Topic: Byzantine Catholic

[Hamartolos]

Hi All,

This may be a naive question but what liturgical differences are there between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians?  I understand what theological differences exist, however I haven't been able to find anything on this matter.  Although the DL's of both are quite similar, are there not some differences in the way we worship?  Thanks for any input!

[Pravoslavbob]

It depends to a great extent on the level of latinisation present in a Byzantine Catholic parish.  In cases where there is lots of latinisation, you might witness strange hybrid liturgical practices that incorporate Western and Eastern elements.   Some Eastern Catholic parishes will at times offer their faithful the option of attending "recited" liturgy, a kind of "low mass", if you will, where nothing is chanted and everything simply recited in speaking tones.    There are some Byzantine Catholic parishes that have done really well in trying to stick to an authentic Eastern liturgical practice (including a few that are so good at it that they are more "Orthodox" in their practice than some Orthodox parishes; i.e., they have excellent chant, are rubrically very precise etc.).  In a parish like this, the only difference you will notice will be the commeration of the Pope here and there in the liturgy.  There are also translation preferences that seem to further distinguish the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics in North America.  For example, it seems that Eastern Catholics have a marked preference for finishing prayers with "now and forever and ever" instead of "now and ever and unto ages of ages."  Also, many Catholic parishes will not commemorate important post-schism saints like Gregory Palamas, but some will.

[scamandrius]

Mctaviix,

As Pravoslavbob said, it all depends.  I'd wait to hear particularly from Schultz (former Byz Catholic and now an Orthodox catechumen) and Fr. Deacon Lance (a Byz Catholic).  They'll have the most in depth answers for you.

From my experience, the Byz Catholics will say that their Liturgy is exactly the same as Orthodox.  However, and I'll let Schultz and Fr. Deacon Lance tackle this, there is a lot of Latinization going on.  Some Byz Catholics are now "compelled" to say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the famous filioque. some Byz Catholics to avoid this Latinization have become Orthodox, or, as in one case in Ukraine, they became Eastern Rite Lutherans!

[Pravoslavbob]

^  I forgot about the filioque clause.  Many Eastern Catholic service books do not include it.  I think some include it as an "option", and others include it with no qualifications.

[Alveus Lacuna]

At the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church I attended in my city, the Divine Liturgy was extremely abbreviated, at about 45 minutes total.  They also offered no Matins services or Great Vespers services at all.  Just one 45 minute Divine Liturgy every week and then liturgies for the 12 Great Feasts and for Pascha.  No filioque clause, and there were several commemorations of the Pope of Rome.

As an aside, their tiny little church is absolutely beautiful.

[mike]

At the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church I attended in my city, the Divine Liturgy was extremely abbreviated, at about 45 minutes total. 

World record. I know you can throw away Litany of catechumens, commemorating people on the Litanies of Fervent Supplication and of Departed, sermon, announcements but I still can't believe it can take less than an hour.

[Deacon Lance]

To start Ukrainian and Capatho-Rusyn Greek Catholics have a distinct usage that is actually older than the Nikonian.  The Antiphons are different and verses after the first are usually omitted, the Typical Pslams are not muched used outisde the Great Fast.  It is common in Greek Catholic Churches to omit the Little Litanies, the Litanies of the Catechumens and the Faithful, and the first Aitesis but not the prayers that go with them.  ACROD practice is similar if not identical.  My own parish uses all the common abbreviations but Liturgy is still an hour.  Not sure how you could get it down to 45 minutes.

Fr Deacon Lance 

[Hamartolos]

Thank you all.  I am a catechumen being chrismated on October 18, God willing.  I'm just trying to find out about this as my friend is Byzantine Catholic and will be coming to that Divine Liturgy.  So, aside from certain omissions and such, a Byzantine Catholic would not see any noticeable differences within an Orthodox (specifically, Antiochian) Liturgy?  Also, does the BC Church have all of the same practices as the Orthodox Church (Same fasting rules, married clergy, etc..)?  Thanks for your continued answers.

[Pravoslavbob]

  So, aside from certain omissions and such, a Byzantine Catholic would not see any noticeable differences within an Orthodox (specifically, Antiochian) Liturgy?

No, this is not what was said. 

It depends to a great extent on the level of latinisation present in a Byzantine Catholic parish. 

It all depends on the particular Eastern Catholic in question and what they are accustomed to.  But they are bound to notice some things that are the same or similar.

  Also, does the BC Church have all of the same practices as the Orthodox Church (Same fasting rules, married clergy, etc..)?  Thanks for your continued answers.

