Topic: Western Rite - the name

[Caelestinus]

Why are you folks talking of a 'Western Rite', not of 'Latin Rites', existing as 'Roman Rite', 'Gallican Rite', 'Mozarabic Rite', 'Ambrosian Rite', 'Sarum Rite' etc.?

..at least it should be used in plural, thinks


Caelestinus

[FormerReformer]

Mainly because it's fairly rare to find any of the variety of "Western Rite" served in Latin. "Latin Rite" might make an inquirer think its being served in Latin, best to avoid confusion. As for the plurality- we don't call our various different Liturgies (St John Chrystostom, St Basil, St James, Presanctified) "Byzantine Rites" and we don't distinguish between the differences in the Russian tradition of serving the Liturgy and the Greek tradition as "Byzantine Rites", why change things up for the Western Rite?

[Caelestinus]

As for the plurality- we don't call our various different Liturgies (St John Chrystostom, St Basil, St James, Presanctified) "Byzantine Rites"

No? But they are Byzantine / of East-Roman origin = Greek (whatever the language is, they are celebrated in). The same I would assume and propose for the Latin / Western Rites.

[Shanghaiski]

Why are you folks talking of a 'Western Rite', not of 'Latin Rites', existing as 'Roman Rite', 'Gallican Rite', 'Mozarabic Rite', 'Ambrosian Rite', 'Sarum Rite' etc.?

..at least it should be used in plural, thinks


Caelestinus

I'm sure that somewhere on the Internet, Orthodox Western Riters and those with strong opinions on the matter are arguing about it quite vehemently, that is, if they can find the time amongst all their other topics for argument.

[Shanghaiski]

Western Rite Orthodoxy, anyway, covers the whole gamut. It's a general term. There is, of course, no one Western rite. There is, however, pretty much one single Eastern rite--with a couple different liturgies. The hours of prayer are basically the same, unless you're speaking of the Russian Old Rite, which is still basically the same, but completely different.

[FormerReformer]

As for the plurality- we don't call our various different Liturgies (St John Chrystostom, St Basil, St James, Presanctified) "Byzantine Rites"

No? But they are Byzantine / of East-Roman origin = Greek (whatever the language is, they are celebrated in). The same I would assume and propose for the Latin / Western Rites.

I don't think you were quite getting what I was saying there- the various Liturgies are part of the Byzantine Rite, singular, not Byzantine Rites, plural.

[Shanghaiski]

To clarify, a liturgical rite is more than just a liturgy, but a corpus of liturgical texts. It's divine liturgy and canonical hours. In the Eastern Rite, there is one basic text for the canonical hours (vespers, compline, matins, and the little hours), while there are several liturgies/anaphoras that can be used (Basil, Chrysostom, James). (The Egyptian, Armenian, East and West Syrian, and Ethiopian Rites are separate from the Eastern/Byzantine/Greek-Slavic Rite. The Russian Old Rite is a variant of the Greek-Slavic Rite.) The Western rites are a bit trickier. Most of them are uses of the Roman rite--the hours of prayer vary more than does the mass between them, but they're all quite similar, having fewer differences between them than the Greek-Slavic Rite has with, say, the West Syrian Rite.

[HandmaidenofGod]

As for the plurality- we don't call our various different Liturgies (St John Chrystostom, St Basil, St James, Presanctified) "Byzantine Rites"

No? But they are Byzantine / of East-Roman origin = Greek (whatever the language is, they are celebrated in). The same I would assume and propose for the Latin / Western Rites.

Here's the other issue, depending on where you are in the world or your parish preference, the language may vary but the liturgy is the same. The parish I attend does the Liturgy 1/3 Ukrainian, 2/3 English. The OCA parish around the corner from me does it in 100% English. The GOA parish down the road uses 100% Koine Greek for the prayers, and modern Greek for the sermon. However, despite linguistic differences, all three parishes use the same Liturgy. Thus we refer to it as the Byzantine Rite, not the "Greek Rite", "Ukrainian Rite", "English Rite" etc. This is because the Liturgy belongs to ALL people in EVERY language. (If you go to Alaska, you can hear it in the Aleut language of the Aleut Native Americans.)

