OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 06:41:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Shared Byzantine Rite and Western Rite Calendar and Fasts?  (Read 1447 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« on: December 27, 2010, 03:06:34 AM »

Given that at least in ROCOR, our churches in the majority Byzantine rite commemorate the authorised saints of Western Orthodoxy in every liturgy, which in some places like San Francisco Cathedral is daily, in effect the Byzantine rite is observing the Western-rite calendar.  Is this the same for the Western-rite in reverse?  If it is the same, then ought we not be sharing the same fasting seasons and canonical norms?  This would still allow the Western-rite the use of their own liturgies ( why do they not call the Liturgy the Mass as is the norm in western tradition?)  but it would provide greater unity of observance, and perhaps make the majority Byzantine-rite more favourable towards the Western-rite.

Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2010, 04:21:11 AM »

Given that at least in ROCOR, our churches in the majority Byzantine rite commemorate the authorised saints of Western Orthodoxy in every liturgy

Don't assume that other local churches are as advanced as ROCOR. I've yet to see at least one Scandinavian saint in Finnish Calendar.

Quote
why do they not call the Liturgy the Mass as is the norm in western tradition?

That's a really good question which also I have been wondering. That could be some kind of minor byzantisation.

While I'm against all byzantisations of WRO, I have a gut feeling that Roman Patriarchate used to be a little more Byzantine than post-Schism RCC. It's calendar and fasting rules (and liturgy) could have been suprisinly similiar with other four patriarchates. It could be a proper compromise to recover these traditions since they are genuinely Western and Orthodox and could also make WRO more acceptable to Byzantine faithful.
Logged

SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2010, 05:33:34 AM »

Given that at least in ROCOR, our churches in the majority Byzantine rite commemorate the authorised saints of Western Orthodoxy in every liturgy

Don't assume that other local churches are as advanced as ROCOR. I've yet to see at least one Scandinavian saint in Finnish Calendar.

Quote
why do they not call the Liturgy the Mass as is the norm in western tradition?

That's a really good question which also I have been wondering. That could be some kind of minor byzantisation.

While I'm against all byzantisations of WRO, I have a gut feeling that Roman Patriarchate used to be a little more Byzantine than post-Schism RCC. It's calendar and fasting rules (and liturgy) could have been suprisinly similiar with other four patriarchates. It could be a proper compromise to recover these traditions since they are genuinely Western and Orthodox and could also make WRO more acceptable to Byzantine faithful.
One of the things that stands out about the Western-rite is the need to recover an understanding that the pre-Great Schism Latin Church was Orthodox, and I suspect there is a much greater need to appreciate Roman Orthodoxy with it's Latin cultural and spiritual heritage which includes the use of Latin.  

There is so much preoccupation with "ye-olde Celtic" amongst some WR advocates.  Celtic is used very loosely by some, with some even implying that it was the norm of pre-Schism western Europe, relegating the Roman or Latin to a secondary position.  It would be an irony if the Byzantine rite Russian Church offered greater respect to the non-Celtic Western Orthodox saints than many in the Western-rite.  

Archpriest Andrew from ROCOR UK's Diocese notes in Orthodox England in relation to Latin Saints of the Orthodox Church: "We use the term 'Latin Orthodox', since the term 'Western Orthodox' is too confined geographically. It also has connotations of 'Western-rite'. Even the term 'Western European Orthodox' is insufficient. We use the term 'Latin Orthodox', because the term includes all those holy ones who were part of the Roman Patriarchate. This includes all those who used Latin as a liturgical language, from the Atlantic Celts to the Scandinavian Norse, from the Germanic peoples to the Latin peoples, from Eastern and Central Europe to North-West Africa.

The latter have been particularly neglected. Only the ever-memorable Bishop Nathanael in his reports in 1953 and 1954 to St John the Wonderworker, wrote to any extent about the saints of Latin (North-West) Africa, as opposed to Greek (North-East) Africa, who were centred around the Patriarchate of Alexandria. We should not forget that the native peoples of North-West Africa, the Berbers and their descendants the Kabyls, spoke Latin, not only before the Muslim invasions, but right up until the twelfth century."
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/saintsint.htm

The first fifty-three popes of the West were and are Orthodox saints.  To St. Zacharias the Pope (d. 752) 68 out of 90 were saints of the Universal Church.  http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm  Similarly in England, so many Archbishops of Cantuar (Canterbury) were and remain Orthodox saints worthy of the highest veneration in the Eastern and Western-Orthodox Churches.  St. Augustine of Canterbury, Apostle of the English (604), St. Alphege, Martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury, (1012), St. Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, (988), St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury (690) point to the sanctity of the bishops of the See of Canterbury. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/natlocst.htm

I cannot understand the preoccupation with the Celtic past, which some take to the extreme of talking of "Celtic Orthodoxy".  The other extreme of the Celtic nostalgia is out and out paganism, something to be avoided under the trappings of the New Age. There is much to re-appreciate about the Western Orthodox past of Europe, but it will not achieve anything meaningful if it is lost in Celtic fantasy or Western resentment towards the Byzantine dominance of the Orthodox Church. There appears to be clear evidence of Greco/Coptic monastic presence in Celtic Ireland, and it would be useful to know what level of Byzantinisation of the Irish Church occurred in those times.

