www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Creed recited now?

I think more than one parish out of necessity has in the interim since 1978 put together their own books with music. I hope that new pew books are made available with (1) all of the rubrics not distinguishing from "high" liturgy which is a complete latinization and (2) multiple musical settings of the texts.

Another issue outside of this discussion is that the Elko Liturgikon doesn't necessarily always agree with the Ordo Celebrationis, either.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In reference to the "recited" Creed vis-a-vis other Orthodox jurisdictions, it might also be appropriately noted that the communal recitation of the Creed was for many of those a step "up" in assembly particiation. In many Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, and Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox congregations, there is little/no assembly participation. Having the Creed and the Lord's Prayer recited by all meant that the faithful were able to participate in some manner in a service that was dominated by either psalti or choirs. That is not the issue for most Galician and Carpatho-Ruysn parishes.

And before anyone jumps all over this post: of COURSE there are exceptions to what was posted above.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

I am in the dark about the "Tridentine connection" and "complete Latination" here. The idea of high and low liturgy in the Latin tradition (missa solemnis and missa privata) is entirely different than the abbreviations in the gray book.

In parochial use, AFAIK, all liturgies are abbreviated. Presumably, at the hierarchial level, there is usually some effort to achieve some standardized practice in the abbreviation. And, while I would certainly agree that the taking privately of most litanies, together with the omission of most of the "proper" items (apart from the epistle and gospel), goes far too far, I don't see an inherent problem in the idea of standard practices. Is the problem in the use of the English word "high" to identify the less abbreviated form?

Any distinction between "high" and "low" liturgies is foreign to the Byzantine liturgical ethos.

"Optional litany" or something along those lines conveys a different meaning. This is how the Liturgikon describes small litanies and other various parts.

"High" implies a different level of liturgical solemnity and celebration and is a Roman term used to describe such a distinction. I don't think it fits in Byzantine pew books.

You must also include the temple structure, interior, how it was celebrated, etc. It wasn't meant to look Byzantine. Wearing my bleached white surplice, I rang the little handbells during Transubstantiation. Some servers had the privelege of lifting the priest's vestments during the elevation. No Latinization was a perfect replica of the real thing. It was always a sloppy attempt to something similar. This part of history is a unique area of study. Nothing ever made sense.

http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm

Out of the twenty-three "Latinizations" listed in the above link, only one (#1) remains at my parish. This one is still enforced because our bishops still allow it.

Joe

Though before my tim, I've even seen some old B&W pictures of Ruthenian priests in birettas.

Friends,

I have never seen a green or grey book, the only book I have seen used in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is the 1978 Levkulic blue/red book. I am surprised at what is listed as High Liturgy in the green/grey book.

I assumed when people were talking about Low Liturgy they were refering to what is given in the Ordo as the Simple Rite the only differences between the Simple and Solemn Rites being that the Simple allows incense to not be used and the priest does not have to take the blessing of the throne but may remain at the altar for the reading of the Epistle.

As for what the green/grey books have, I have never seen 1 through for 4 not done, even at a weekday Liturgy. It is common however for the Prokimen and Alleluia to be done without the verses regardles of what day it is. 5 and 6, however, are in my experience a 50/50 proposition. And all this while using the blue/red books.

I would add, however, that other than the words "High" and "Low" these directions have no similarity to the Latin Church's difference between Solemn High, High, and Low Mass. The differences here (in the Latin Mass) are rubrical for the most part, singing vs reciting, number of ministers, use of incense, and have nothing to do with not taking various parts of the Mass. So this really isn't a Latinization, but simply an abbreviation.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Well I don't know what high/low conveys apart from the obvious: greater and lesser parts taken aloud. I suppose we could talk about about standard options packages 1 and 2, but then again "option" is derived from you-know-what.

That's an interesting list, Joe. Most amazing: did the Melkites really use the Roman liturgy? And genuflections? Wow!

I haven't been to your parish, but I would be surprised and sad to find that you did not have "Western music and songs" (12); what do you think our prostopinije is? And just how many antiphon, prokimenon, and alleluia verses (15) do you take?

We used to sing Stabat Mater when we had Stations. My home parish used Glory and Praise at one time too.

As for psalmody, we take them all. For Communion we sometimes just chant the Psalms with the Alleluia. We chant a minimum of three Psalm verses for each Antiphon (thank you, John Vernoski). Sometimes we take more.

Joe

Lance, go to Passaic or Parma and you will find many of the old 1965 books. And from what I hear, they are not that rare in the Archeparchy, either.