Make sense?

[Caelestinus]

As for the plurality- we don't call our various different Liturgies (St John Chrystostom, St Basil, St James, Presanctified) "Byzantine Rites"

No? But they are Byzantine / of East-Roman origin = Greek (whatever the language is, they are celebrated in). The same I would assume and propose for the Latin / Western Rites.

I don't think you were quite getting what I was saying there- the various Liturgies are part of the Byzantine Rite, singular, not Byzantine Rites, plural.

D'accord.

[Caelestinus]

To clarify, a liturgical rite is more than just a liturgy, but a corpus of liturgical texts. It's divine liturgy and canonical hours. In the Eastern Rite, there is one basic text for the canonical hours (vespers, compline, matins, and the little hours), while there are several liturgies/anaphoras that can be used (Basil, Chrysostom, James). (The Egyptian, Armenian, East and West Syrian, and Ethiopian Rites are separate from the Eastern/Byzantine/Greek-Slavic Rite. The Russian Old Rite is a variant of the Greek-Slavic Rite.) The Western rites are a bit trickier. Most of them are uses of the Roman rite--the hours of prayer vary more than does the mass between them, but they're all quite similar, having fewer differences between them than the Greek-Slavic Rite has with, say, the West Syrian Rite.

Yes, that is important. Most of them are uses of the Roman Rite, that means: The Roman Rite exists in various/different forms or uses.

Why do WR-responsibles stick so often to faraway diocesan uses, like the Sarum Rite, and as far as I know, there has been no attempt to restore the Ancient Roman Rite (in its fulness; not only the mess liturgy, but including the Officium Divinum and all other relevant ecclesiastical and sacramental acts, like the liturgy of Baptism, annointing the sick, funerals and also including / providing a calendar, a martyrologium, a homiliary etc.) as it existed, say around the year 800?

Something that is only possible for the Liturgy of the urbs (Rome), not for the Gallican Rite and not for any Diocesan Use of the Roman Rite before the year 1000.



P.S. The German literal translation of "orthodox Western Rite Parishes" as "Orthodoxe Gemeinden des abendländischen Ritus" seems to me difficult to implement. Therefore I regard it rather useful to speak of "Latin-orthodox" or "Roman-orthodox Parishes" (cf. rum-orthodox for the Antiocheniens or greek-orthodox for both, Greeks and Antiocheniens), if - so God will - they rise and grow here one day.

[Caelestinus]

Why do WR-responsibles stick so often to faraway diocesan uses, like the Sarum Rite, and as far as I know, there has been no attempt to restore the Ancient Roman Rite (in its fulness; not only the mess liturgy, but including the Officium Divinum and all other relevant ecclesiastical and sacramental acts, like the liturgy of Baptism, annointing the sick, funerals and also including / providing a calendar, a martyrologium, a homiliary etc.) as it existed, say around the year 800?

In other words: Is that, what already has a blessing for liturgical use, fully satisfying or is there an interest or the consciousness that WR is still something in progress?

I read on a blog sometime ago (WR priest from Texas, I haven't the link anymore), sticking to tradition means: not to restore but just to accept what has been handed down from generations to generations, that means - as the author pointed out - to accept the Missale Romanum as it is.

Atttention, I would say, that would mean to accept things, which are obvious not in the original and correct order, like the Epistels and Gospel readings for the Sundays after Pentecost.

[Shanghaiski]

Why do WR-responsibles stick so often to faraway diocesan uses, like the Sarum Rite, and as far as I know, there has been no attempt to restore the Ancient Roman Rite (in its fulness; not only the mess liturgy, but including the Officium Divinum and all other relevant ecclesiastical and sacramental acts, like the liturgy of Baptism, annointing the sick, funerals and also including / providing a calendar, a martyrologium, a homiliary etc.) as it existed, say around the year 800?

In other words: Is that, what already has a blessing for liturgical use, fully satisfying or is there an interest or the consciousness that WR is still something in progress?

