www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Latinisation?

Roman,

I know you're saying this by way of introduction, but believe me, we've all heard these criticisms of the RC "Ordinary Form" Liturgy, and we have a lot of different opinions about it. Our main concern here is how some RC practices and attitudes tend to creep over into the ECCs, and although this is still a problem, it was even more so before V-II.

This is, if nothing else, an "ecumenical" forum. We are ECs and EOs, OCs and OOs as well as RCs and some Protestants, and we all accept each other as brethren in Christ.

That's it exactly. But note that it's the lesser of the two anomalies--the anticipated Liturgy on Saturday--that only came with V-II; the greater anomaly--the recited Liturgy ("spoken as rapidly as possible")--goes back a lot farther.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

[quote=Sean Forristal]Ot'ets Nastoiatel':

What do you mean by Latinophrone claptrap; it sounds very funny.:)

Usually, one is either a phile or a phobe.

Actually, the congregation seems to like the recited Liturgy. In and out, quick, just like the Romans.

In certain circles of the Ukrainian Catholic Church--in my limited experience--there's a lot of "me too!"-ism. Unfortunately, this is seen in not imitating the best of Latin usage and piety but the worst, such as the "in and out" recited Liturgy. Another example are Greek Catholic prayer books that had prayers to say DURING the Divine Liturgy ("O Lord my God who hast permitted me to view this solemn entrance...") instead of attending to the actual liturgical prayers.

Obviously, this is NOT the UCC as a whole.

I would guess that "Latinophrone" means trying to fit Eastern spirituality (which includes liturgical life) into a Latin mold, and approaching it with Latin attitudes. This is something the late Fr. George Florovsky called "pseudomorphosis," which even affected Orthodoxy for a while.

Thank you Pasisozi for clearing up what "Latinophrone" means. I believe we cannot put any spirituality in a box as the Holy Spirit is the subject and object of spirituality. The recited liturgy must go in my opinion; it gives people the impression that Divine Services should fit into "my" schedule, rather than how can "my" schedule fit into God's. A "Thank You" to all who have treated me with Christian Charity and who presume my good will towards all Eastern Catholics and Christians, but for those who have not, I love you for challenging me to be more humble.

Your unworthy brother in Chris;
Sean Forristal

Dear Sean,

You are welcome!

Alex

I found a pdf document by one John Vernoski: (I don't have the link-I am sure one can google it)


Violations of Vatican Directives Regarding Liturgy in the "Revised Divine Liturgy" promulgated by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan
Church of Pittsburgh 6 January 2007
May 2007


which discussed the 2007 changes in the Ruthenian service books. If anyone wants to read it I will post it.

Roman Refugee

May I humbly suggest that you read the posts on this board

which specifically deals with the Changes to the Liturgy

Thank you, Our Lady's Slave. I shall bring myself up to date.

Actually, the most commonly given "excuse" I've heard for the spoken Liturgies is either that "we don't have a cantor for every Liturgy," or "we can't have a choir for every liturgy." As a big proponent of congregational singing (a major reason for for coming East), I don't look very kindly on either one. Choirs can be very beautiful indeed, but simply by their presence they tend to promote a kind of "professional" attitude towards liturgical singing, reinforcing the average layperson's feeling that it is not his/her place to participate. Not having a cantor, on the other hand, can be a real problem, but IMHO it should always be looked at as a temporary situation.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

While I believe strongly in congregational singing, in the Byzantine tradition, a choir or cantors are still necessary to take the lead, sing the propers, and especially in singing the more complicated services of Matins and Holy Week (most of which are a form of Matins).

Let me apologize for not making myself clearer. I know that it's practically impossible to have congregational singing without a cantor. What I was really trying to do was explain my objections to the most common "excuses" for having spoken Liturgies.

Not having a *choir* is really no excuse at all, since most of the choir members should also be able to serve as cantors, who could easily cover the additional parish Liturgies on Sunday (or even weekdays). Not having a cantor (or enough cantors to cover all Liturgies) is a real problem, but it usually points to a pastor who hasn't made an effort to recruit and train cantors--which in turn often points to a Latinized attitude that thinks a "low" Liturgy is somehow a good idea.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

One good reason that I can personally attest to is in a military chaplaincy situation, especially were the priest is visiting (speaking as an Orthodox former serviceman) and there are no two believers of the same ethnicity or who even know how to sing. An extreme case was having an American OCA chaplain serving for several Romanians who never learned much about the Liturgy anyway plus some Greeks and "american" converts. At one Liturgy at Abu Ghraib prison the military Catholic chaplain volunteered to sing the responses from the Armed Services Hymnal. This is of course an exceptional situation. Probably not much better in prison ministries.