Again, it all depends on how faithfully particular parishes or jurisdictions strive to follow Eastern tradition, or how much they have been permitted to do so in the past.  Officially, at least, the current Catholic position on this is that they should all be supported in trying to maintain as authentic Eastern practices as possible, but in reality this does not always happen, not by any means. You are (unwittingly, I know) opening a big can of worms when it comes to the question of Eastern Catholic married clergy (and other canonical disciplines).  I suggest you search the site for discussions on this topic.  It has been a great struggle for Eastern Catholics to maintain this part of their tradition, and some have lost the battle.  There are those who have found ingenious ways to fight this battle.  For the moment, Rome is not particularly hostile to this tradition when it comes to those jurisdictions who have managed to maintain married clergy, so in these cases, yes, they are for now able to have married priests.  I don't really want to get into a protracted discussion on this issue here, maybe you could do the suggested search.

[ag_vn]

Do the Byzantine catholics celebrate the Presanctified liturgy during weekdays in Lent?

I visited a Byzantine catholic church in Sofia a few months ago, it was a weekday liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and lasted about 40 minutes. I don't know what the length is on Sundays.

[Mickey]

This may be a naive question but what liturgical differences are there between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians? 

The revised Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church (2007), uses gender neutral language--including the Creed.  This was particularly painful for me when I was a Byzantine Catholic.

[mike]

This may be a naive question but what liturgical differences are there between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians? 

The revised Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church (2007), uses gender neutral language--including the Creed.  This was particularly painful for me when I was a Byzantine Catholic.

Could you give a sample?

[Mickey]

Could you give a sample?

The two major examples are:

In the Nicene Creed, instead of: "For us men and for our salvation..."

It reads: "For us and for our salvation..."

And at the dismissal instead of: "For He is good and the Lover of mankind".

It reads: "For He is good and loves us all".

[mike]

What's wrong with "mankind"?

[Papist]

Could you give a sample?

The two major examples are:

In the Nicene Creed, instead of: "For us men and for our salvation..."

It reads: "For us and for our salvation..."

And at the dismissal instead of: "For He is good and the Lover of mankind".

It reads: "For He is good and loves us all".

Some times I wonder what's wrong with using gender neutral language in the Liturgy as long as its not used in reference to God.

[ozgeorge]

Could you give a sample?

The two major examples are:

In the Nicene Creed, instead of: "For us men and for our salvation..."

It reads: "For us and for our salvation..."

And at the dismissal instead of: "For He is good and the Lover of mankind".

It reads: "For He is good and loves us all".

Some times I wonder what's wrong with using gender neutral language in the Liturgy as long as its not used in reference to God.

Whats more, the original Koine is gender neutral in both cases. "Anthropos" means "human", not "man". The Creed says: "for us anthopous ("humans") and for our salvation...." and the dismissal says "for He is Good and the Philanthropos ("Friend of humans").

[Mickey]

What's wrong with "mankind"?

Exactly.

[Rosehip]

I don't understand the problem. I always understood the term "mankind" to mean humanity in general-not the male sex.

I've always loved the CS term "Chelovekolubets" (Lover of Mankind), and  find it very easy to understand that the term means "lover of humanity".

[ozgeorge]

Why is "mankind" all inclusive but "womankind" not?

[Mickey]

Some times I wonder what's wrong with using gender neutral language in the Liturgy

Humanity has always been translated as man, men, mankind, brethren etc.  One of Christ's titles has always been translated as, "the Lover of mankind".  It was not until the 1960's and the emergence of the radical feminist movement that language began to shift toward a neutral translation in an effort to not "offend". This atmosphere of "political correctness" has spread like a virulent plague. 

The Byzantine Catholic revised Divine Liturgy supported a clear agenda to cater to this gender neutral mindset.  The liturgy is suppose to transform the world--not the other way around.

However, if you like this modern gender neutral translation---it is available for you.   

[Mickey]

I don't understand the problem. I always understood the term "mankind" to mean humanity in general-not the male sex.

I've always loved the CS term "Chelovekolubets" (Lover of Mankind), and  find it very easy to understand that the term means "lover of humanity".

Amen. God bless you.

[IreneOlinyk]

Some times I wonder what's wrong with using gender neutral language in the Liturgy

Humanity has always been translated as man, men, mankind, brethren etc.  One of Christ's titles has always been translated as, "the Lover of mankind".  It was not until the 1960's and the emergence of the radical feminist movement that language began to shift toward a neutral translation in an effort to not "offend". This atmosphere of "political correctness" has spread like a virulent plague. 