I read on a blog sometime ago (WR priest from Texas, I haven't the link anymore), sticking to tradition means: not to restore but just to accept what has been handed down from generations to generations, that means - as the author pointed out - to accept the Missale Romanum as it is.

Atttention, I would say, that would mean to accept things, which are obvious not in the original and correct order, like the Epistels and Gospel readings for the Sundays after Pentecost.

The specific liturgy used depends on the bishop or synod.

Apart from that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Sleeper]

I would say, to some extent, that it's both/and. The approved Western Rites are indeed fully satisfying, for they are nothing less than the fullness of the ancient Western Catholic tradition. That tradition crystallized quite early on, in terms of all the peculiar aspects of the Rite. Here I'm thinking of the liturgical calendar, the vestments, the Divine Offices, the liturgical structure, ethos, character, spirit, symbolism, etc. This is the same as we have it today, albeit with minor variations that naturally happen over time (as you pointed out with perhaps different lectionary selections, etc.). But it is largely unchanged. But there is also the understanding that liturgical expression is an organic thing and isn't fixed in time forever. I wouldn't be surprised if, a hundred years from now, the Western Rite takes on some aspects of the Eastern Rite, just by parishioners being exposed more to the Eastern Rite and the ethos and customs, etc., that come along with it. There was always a lot of cross-pollinization in earlier centuries, and as the Western Rite grows (Lord willing) as a part of Orthodoxy, it could see it happening again. I don't have any specifics in mind, just a hunch.

Antioch's approach to patrimony is one that would respect this sort of organic development, because it's what guarantees authenticity. This is why the "living liturgy" of the West was what was originally approved, rather than trying recreate things from centuries past. Things happen in history, for a myriad of different reasons, and unless there is something glaringly improper about it, it's best to not muck about with it. There's a strong tendency to want to fashion things according to our own image and likeness, according to our own impression of what things "should be" like. This is unhealthy.

[Fr.Aidan]

The fullness of the ancient Western Catholic tradition is to be found mainly in the ancient Western Catholic tradition, which was severely curtailed and suppressed by the heterodox papal structure.

Liturgy is organic by nature. Using Western Rite liturgy in the Orthodox Church does involve decisions which can be criticized as being "likes and dislikes," although I would characterize them rather by their degree of Orthodox content or by fidelity to the Western Saints who sanctioned this or that of the Western Patrimony. Everyone's WR usages, therefore, included "editing," whether AWRV or RWRV usages. For example, some Antiochian priests speak the Canon of the Mass aloud. That was never a part of the Western Patrimony, but indicates just the sort of "our own image and likeness" methodology which Sleeper seems to be speaking against. I could multiply examples many times over, and that's before getting into the subject of Byzantinizations. I am not "dissing" AWRV practices as opposed to approved RWRV practices, by the way--I fully respect everyone's efforts to pray and worship.

Even the efforts to pray and worship, of clergy who use older forms of the Roman Rite, which we might call the "Western Orthodox Patrimony." It's healthy if it is canonically approved, historically rooted, and represents the Western Orthodox Patrimony.

[Fr.Aidan]

Also, the Sarum Rite is the "Ancient Roman Rite in its fullness." What else would you think it to be?

[JamesRottnek]

The fullness of the ancient Western Catholic tradition is to be found mainly in the ancient Western Catholic tradition, which was severely curtailed and suppressed by the heterodox papal structure.

Liturgy is organic by nature. Using Western Rite liturgy in the Orthodox Church does involve decisions which can be criticized as being "likes and dislikes," although I would characterize them rather by their degree of Orthodox content or by fidelity to the Western Saints who sanctioned this or that of the Western Patrimony. Everyone's WR usages, therefore, included "editing," whether AWRV or RWRV usages. For example, some Antiochian priests speak the Canon of the Mass aloud. That was never a part of the Western Patrimony, but indicates just the sort of "our own image and likeness" methodology which Sleeper seems to be speaking against. I could multiply examples many times over, and that's before getting into the subject of Byzantinizations. I am not "dissing" AWRV practices as opposed to approved RWRV practices, by the way--I fully respect everyone's efforts to pray and worship.