It is a noble thing to seek to take the DNA of Western Europe's pre-Schism Orthodox heritage and fidelity to the Faith and bring it back to life - but it cannot be done without acknowledging the loss of Orthodoxy in all of Western Europe - including the so-called Celtic lands.  Orthodoxy was lost in the West and the West was fully lost to Orthodoxy before the restoration of Orthodoxy by the Byzantine priests and missionaries of the Russian, Greek and other national Orthodox Churches.

The Western-rites are entirely reliant on their Byzantine bishops, and Synods etc. Logically if the Western-rite is to have any meaning apart from some kind of Uniate life in the wider Orthodox Church, it requires it's own bishops and theological seminaries and a much more robust infrastructure of parish churches. Without this the Byzantinisation of the Western-rite I suggest is inevitable, however this does not mean a lack of love and respect for the Western Orthodox traditions and saints by the bishops, priests and faithful of the "Eastern" Orthodox Churches.  

It is the Byzantine rite Churches who have breathed life into the defunct and spiritually moribund West.  It is the Antiochian and Russian Churches in particular which have promoted the veneration of those English and other Western saints, for whom veneration in the West was largely extinguished for centuries. A shared liturgical and fasting calendar is logical for the Orthodox East and West - and especially because 99% of Western Orthodox Christians are not Western-Rite but worship in the Byzantine-rite, happily, comfortably and gladly.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 05:50:32 AM by SubdeaconDavid » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2010, 01:25:19 PM »


That's a really good question which also I have been wondering. That could be some kind of minor byzantisation.

While I'm against all byzantisations of WRO, I have a gut feeling that Roman Patriarchate used to be a little more Byzantine than post-Schism RCC. It's calendar and fasting rules (and liturgy) could have been suprisinly similiar with other four patriarchates. It could be a proper compromise to recover these traditions since they are genuinely Western and Orthodox and could also make WRO more acceptable to Byzantine faithful.
The Roman Patriarchate was never Byzantine to begin with. The fact that the Church changes its calendar with the birth of new saints is not shocking, though. Every local church has its own calendar. I would not expect the entire church to have one calendar. I see no need for the entire church to celebrate the feast of the Good Thief, or the feast of the Gracious Mother of God, or the martyrs of the Church in Poland. Uniformity in liturgy is not essential for Christianity.

The Roman Liturgy was never the Byzantine liturgy, just as the Syrian and Alexandrian liturgies were independent of Byzantium. The fact that the three other Orthodox patriarchates had their own traditions, but since the Greeks invented the idea that Christianity is Greek, the other traditions were forced to die out.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2010, 02:12:35 PM »


That's a really good question which also I have been wondering. That could be some kind of minor byzantisation.

While I'm against all byzantisations of WRO, I have a gut feeling that Roman Patriarchate used to be a little more Byzantine than post-Schism RCC. It's calendar and fasting rules (and liturgy) could have been suprisinly similiar with other four patriarchates. It could be a proper compromise to recover these traditions since they are genuinely Western and Orthodox and could also make WRO more acceptable to Byzantine faithful.
The Roman Patriarchate was never Byzantine to begin with.

Since "Byzantine" was invented by the Vatican in the patriarchate of Rome, "Byzantine" was Ultramontaine to begin with.

Quote
The fact that the Church changes its calendar with the birth of new saints is not shocking, though. Every local church has its own calendar. I would not expect the entire church to have one calendar. I see no need for the entire church to celebrate the feast of the Good Thief, or the feast of the Gracious Mother of God, or the martyrs of the Church in Poland. Uniformity in liturgy is not essential for Christianity.

The Roman Liturgy was never the Byzantine liturgy, just as the Syrian and Alexandrian liturgies were independent of Byzantium. The fact that the three other Orthodox patriarchates had their own traditions, but since the Greeks invented the idea that Christianity is Greek, the other traditions were forced to die out.
What about the ludicrous idea that Chrisitianity was Latin, and its enforcement. At least the NT and the Councils were conducted in Greek.

And btw, the Roman Liturgy was originally Greek. Latin was not even begun to be introduced until around 190, and wasn't completely in Latin until Pope St. Damasus I c. 384.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2010, 03:01:14 PM »


That's a really good question which also I have been wondering. That could be some kind of minor byzantisation.