The Byzantine Catholic revised Divine Liturgy supported a clear agenda to cater to this gender neutral mindset.  The liturgy is suppose to transform the world--not the other way around.

However, if you like this modern gender neutral translation---it is available for you.   

"Radical Feminist Movemenet'?  That's a pretty loaded expression. How about women who just want to be included?  What is wrong with using "all" instead of mankind or humankind?

[Papist]

Some times I wonder what's wrong with using gender neutral language in the Liturgy

Humanity has always been translated as man, men, mankind, brethren etc.  One of Christ's titles has always been translated as, "the Lover of mankind".  It was not until the 1960's and the emergence of the radical feminist movement that language began to shift toward a neutral translation in an effort to not "offend". This atmosphere of "political correctness" has spread like a virulent plague. 

The Byzantine Catholic revised Divine Liturgy supported a clear agenda to cater to this gender neutral mindset.  The liturgy is suppose to transform the world--not the other way around.

However, if you like this modern gender neutral translation---it is available for you.   

"Radical Feminist Movemenet'?  That's a pretty loaded expression. How about women who just want to be included?  What is wrong with using "all" instead of mankind or humankind?

Thank you for making this point. Just because the Church want's to emphasis the fact that women are also included in the Salvation that God has provided for us does not amount to radical femenism.

[Mickey]

"Radical Feminist Movemenet'?  That's a pretty loaded expression. How about women who just want to be included?  What is wrong with using "all" instead of mankind or humankind?

My wife and many other Byzantine Catholics women were highly offended by the "new" language.  They felt insulted that someone was trying to tell them that they should feel slighted by the words "mankind", "men" or "brethren".

But again Irene, if you like gender neutral politically correct language, it is available for you.

[Papist]

"Radical Feminist Movemenet'?  That's a pretty loaded expression. How about women who just want to be included?  What is wrong with using "all" instead of mankind or humankind?

My wife and many other Byzantine Catholics women were highly offended by the "new" language.  They felt insulted that someone was trying to tell them that they should feel slighted by the words "mankind", "men" or "brethren".

But again Irene, if you like gender neutral politically correct language, it is available for you.

That's fine that your wife felt that way. However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women. The Catholic faith is for the redemption of all.

[Mickey]

Thank you for making this point. Just because the Church want's to emphasis the fact that women are also included in the Salvation that God has provided for us does not amount to radical femenism.

The Church has always known and taught the inclusivity of men and women. If you need gender neutral politically correct language to prove this, then you have it in the Byzantine Catholic Church! 

[Papist]

Thank you for making this point. Just because the Church want's to emphasis the fact that women are also included in the Salvation that God has provided for us does not amount to radical femenism.

The Church has always known and taught the inclusivity of men and women. If you need gender neutral politically correct language to prove this, then you have it in the Byzantine Catholic Church! 

What does this have to do with being "politically correct"? This is not politics. This is about what is the best way to preach the faith to this world.
Let me ask you a question Mickey, was the substance of the faith changed by using these translations?

[Mickey]

However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women.

Sadly, most were offended by the change.

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is for the redemption of all mankind. 

[Rosehip]

My wife and many other Byzantine Catholics women were highly offended by the "new" language.  They felt insulted that someone was trying to tell them that they should feel slighted by the words "mankind", "men" or "brethren".

As a woman, and furthermore, one who highly values femininity, I share these sentiments. Of all the terrible things that have happened to me in this life-the loneliness, the rejection, the suffering, the losses,etc., this kind of thing has got to be at the very bottom of the list of "diffcult" things.

[Papist]

However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women.

Sadly, most were offended by the change.

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is for the redemption of all mankind. 

You are right. It is. This is why we should consider using a tanslation of the liturgy that emphasizes this fact.

[LizaSymonenko]

That's fine that your wife felt that way. However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women.

As a woman, and an aquaintance of many other women, I would disagree with this statement.

I do not think that most women are offended by the term "mankind".  It's just more stirring of the pot - an blaming the stirring on the women!

It's huMAN, too.  Maybe we should make huWOMAN.

It's just more nitpicking....and rocking the boat unnecessarily.

The less change within the Church the better!

It's not meant to be modernized.  Maybe we should try to remain true to the old ways, not modernize the Church to suit our current likes and dislikes.

[Mickey]

This is why we should consider using a tanslation of the liturgy that emphasizes this fact.

We do not need to consider. It has been done for many years in the Holy Orthodox Church. She has always used mankind, man, men, and brethren. And everyone, male and female have always known that this language is all inclusive (I also prefer thee, thou, and thy but that's another thread).