Even the efforts to pray and worship, of clergy who use older forms of the Roman Rite, which we might call the "Western Orthodox Patrimony." It's healthy if it is canonically approved, historically rooted, and represents the Western Orthodox Patrimony.

The whole liturgy is a "likes and dislikes" thing.  It was not delivered once and for all by the Apostles, let alone by Christ, let alone did it fall from heaven.

[Deacon Lance]

Also, the Sarum Rite is the "Ancient Roman Rite in its fullness." What else would you think it to be?

A Gallican-Roman fusion.

[Fr.Aidan]

An apt description. Of course, the same can be said of all known and practiced forms of the Roman Rite in the Orthodox Church.

[Fr.Aidan]

A "likes and dislikes" thing? Are you referring to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with those words, or to one of the Western Rite liturgies? I can't tell.

[Deacon Lance]

An apt description. Of course, the same can be said of all known and practiced forms of the Roman Rite in the Orthodox Church.

This is true of Roman Rite of the Catholic Church as well.  But if we accept this description we cannot claim it is the Ancient Roman Rite, which was far more subdued and sober than Gallican-Roman Rite.

[Fr.Aidan]

What I'm most surprised at, in this thread, is the most unbecoming attribution of various unflattering motives to those who might celebrate in the old Roman Rite (Sarum use). How inappropriate it would be, to identify those who might choose to use the Byzantine Rite, as having certain views about monarchy, or certain weird attitudes, like wanting to "play-act" ceremonies from early centuries, like some dilettantish historical re-enactment, or as being doe-eyed extreme Russophiles, etc. -- solely on the basis of their celebrating the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom! And yet that's exactly the kind of "dissing" we see in this thread: "romantic notion," "academic recreations," "liturgical tinkering," etc. What in Sam Hill?!

Of course many Roman Catholic apologists were quoted, defending their church's Counter-Reformation in liturgics. I am curious why, if we do not accept the defenses Roman Catholic apologists have made for their distinctive doctrines, we Orthodox would accept the defenses they have made for their Church's distinctive liturgical decisions. As Orthodox Christians, we are able to come to our own conclusions about such matters, from a slightly different viewpoint.

I would not dismiss as "liturgical tinkering" the beautiful things Orthodox Saints of the West, and other Latin hymnographers, contributed to our worship in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Written by Saints, sanctioned by Popes, these things served a valuable pastoral function in the WR for (in some cases) a good 1000 years, before being clipped with papal shears in near-modern times. One would not call, for example, the three antiphons in the Byzantine Rite, which were later additions, "tinkering," and in fact one WOULD call it "tinkering" to now remove them. I am not intending to extrapolate anything super specific to the WR from that analogy, but it's a pretty solid analogy.

Trent cut a lot of things out of the Roman Rite, including some things of venerable antiquity. It most assuredly did NOT take the rite back to a pre-Schism form. It just made a new form, shorter, but containing most of the old content. Trent was not super revolutionary, so I don't want to overstate the case, but there was much of value and long standing which was lost, especially the poetic and didactic elements. Poetry and religious education are still of value in our modern world.

[In fact -- but this is a tangent within this thread -- after certain things were excised from the Roman Rite by Trent, one can tell that they WERE valuable, from the fact that popular devotions grew up to replace them. For example, the processions were mostly eliminated, and next after that, the stations of the cross grew in popularity to replace the walking around the church, which involves the whole body in devotion, with a new way of walking around the church. The procession stations at the rood and choir step got replaced by the various stations which give the devotion its name. It's as if certain needs of human nature which the old rite met, were felt to be not met, so that unofficial, extra-liturgical things were quickly embraced, in order to meet those needs once again.]

Finally, there was this quote: “The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474..."

The 1474 Missal is closer to the Sarum than the 1570 Missal, in various ways.

Anyway, my #1 plea is for tolerance and not accusing people of sick motives just because they have one liturgical use or another. At least can we agree on that, I hope.

[Fr.Aidan]

To me, 8th century is worthy of being called "ancient." How much older than that does something liturgical have to be, to be ancient?

