www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Funeral

Why should Byzantine Catholics do what the Byzantine Orthodox do? Because they're somehow inherently more Byzantine, or just because they have "purer" forms of Byzantine worship?

Alexis

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been fighting a really bad chest cold for the past couple of days, and typing is a chore.


You are most likely correct in that regard, though there were exceptions. What happened in the Roman rite was the "privatization" of all the sacraments, including the Eucharist, which came to be viewed not as eschatological statements of the Church as a whole; i.e., manifestations of the Kingdom in this world, but as private channels of grace between God and the individual(s) partaking of them. It was this privatization of the sacraments that seems to have been transferred to the Christian East, probably some time after the 13th-14th centuries, and most likely after the fall of Constantinople. The Orthodox Church could not maintain the Eucharistic connection to marriage or the funeral service as "private" events because the East, unlike the West, never developed the concept of "private Mass".


I believe that the Eastern Catholics were right, but for the wrong reason. That does not mean they cannot become right for the right reason through a process of education and catechesis.

This seems to me a matter of proper usage within a particular Church, not a matter either of doctrine or of theology. As such, broad latitude should be allowed.


The objective of resourssement is not mindless repetition of the past, but to properly understand the Tradition and to return to it, taking into account the present pastoral situation of the Church. The Eucharistic focus of the entire Church has become a recurrent theme in both Orthodox and Catholic theology, and as such, restoration of the Eucharistic focus of all the sacraments ought to be something of the utmost importance, not a mere historical quibble. That is why both Father Alexander Schmemann and Father John Meyendorff endorsed such a return--proper understanding of the Holy Mysteries is central to the revitalization of the Orthodox Church.

Christian burial is most certainly one of the Holy Mysteries, as anyone who as either attended the rite or studied the texts should understand.


Undoubtedly what is done now in many places is badly implemented, but that does not excuse us from trying to do it right.


I have no problem with that. It's not my fault we've become a Church of liturgical wimps.

Sounds like something you need to be very careful about. If typing is a chore, then you must be very ill.

I pray to the Lord that you will recover quickly and completely.

Alice

I attended the funeral in question on Saturday. It was a Divine Liturgy. 90 minutes.
The Liturgy of the Word seemed different from what I've experienced at the Greek Orthodox church where I have attended DL on half a dozen or so occasions. I don't know if it is modified due to the funeral or just the difference between the Ruthenian RDL and the GOA Liturgy.
I'm WRO so I'm not very familiar with the various Byzantine services.

Gregg

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Many years ago, a colleague described his experience with Orthodox funerals--long before I'd ever seen or experienced a Byzantine DL or any other service.

Seems he took a family to the parish church for the beginning of a 10 a.m. DL, went home, changed clothes, had his lunch, took a nap, got up, showered, dressed, and got back to church just as the whole set of services was coming to an end at 3 p.m. Then it was time to go to the cemetery for the committal. The priest had a 2 hour DL and then, for some reason, repeated the funeral service three successive times. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? At first, I dismissed this story as fiction because I couldn't believe that any family would be able to stand for such a thing during their mourning. It sounded a bit like the bragging one hears at FD meetings about one thing or another related to professional practice.

Has anyone ever really heard of anything like this?

BOB

Sounds like he did all three parts of the Great Panachida at one time--the service in the home (or funeral parlor), the service in the church, and the service at the graveside--though why you would do it that way I cannot imagine.

We're moving way off topic, but....

...my answer is because:

1. we originally used the liturgical usages that emerged in the Byzantine world in the 1300s. Even though that usage was considered in some ways an innovation at the time, it nevertheless was the product of "legitimate organic development" (to use a term I don't like) throughout the entire Byzantine world, and came about for reasons.

2. I'm not keen on people monkeying with such things for reasons they don't understand, without understanding why they came about and what preceded them. I don't think any understanding of our liturgy can take place by solely our own liturgical scholarship, and I would be loath to do something without the insights provided by Orthodox (as well as purely non confessional) liturgical scholarship.

3. I'm not big on one particular eparchy or even sui juris/autocephalous church making big changes, again because I fear that this would lead people to monkey with things without sufficient reflection. I would prefer that there be consensus across many eparchies, based on a solid understanding of our current liturgical practice as well as previous liturgical practices, before a particular major change is taken.

Stuart,

Thanks for your answers, and I hope you feel better.

Markos

Stuart:

On the other hand, you have to understand that going to FD meetings is like meetings at hunting lodges. Who had the longest funeral, the most difficult family--something like who missed the biggest buck or lost the biggest fish. The story finishes with a very long graveside service.

BOB

I'm pretty sure that the practice of the UGCC in North American where they have suppressed the Order of Burial and replaced it with a Divine Liturgy is not because the clergy have read Schmemann and Meyendorff.

As I said, right for the wrong reasons. But they could be made right for the right reasons, with some inspired teaching.

As to whether Greek Catholics should follow Orthodox praxis to the letter, in my mind both Churches should follow the best and most authentic practice, no matter where it is currently maintained. That is, where something fundamental has been lost in one Church but retained by the other, then that practice should be adopted by the one that has lost it. While the Greek Catholics have been subject to one sort of latinization, so too the Orthodox have been subjected to another sort, and both should be rejected in favor of the true Tradition.

That's where Church history comes in--it does not shackle us to the past, but liberates us from the misconceptions and false practices that have obscured the Tradition as it was supposed to be handed down. Unfortunately, many people believe that "Tradition" is what they were doing in their parishes on the day they were baptized, and so they regard every restoration as an "innovation", even though the practice they will defend to the death is most often a medieval deformation of the Tradition.

During the Hierarchical Ministry of His Grace Bishop Robert (Moskal) it was decided in our Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Parma to return to celebration of the Funeral Service.

The Funeral Service is to be celebrated according to the norms contained in the translation of the Roman Trebnyk, approved by the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops. This does not include the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgikon reserves the Divine Liturgy for the departed on the ninth, fortieth, and anniversary of repose. (Pastoral Guide of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States of America)

What is interesting is that the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops of the United States in their Pastoral Letter for the Great Fast 2007 write the following: “We honor our beloved dead by showing them the greatest respect; by doing the best we can to honor them. It is in conjunction with this desire that we, the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops of the United States, take this opportunity to reclaim our ancient heritage. Until fairly recently, funerals – like weddings -- stood on their own. The beauty of the Funeral Liturgy, which we call Parastas was allowed to shine forth as a liturgy in its own right and not as a mere adjunct to the Divine Liturgy. A return to this venerable tradition would show the greatest honor to our beloved dead; how better could we honor them than by using the ancient rite, whose prayers were offered for their ancestors from time immemorial? This is not to discount the importance of the Divine Liturgy; far from it! Rather, the Divine Liturgy would be reserved for other significant gatherings -- such as the fortieth-day commemorations which, though so full of meaning, have fallen into disuse in some places. And what better time to begin to implement such a change than during the Great Fast, when we do not normally celebrate Divine Liturgy during the week? For this reason, beginning with this Great Fast, we encourage the celebration of the Parastas as the Funeral Liturgy of our Church within the United States.”

That's terrific! A blessing upon these hierarchs for this holy decision (so cogent with the Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the Instruction)! Is this somewhere accessible on the internet?

Thanks.

herb