No one has raised a stink about it until recently. And if you like the gender neutral--it is there for you in the Byzantine Catholic Church (and many protestant denominations)!   Isn't that great papist?!?

[Mickey]

As a woman, and an aquaintance of many other women, I would disagree with this statement.

I do not think that most women are offended by the term "mankind".  It's just more stirring of the pot - an blaming the stirring on the women!

It's huMAN, too.  Maybe we should make huWOMAN.

It's just more nitpicking....and rocking the boat unnecessarily.

The less change within the Church the better!

It's not meant to be modernized.  Maybe we should try to remain true to the old ways, not modernize the Church to suit our current likes and dislikes.

God bless you Liza.  Whenever I participate in this subject, I ultimately get labeled as a male chauvenist pig--by men and women alike (mostly by Catholics and protestants).  This hurts me because I am very pro-women.  My wife brought me to the faith. I have known very devout and holy women who taught the faith.  I see that more women go to the Divine Liturgy--even if their husbands do not attend.  And then of course there are the holy female saints--and the greatest of all saints, Our Lady, the Theotokos, the Panaghia, the Holy Mother of God.

[ozgeorge]

Sad that innovations such as mistranslating "anthopos" and "hominem" are not corrected.

[Mickey]

Sad that innovations such as mistranslating "anthopos" and "hominem" are not corrected.

Perhaps you should change the quote from Blaise Pascal at the bottom of your profile. 

[Rosehip]

That's fine that your wife felt that way. However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women.

As a woman, and an aquaintance of many other women, I would disagree with this statement.

I do not think that most women are offended by the term "mankind".  It's just more stirring of the pot - an blaming the stirring on the women!

It's huMAN, too.  Maybe we should make huWOMAN.

It's just more nitpicking....and rocking the boat unnecessarily.

The less change within the Church the better!

It's not meant to be modernized.  Maybe we should try to remain true to the old ways, not modernize the Church to suit our current likes and dislikes.

Great post, Liza! And maybe we should also ban the word "woman", since it has the word "man" in it. Only "lady" should be used...sigh...

[Alveus Lacuna]

The term 'man' does not uniformly imply that the subject is 'male.'

Has the Orthodox Church ever taught that salvation is exclusive to males?  No!  This all seems a bit silly.

Maybe we should make huWOMAN.

Nope.  Still contains 'man.'  It should be 'huPERSON.'

And maybe we should also ban the word "woman", since it has the word "man" in it. Only "lady" should be used...sigh...

Let's not forget that feMALE also contains the word male.  What's a gal to do?

[ozgeorge]

Sad that innovations such as mistranslating "anthopos" and "hominem" are not corrected.

Perhaps you should change the quote at the bottom of your profile. 

Its a direct quote. I don't alter received texts. That would be an heretical innovation.

[Deacon Lance]

I'll go on record here and state that I really don't like "loves us all"  as it is clunky and unpoetic.  If they really felt the need to change it, it should have been "loves humankind".  Ditto for the Creed.  That said I prefer the older language simply because it sounds better.  As George points out anthropos is a neutral term so I can't see crying foul when mankind or men is changed to humankind or human as one can when aner is neutered.


Fr. Deacon Lance

[Alveus Lacuna]

Its a direct quote. I don't alter received texts. That would be an heretical innovation.

Oh, is the original text not in French?  If it is, then could not you feel free to translate it in more inclusive language?

[Deacon Lance]

However, that is not necessarily the case for all women and I doubt that it is the case for most women.

Sadly, most were offended by the change.

Really?  Just as the number of those who want the inclusive language was very small, those who are offended by it were also very small.  The vast majority, sadly, could care less one way or another.  The majority of those upset about the RDL are upset about the musical changes more than anything else unless, again sadly, it is the Liturgy taking longer than an hour.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Hamartolos]

So, do all Byzantine Catholic churches share this 2007 revision in their liturgies?

[Deacon Lance]

Also note, radical feminists want the spelling changed to "womyn".

[Deacon Lance]

So, do all Byzantine Catholic churches share this 2007 revision in their liturgies?

No, the revision was specific to the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and even there not all parishes have adopted it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

Whenever I participate in this subject, I ultimately get labeled as a male chauvenist pig--by men and women alike (mostly by Catholics and protestants).  This hurts me because I am very pro-women. 

Mickey,

Then perhaps you should not label those who translate a Greek gender-neutral noun with an English gender-neutral  noun.  They are not all radical feminists, even if their action is something the radical feminists would want.  Just as those who support the ordination of married men are not modernists but modernists want ordination of married men too.

Fr. Deacon Lance