[JamesRottnek]

A "likes and dislikes" thing? Are you referring to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with those words, or to one of the Western Rite liturgies? I can't tell.

All liturgies, or do you think that the Saints put words and phrases and hymns into the liturgy that they thought sucked?  I cannot understand this idea some people seem to have that the liturgy is divine or nearly so.  It is absurd.  Such people have a tendency to create an idol of it, and that I cannot abide.

[Caelestinus]

For example, some Antiochian priests speak the Canon of the Mass aloud. That was never a part of the Western Patrimony.

I question this.

[Fr.Aidan]

You may question this. I question your ability to produce a shred of evidence that the Canon Missae was ever (prior to the Protestant Reformation) said in a loud spoken tone of voice. It was either chanted aloud (in the more ancient Roman fashion alluded to in the Sarum books, at some points, although the principal Sarum practice was quiet recitation) or said very softly in an undertone.

[Caelestinus]

You may question this. I question your ability to produce a shred of evidence that the Canon Missae was ever (prior to the Protestant Reformation) said in a loud spoken tone of voice. It was either chanted aloud (in the more ancient Roman fashion alluded to in the Sarum books, at some points, although the principal Sarum practice was quiet recitation) or said very softly in an undertone.

You distinguish between "speaking" and "chanting" or "recitating". I wasn't aware of this.

Jungmann writes in his Missarum sollemnia (5. Aufl. Bd 2, 1962, S. 174): "Surgit solus pontifex et tacito intrat in canonem, dieses Wort, in das eine karolingische Bearbeitung des Ersten römischen Ordo die ältere Norm umgeschmolzen hat." Cf. p. 130f.

So the tacito (silent) was added to the text (the first OR) in late carolingian time. As well the capituale ecclesiastici ordinis writes: Et incipit canire dissimili voce et melodia, ita ut a circumstantibus altare tantum audiatur.


But anyway, I go fully along with your answer as it was just a misunderstanding on my part.

[Fr.Aidan]

I looked back at my wording and it seems awfully adversarial. That wasn't my intent, but I did it too quickly to polish it and make it polite. Sorry, Caelestinus.

It is not a matter of great Sturm and Drang for me, it's just that I find it fascinating that the predominant style of performing the Anaphora in the Western Rite today, is something which only first appears at the Protestant Reformation. It's something I've "tracked" in WR study for a few decades, and the "findings" (if you will) are so stark and may surprise some, so I put it all in very bold terms.

I went to an OCA church and they have instituted a new way of doing the Anaphora as well. Which may be an ancient way that is getting fresh use: the singing aloud of it.

[Deacon Lance]

To me, 8th century is worthy of being called "ancient." How much older than that does something liturgical have to be, to be ancient?

In terms of the Roman Rite I think ancient should be reserved to the Leonine and Gregorian Sacramentaries.

[Caelestinus]

I looked back at my wording and it seems awfully adversarial. That wasn't my intent, but I did it too quickly to polish it and make it polite. Sorry, Caelestinus.

It is not a matter of great Sturm and Drang for me, it's just that I find it fascinating that the predominant style of performing the Anaphora in the Western Rite today, is something which only first appears at the Protestant Reformation. It's something I've "tracked" in WR study for a few decades, and the "findings" (if you will) are so stark and may surprise some, so I put it all in very bold terms.

I went to an OCA church and they have instituted a new way of doing the Anaphora as well. Which may be an ancient way that is getting fresh use: the singing aloud of it.

Indeed. The church doesn't know that way of presenting / performing a text. Liturgical texts (prayers, antiphons, lessons) were and are either sung or recitated. Except silent / private prayers (including the apologicae, whatever one thinks of them).

For example, some Antiochian priests speak the Canon of the Mass aloud. That was never a part of the Western Patrimony.

What about Vernacular? The Glagolithic fragments, the Croatian Missal and the Greek translations of the Canon are as evidence. Is it really enough to say: a Liturgy according to the (a) Western Rite in vernacular is something ancient?

[akimori makoto]

A "likes and dislikes" thing? Are you referring to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with those words, or to one of the Western Rite liturgies? I can't tell.