While I'm against all byzantisations of WRO, I have a gut feeling that Roman Patriarchate used to be a little more Byzantine than post-Schism RCC. It's calendar and fasting rules (and liturgy) could have been suprisinly similiar with other four patriarchates. It could be a proper compromise to recover these traditions since they are genuinely Western and Orthodox and could also make WRO more acceptable to Byzantine faithful.
The Roman Patriarchate was never Byzantine to begin with.

Of course not and I didn't mean that. By "a little more Byzantine" I meant that Orthodox Rome's practises used to resemble Byzantine practises. Gap between the East and the West wasn't so wide as it is nowadays. I didn't mean to equate "Byzantine" with "Orthodox" though.
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2010, 07:17:37 PM »

I don't know how ROCOR does it, but my AWRV parish always calls it Mass.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2010, 12:01:32 AM »

I don't know how ROCOR does it, but my AWRV parish always calls it Mass.

Yep. We have High Mass and Low Mass as well.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2010, 08:46:10 AM »

Quote
The Roman Patriarchate was never Byzantine to begin with.

Since "Byzantine" was invented by the Vatican in the patriarchate of Rome, "Byzantine" was Ultramontaine to begin with.

What about the ludicrous idea that Chrisitianity was Latin, and its enforcement. At least the NT and the Councils were conducted in Greek.

And btw, the Roman Liturgy was originally Greek. Latin was not even begun to be introduced until around 190, and wasn't completely in Latin until Pope St. Damasus I c. 384.
Mater Deo! So king Byzas was a Roman Catholic ultramontane? So the ancient Greeks about c.600-700 years before Christ were Roman Catholic ultramontanists?
The fact that the liturgy was said in Greek for Greeks and in Latin for Romans is not shocking for me. Is it for you?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:36:00 AM by arimethea » Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2010, 09:24:05 PM »

I don't know how ROCOR does it, but my AWRV parish always calls it Mass.

Yep. We have High Mass and Low Mass as well.
I don't understand the objection of some to "Mass" given that it is from the Latin.  I would like to see evidence of what the mass was called in English use - whether Celtic or Latin or the much cited Sarum.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2011, 07:03:03 AM »

I would like to see evidence of what the mass was called in English use - whether Celtic or Latin or the much cited Sarum.

In Ireland, from the earliest days and even today in modern Irish, the Mass is called An tAifreann - The Offering.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2011, 09:02:55 AM »

I would like to see evidence of what the mass was called in English use - whether Celtic or Latin or the much cited Sarum.

In Ireland, from the earliest days and even today in modern Irish, the Mass is called An tAifreann - The Offering.

Well an appropriate name.  Why do you think Liturgy is preferred over mass by some in the WR such as found in the St. Colman Prayer Book of ROCOR's Australian and UK missions?  I would have thought mass would have been far more missionary useful and "non-eastern" to the Petrochian missions which appear to have a strong focus on the Church of England - see http://forwardinorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/ That website speaks of: The Orthodox Church re-introduced the Western Rite in 1870  and has a hundred year old authorisation for services being taken from the BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER and adapted for Orthodox use - "traditional Anglican" if you like - services that you, as a Church of England person would be very familiar with - not Italian or Irish or Greek but English. And it uses the complete Bible - not the truncated (fourteen books missing) version so common today.  The Western Rite had existed within Orthodoxy from AD 37 until the 1300s - the official re-authorisation of Western Rite within Orthodoxy in 1870, was specifically intended for us here in England. Mass is used by High Church or Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England, Anglican Communion and traditionalist Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, whereas "Divine Liturgy" is not.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 09:10:41 AM by SubdeaconDavid » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2011, 12:27:51 PM »

It's an interesting question for sure, Subdeacon.  Our official Antiochian Orthodox Missal says, "The Divine Liturgy, Commonly Called The Mass" on the cover page, and then, since we have 2 approved liturgies, it specifies by saying, "The Mass According to the Rite of St. Tikhon" or "Gregory."
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2011, 02:57:37 AM »

It's an interesting question for sure, Subdeacon.  Our official Antiochian Orthodox Missal says, "The Divine Liturgy, Commonly Called The Mass" on the cover page, and then, since we have 2 approved liturgies, it specifies by saying, "The Mass According to the Rite of St. Tikhon" or "Gregory."
I am not sure what the liturgical situation is with the 10 new ROCOR WR parishes in the US with "the mass" as a term.  They have been labelled ex-Anglican but my reading is that they were self-styled Orthodox Catholics and so maybe their language is a little different. Does anyone know?
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.072 seconds with 41 queries.