Again, why the use of Latin liturgical terms well in use? Could we not just employ more clear rubrical terms, say sung vs. recited, optional, etc.?

Considering the latinizations historically present in Greek Catholic liturgical usage, I disagree with both replies of djs and Lance above. The people of the late 1950s and early 1960s I posit were to some extent aquainted with Roman liturgical terms. Joe's experience here speaks for itself.

"High Liturgy" is a direct borrowing of Latin liturgical concept and term, present in the distinctions of liturgical celebration at the time which is well known for those familiar with the 1962 Roman Missal. It seems we want to continue to defend Roman liturgical terms and meanings for our own celebrations and rubrics.

Optional has no bearing on sung/recited. Optional means "optional", recited "recited" and I think all are comfortable with those meanings. They are clear enough.

It appears that confusion exists with "high" here. Is it too much to ask for rubrics that are more to the point, distinct from Roman and not inherently confusing with existing and well-defined Roman liturgical rubrics? Or at least consistent in language with the Ordo which is officially promulgated?

The number of ministers, etc. are nowhere defined for a non-high celebration nor a high as you indicate nor is incense in these 1965 Pittsburgh booklets. Even the term "high liturgy" itself has no parallel in the Ordo Celebrationis.

Again, yet another easy fix (dropping one confusing word and clarifying with better ones) met with difficulty.

Not really. You obviously didn't have to study the Baltimore Catechism for twelve years and have to instruct the new altar servers. We studied the Latin Mass and how we executed it in our own parish. We even had Benediction and Stations immediately following the Mass.

Whether it was the intended meaning or not was not the issue. It WAS conveyed as such in the many years of Baltimore Catechism instruction.

I agree with Diak. We even purposely used words like "Mass" in reference to the Divine Liturgy. The Latin character and understandings became more acute when, following the aftermath of Vatican II, hordes of families made their way to our parish to preserve that old Mass feeling.

I remember vividly the comments of the babas and old men after liturgies. "This pastor is ruining our church," "he is destroying our church traditions," etc. One old man, who was born in Presov, was very upset about how dramatically our liturgy changed to suit the newcomers. "This is not a Byzantine Liturgy, its a Latin Mass!" He waived his fist and I thought he was going to bop me one on the nose. It was my very first moment of liturgical consciousness. "Why was this old man so upset?" "Why did the babas kneel durint the Great Entrance during Mass on Friday evenings?" Were they protesting or was it the only thing left for them to do that reminded them of their church? I remember the anger in that man's face. He was so disgusted, but like many other older Greek Catholics, he didn't have the money($) to be convincing.

Whether one used incense was not a matter of options or abbreviations. When we received newly ordained priests at our parish as assistants, their use of incense at all appropriate times was considered "Orthodox." When to use incense wasn't documented in the pew books.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

So, in your neck of the woods, "RC" means "Ruthenian Catholic?"

Alex

Subdeacon Randolph and Joe,

I think you guys misread my post so I clarified where I think you misread me. I was refering to the Latin Mass in my original post not our Divine Liturgy. My main point is other than calling the Liturgies High and Low what they have done rubrically is not imitation of the Latin Liturgy but simple abbreviation. I do not agree with it but I think calling everything a Latinization is incorrect. A lot of what we call Latinization we came up with own our own and the rubrical changes in the grey/green book are a good example of this.

And Joe, I did study the Baltimore Catechism, go to Catholic Elementary and High School, serve at the altar, and train other servers in the Latin Church. I was raised Latin. My parish, as most of the parishes in good old Cambria County, was liturgically consevative. My parsih was served by Benedictine Monks of the older generation and although High and Low Mass technically ceased to exist for the Roman Rite after VII, they pretty much kept the distinction. Daily Mass was Low Mass, Sunday Mass was High Mass with all the differences in as much as they could be maintained. What the green/grey book suggests is simply dropping parts of the Liturgy and this does not occur in the Tridentine Mass. Of course the kneeling and emphasis on the Words of Institution as exclusively the Consecration are.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

My home parish has two Sunday Liturgies - 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. My Mom always refers to the former as the "Low Mass" and the latter as the "High Mass" even though there is no difference between them save the time. This terminology comes from her home parish, a Greek Catholic church in Cambria County, Pa., no less, where surely this terminology had more to do with the type of "Mass" than with the time.

Lemko, that reminds me of one OCA parish in NEPA which still celebrates Matins before the Liturgy. In popular town parlance, Matins is "Low Mass" and Liturgy is "High Mass."

Go figure!

Dave