All liturgies, or do you think that the Saints put words and phrases and hymns into the liturgy that they thought sucked?  I cannot understand this idea some people seem to have that the liturgy is divine or nearly so.  It is absurd.  Such people have a tendency to create an idol of it, and that I cannot abide.

James, I see where you're coming from with your criticism.

No doubt, if our Lord rose on the third day somewhere outside the gates of Edo, our liturgy would be celebrated kneeling before a low table and the beautiful gate would be a screen of rice paper. But he didn't, so it isn't and they aren't.

Could you say something more about why it is important to steadfastly preserve what has been handed down without making the mistake of making a god of the shaking of the aer, for example?

[JamesRottnek]

A "likes and dislikes" thing? Are you referring to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with those words, or to one of the Western Rite liturgies? I can't tell.

All liturgies, or do you think that the Saints put words and phrases and hymns into the liturgy that they thought sucked?  I cannot understand this idea some people seem to have that the liturgy is divine or nearly so.  It is absurd.  Such people have a tendency to create an idol of it, and that I cannot abide.

James, I see where you're coming from with your criticism.

No doubt, if our Lord rose on the third day somewhere outside the gates of Edo, our liturgy would be celebrated kneeling before a low table and the beautiful gate would be a screen of rice paper. But he didn't, so it isn't and they aren't.

Could you say something more about why it is important to steadfastly preserve what has been handed down without making the mistake of making a god of the shaking of the aer, for example?

Well, the idea of orderly worship - which implies some form of a liturgy - must be kept, I think (if for no reason other than the practical necessity; in Paul's writings we see the problems that arise with a lack of orderly worship).  Also, the Eucharist must be kept.  The glorification of God and the prayer of the Church (instead of collective individual prayers) must be kept.  Aside from that, I'm not sure there is much in the liturgy that is essential, though I'm not an advocate of throwing most of it out.  The early Christians had a communal meal prior to reception of Holy Communion, and so the format of the liturgy - I believe - isn't particularly important.  The important part, to summarize my statement, is the worship of God, the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ, and order to it all.  Beyond that, it is essentially what - guided by the Spirit - individuals have preferred.  I mean, as I've pointed out elsewhere, even the Words of Institution were not present in all of the early liturgies (and whether or not they were present in any of the earliest is uncertain).  It seems to me that the liturgy resembles synagogue services so much for the simple reason that the early Christians were Jews and so they copied what they knew.

If the earliest Christians were Japanese, then liturgy would resemble a tea ceremony, I think.

[akimori makoto]

... though I'm not an advocate of throwing most of it out.

Sorry to keep asking you questions, but could you flesh this out?

[JamesRottnek]

... though I'm not an advocate of throwing most of it out.

Sorry to keep asking you questions, but could you flesh this out?

I don't mind questions.  I just mean that I happen to like the liturgy, and don't see any particular reason to throw parts of it out (with the exception, for the parishes still utilizing it, the exclamation "The doors! The doors!" when they don't actually kick out the unbaptized/chrismated).  At the same time, though, I don't see any theological reason to object to changes in the liturgy - even to massive changes (so long as said changes keep in mind what I have previously mentioned).

[SubdeaconDavid]

Even in parishes which  use "the doors, the doors!" and don't get the non-Orthodox to leave, and allow catechumen to remain, the point of the prayer today reminds us of the absolute solemnity of the liturgical rite. unfolding before our eyes.  It is a reminder that Orthiodox Christians are the people of God, that we are in the world, but set apart, to be a living witness to the truth of the Orthodox Christian faith.

[Peter J]

Why are you folks talking of a 'Western Rite', not of 'Latin Rites', existing as 'Roman Rite', 'Gallican Rite', 'Mozarabic Rite', 'Ambrosian Rite', 'Sarum Rite' etc.?

..at least it should be used in plural, thinks


Caelestinus

I realize this question is from a few months ago, but I'd like to chime in: I think one factor is that most of the time "Western Rite" is used as an adjective, not a noun. E.g. "Western Rite Orthodox" and "Western Rite Discussion" (which is the title of this forum).