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

I have never been to a Byzantine funeral. Some Protestant friends were asking me how long it might last. The Byzantine wedding they attended was 2.5 hours so they're thinking the funeral might be, too. What is your experience?
Thanks,

Gregg

One hour as i remember from my grandpa

WOW!!! What church was this in?!? I have never been to a wedding that long!

It was a Ruthenian parish. I was unable to attend, but my understanding is that there was a DL and the crowning ceremony. Is there a DL or another service for the funeral?

Gregg

There is no DL for either a wedding or a funeral.

2.5 hours? Yikes!
The actual wedding (or "Crowning") services takes around 30 minutes, I think. The DL was an "extra" add on - probably requested by the couple, out of piety. (else it is a left over from latinization).

Re the funeral it depends on what they do.

What one should do is the actual funeral service itself (viz. the "Order of Burial"), usually split between the evening service and the morning service - taking about 40 minutes and 60 minutes respectively.

Alas, in the UGCC, there are still some (many) places which still retain the latinized tradition of doing the Divine Liturgy (sung in a minor key melody) instead - so that could take 90 minutes, depending on if they skip anything or how long the sermon, last kiss, etc. are.

not sure what custom prevails amongst US Ruthenians.

I attended a funeral at my parish just a few months ago and it did included Divine Liturgy.

There is for a cleric's funeral rites. At least in the Eparchy of Van Nuys and the Metropolia of Pittsburgh.

I truly love the way the Orthodox believe the way that things are done now is the unchanging "Tradition" of the Orthodox Church. In fact, both weddings and funerals originally involved celebration of the Divine Liturgy. All sacraments were originally sealed by the Eucharist. This is indisputably documented. That both funerals and weddings in the Orthodox Church today typically do not involve celebration of the Eucharist represents a deformation of the Tradition, the loss of "ecclesial" aspect of the two Mysteries through their "privatization". Restoration of the Eucharistic connection to both Crowning and the Panachida would be a return to Tradition, not an innovation, and most certainly not a latinization.

Alicia,

Actually, an effort by Archbishop Joseph, of blessed memory, to restore the traditional Melkite praxis of not serving the Divine Liturgy during funerals caused a major uproar in the then-Exarchate many decades ago. (I suspect Father Serge will remember this.) It was a very ingrained practice in the US parishes and, ultimately, this became one of the few decisions from which Archbishop Joseph backed down, although he never approved of doing so.

I'm unsure what the norm is these days, but there are still Melkite parishes in the US that serve the Divine Liturgy in conjunction with funerals (although I am certain that Father Joe does not do so at Holy Transfiguration).

Many years,

Neil

Whenever engaged in "restoration" of ancient practices, we have to ensure that we are indeed looking at the true ancient practice of the Church. In this case, the earliest practice was indeed to celebrate the funeral service and the Divine Liturgy. Just when the two became separated I have not yet discovered. However, we can certainly say that this "privatization" of the sacraments--which applied also to baptism and the marriage--mirrored developments in the medieval Latin Church, and may therefore be called one of the earlier examples of latinization on record. A number of Orthodox theologians, including Schmemann and Meyendorff, pointed this out and wanted a restoration of the Eucharistic context for all the sacraments.

But Stuart,

As far as I know (which isn't much!), the Roman Rite has never separated the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from that of the Eucharist. It can be done, of course, and often is, but it at least seems that there is an unbroken chain of celebrating Matrimony during the Mass.

Baptism, of course, did become separated, but is now normally incorporated again into the Mass. (Oh, look, a reform I can actually sign on to!).

Alexis

Stuart,

This is an excellent overall point. I'd have two questions about it, though.

1. is the addition of the eucharistic service into the Greek Catholic churches originally done for historic and sacramental-theological reasons, or just because "the Latins do it and so we should too", with the broader reasons added later? If the second is the case, I'd argue it is a Latinization. I'd say the same thing if the Eucharistic service was an impromptu add-on, rather than something that was added after through study of (though not necessarily imitation of) available precedent.

2. If we wanted to restore it, should an Eparchy (or broader Autocephalous/Sui Juris church) do it itself, or should it wait until there is a broad consensus among the other Byzantine Churches that such a thing should be done? I'm hesitant about the former, because that could lead some the leadership of some Eparchies to go about doing things as they like, with little consultation with anyone.

Markos (these questions might be better for another thread)

Fundamentally, a Bishop is canonically the moderator of the liturgy in his eparchy/diocese. It is his decision to make.

The Synod, however, often imposes on this role, dictating a particular expression of liturgy. While the 1st Ecumenical Council strives for unity of posture, the Ecumenical Councils do not dictate a universal liturgy, only certain specific unifying actions.

It is clear that, by the 4th Ecumenical Coucil, there were different liturgies in use; St Basil had codified the Byzantine Canon, the Roman Canon was essentially codified (but would modify further for centuries in small ways, while the rest of the Mass varied considerably more).

For what it is worth, I think that the Eastern Catholics should basically follow the general practice of their corresponding Orthodox Church(es)of their rite.

Thus for the funeral, I think we should do what is generally done in the Orthodox Church.

I am not looking for "historical restoration". For me that is a very slippery slope. As I understand it, in the early church, marriage was coming back from the Civil ceremony to Church and receiving Holy Communion together. While very nice, I myself would prefer to do what is generally done in Eastern Orthodox Churches - the Order of Crowning.

Likewise for funeral. I am not depreciating the Divine Liturgy, but what is generally done among Byzantine Orthodox is the Order of Burial - which is a FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC service (and possibly {probably?} one of the Holy Mysteries)!

In my experience in the parishes that do Divine Liturgy, the Order of Burial is either totally eliminated or at best truncated horribly and sung just as badly into a half hour evening prayer (including panakhyda).

For me, I find that a real pity, since imo the Order of Burial is much, much more appropriate in praying for the reposed, in consoling the bereaved, in proclaiming the Holy Gospel in this situation - than the Divine Liturgy (where there is only the 1 ektene about the reposed - or 2 if you make an insertion into the Great Ektene.

Of course, one could do BOTH - but that would make the funeral - what? - some 3 or even 4 hours long.