Absolutely!

In all too many cases in my Particular Church, the Horologion is reserved to the priests and the Vigil is discarded as well.

Sometimes the Saturday Vespers is offered, but this isn't followed up with Matins and the Hours. We wind up with a number of Divine Liturgies and a general discarding of the Eastern Way of experiencing what should be a climactic event in the Divine Liturgy.

Again, there are Western parishes who have really gone into the Divine Office as a community. I have an acquaintance who attends Morning Prayer before going to work and then Evening Prayer in the same Church coming home.

Where I am, the Horologion is seen almost exclusively as the Latin Breviary was. Parishes like St Elias in Brampton lead the way in showing us how the Vigil is to be done.

There is also a parish that actually does hold an all-night vigil where people stay in Church for the entire night and early Sunday Divine Liturgy completes the service.

I think there is a hunger for communal prayer, for prayer in fasting for specific world intentions with others to the point of weeping and tears.

It is always a great blessing to meet a person or a community that has just this experience of Divine Communion.

Alex

Why didn't the West just restore Saturday night Vespers, then Sunday morning Matins, followed by Mass?

Why couldn't they have simply stated, "We will be requiring Vespers on Saturday evening, and for those with good purpose, this counts as your Sunday obligation."

Divine Liturgies on Saturday nights then one one Sunday morning destory the integrity of the community. Half the community worships on one day, the other half the other.

Now Vespers or All Night Vigil on Sat. night, followed by Sunday liturgy, in which case many attend both services--that is great.

Oh, and Sunday is not the Sabbath according to the Byzantine reckoning. Saturday is still the Sabbath, while Sunday is the Lord's Day. Hence Divine Liturgies frequently served on Saturdays (especially during Lent).

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

I bow to your well thought-out reasoning!

Saturday as Sabbath has always been observed by the Orthodox Church (by this I mean Byzantine Catholics as well). In the Slavic languages, Saturday is "Subota" and it is solemnized on a par with the Day of the Resurrection (Voskresennya) or Sunday. The Ethiopian Church in tried and true fashion considers Friday night the beginning of the Sabbath that ends two days later on Sunday night.

Clearly, the Orthodox East has maintained its strong, Patristic understanding of public prayer in terms of a process. This isn't surprising given the Fathers' great understanding of human psychology as well as spirituality.

In addition to the Horologion that precedes the Liturgy, there are the long preparatory prayers before Confession and Communion, private and public.

There is the longer fasting period for those preparing for Communion that, ideally, begins the week before.

And while the West has been preoccupied with the "Most important moment of the Mass" namely the Consecration (which ultimately resulted, I believe, in the shortened Eucharist) the East bluntly states that Christ is wholly present from the very beginning of the Liturgy and throughout the services since where two or three are gathered "There I am."

This Eastern understanding is also reflected in the idea of a "Podvig" or, as I interpret it, a great spiritual work of prayer and fasting on our part to honour the Lord and His saints.

Such podvigs were prominent during pilgrimages and during the Great Fast.

They involved a strenuous effort on the part of Christians seeking the blessing of God's Grace and enlightenment at the end of their struggle.

This understanding of prayer, private and public, is fundamental to the Orthodox Church's understanding of liturgical process that requires time, frequent prayer and reading that slowly lifts us up out of the world and brings us to the heavenly realities where we can sing together, as one Church, in a totally freed spiritual state: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Alex

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Actually, I think she did. The councilar statements have wonderful text calling for the restoration of public Vespers and Morning Prayer, proclaiming that these offices are not they property of the clergy but of all the faithful. Unfortunately, while that is true, it is moslty "abandoned property".

Like in so many things, the Church throws out a good idea, sees if any takers come forward, and moves on from there.



I think the Church wants to move away from legalism. We want to santicify Sunday, which begins with First Vespers on Saturday and ends at Midnight Sunday. Santification includes prayer, celebration, rest, recreation, etc. Some would like to put God first by sanctifiny Sunday first (Sat, evening) before any other Sunday observance. Others prefer to wait until mid-morning. Whatever!


True. One Liturgy or Mass per community would be ideal. This ideal is no more observed with two Sunday Liturgies than Vigil and morning Litugies. Many of our small communities have been able to preserve themselves by sharing a priest who offers a Vigil Liturgy one place and a morning Liturgy another.

K.

I didn't mean to imply that I support the idea "sunday obligation." But it is my opinion that a vast majority of RC's still think that way, hence I used that convention in writing. Note I did say it was great to go to both Vespers and Liturgy.

As far as priest serving a vigil in one parish and Sunday in another--well that makes sense if we have a lack of priests, and is a good case of oikonomia. In that case, really, there are two distinct communities that are both being served by one priest.

anastasios

Dear Kurt and Anastasios,

O.K., O.K. what you say is fine.

But what did you think of my post?

Alex

Yes, yes, Alex. Your post was a wonderful contribution. (It is like a family here; you have to make sure no one is left out!).

Dustin, I am sure is on target to say "But it is my opinion that a vast majority of RC's still think that way...", but Dustin, while that is true, they (and we) need to be weaned off that thinking, not encouraged!

In other words, this matter could be presented two different ways:

1). You have an obligation. We are being permissive by bending the rules and allowing you to fullfill your obligation within a wider time frame. Permissive legalism as opposed to rigorous legalism -- your obligation must be fullfilled Sunday morning only, no Vigil or Sunday afternoon Liturgy.

2). We celebrate the Lord's Day. From the time of First Vespers to the end of the day Sunday is the Lord's Day. And because we are so full of the Spirit, the Church adds a half-dozen or more midweek Lord's Days throughout the year. As Steve would say: JOY!

take your pick. The first option gives you the additional options of a lax or rigorous application. The second option, well......

Yes indeed Kurt, my parish priest is based in Omaha, NE...but he also serves parishes in Lincoln, NE and St. Joseph, MO. One week he as Liturgy in Lincoln on Saturday evening, then the next Saturday in St. Joe. Sunday mornings is for Omaha and then Sunday evening in either Lincoln or St. Joe, depending on where he was the evening before. Maybe not ideal, but the sheep are fed and grateful for ANY TIME they can have Liturgy in their parish home. I think that is the most important thing....that people come to Church for worship and the Church should make it as easy as possible for people to worship and celebrate Liturgy. As for Matins or Vespers, in an ideal world and Church they do have a very important place...but most Catholic of whatever stripe the Mass/Liturgy is the most important thing. Maybe increased availability and education could change that situation, but it will take much time and dedicated/committed lay people and clergy to get that started. Our local Orthodox Church celebrates the hours and many of their parishioners attend on a regular basis....there's no reason we couldn't do that either.

I do have a question for those liturgical experts here....do the hours have to led by a priest or cleric? Is that something that a parish who has to share a priest could be doing on their own? How is the rite different from when Vespers or Matins is conducted with the priest present? In the Roman rite the only real difference is the greetings (no "the Lord be with you") and the wording of the blessing/dismissal.

Don

Dear Don,

An excellent liturgical question, although I'm no expert . . .

A Reader or other lay leader, perhaps the "Dyak" or Cantor could do the Hours, certainly, in the form of the "Reader's Service" that I am familiar with in the translations of Fr. John Whiteford, although Lance and Reader Sergius know about others.

Even if the priest is around, the Hours could be done this way, including, as some Orthodox and Orthodox in union with Rome parishes do, the reading of the pre and post Communion prayers (a wonderful practice!).

The parishes I know who have the Vespers and the rest of the Horologion before Sunday Liturgy are of the sort that when one comes home from them, one knows that one has "been to Church!"

Alex

Dear Kurt,





Alex