Shortness and incompleteness of Western Prayers compared to Eastern?

[KShaft]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

[Justin Kissel]

I don't know about recent times, but shortening has a long tradition in the Church. We went from 4 1/2 hours, to 3 hours, to an 1 1/2, not just in modern times but there was shortening of stuff even when the original liturgies were being written.

[Keble]

In fact if you read Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy you will see that the western liturgy perhaps started out somewhat shorter and eliminated anything which could be thought redundant, while the eastern liturgy has tended to become more elaborated. The multiplication of litanies is in particular an eastern feature.

[KShaft]

I don't know about recent times, but shortening has a long tradition in the Church. We went from 4 1/2 hours, to 3 hours, to an 1 1/2, not just in modern times but there was shortening of stuff even when the original liturgies were being written.

Well when you go to monasteries and they combine the service with Matins it can end up being 5 hours.  A recording of a Divine Liturgy I have is 2 hours and 40 minutes without the homily so that could be around three hours. It was St. John's too. Its funny because thats a Greek one and it is my favorite even though I generally prefer the Russian stuff by far (meaning music style not language).

[Sleeper]

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

[Schultz]

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

Very well said.

I've been using the monastic diurnal so far this year for morning and evening prayer (and compline).  I certainly don't feel like my prayer is "incomplete" at all.  I certainly miss certain beloved Eastern prayers, but I just add those in at the end of the Office if I feel like I want to say them.  Most importantly, I'm praying the Psalter in an organized and defined manner, something my brain appreciates very much. 

As for pre-Communion prayers, they certainly exist in the old RC prayer books, especially the pre-communion prayer of St. Ambrose of Milan, among others.  If I were home I'd check my prayerbook/missal library for other ancient Western prayers, but, alas, I'm not.

[Sleeper]

The official Orthodox Missal of the AWRV has pages of pre-communion prayers.

[KShaft]

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

Very well said.

I've been using the monastic diurnal so far this year for morning and evening prayer (and compline).  I certainly don't feel like my prayer is "incomplete" at all.  I certainly miss certain beloved Eastern prayers, but I just add those in at the end of the Office if I feel like I want to say them.  Most importantly, I'm praying the Psalter in an organized and defined manner, something my brain appreciates very much.  

As for pre-Communion prayers, they certainly exist in the old RC prayer books, especially the pre-communion prayer of St. Ambrose of Milan, among others.  If I were home I'd check my prayerbook/missal library for other ancient Western prayers, but, alas, I'm not.

Im sorry I dont feel the same way as you. I cant read from my MD any more. Not only are the prayers more like reading a dissertation rather than poetic supplication, its over before I even get started. And how the Kathisma is laid out is unorganized???

Well I see you found one pre-communion prayer. Is one supposed to be impressed with that? There is a whole hour long rule for the Eastern as Im sure you know. The canon, psalms, and the prayers.  If one is too lazy to do it, then perhaps they should not partake of the Eucharist in the first place.

[Schultz]

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

Very well said.

I've been using the monastic diurnal so far this year for morning and evening prayer (and compline).  I certainly don't feel like my prayer is "incomplete" at all.  I certainly miss certain beloved Eastern prayers, but I just add those in at the end of the Office if I feel like I want to say them.  Most importantly, I'm praying the Psalter in an organized and defined manner, something my brain appreciates very much.  

As for pre-Communion prayers, they certainly exist in the old RC prayer books, especially the pre-communion prayer of St. Ambrose of Milan, among others.  If I were home I'd check my prayerbook/missal library for other ancient Western prayers, but, alas, I'm not.

Im sorry I dont feel the same way as you. I cant read from my MD any more. Not only are the prayers more like reading a dissertation rather than poetic supplication, its over before I even get started. And how the Kathisma is laid out is unorganized???

It's organized on a thematic level.  It was quite a revelation once I realized that.  I also learned to slow down and say the prayers out loud.  It has worked wonders for me.  But what works for me may not work for you.

Well I see you found one pre-communion prayer. Is one supposed to be impressed with that? There is a whole hour long rule for the Eastern as Im sure you know. The canon, psalms, and the prayers.  If one is too lazy to do it, then perhaps they should not partake of the Eucharist in the first place.

No, I said I remembered one specific one from one specific saint off the top of my head.  I know there are pages of pre-communion prayers, I just don't know their pedigree nor their content at the moment.

As for the length of the prayers, I'm glad to see that you've managed to surpass us all with your spiritual endurance to the point where you can scoff at those who, in your not-so-humble opinion, are too lazy.  Please pray for me.

[Sleeper]

Everything you're describing is a matter of taste, but you speak as if these are objective truths that any thoughtful person would agree with. They are not. It may surprise you that the verbose, flowery, circular language common to much of the Eastern tradition is tiresome, clunky, redundant, and disjointed to the Western mind. Not to all, of course, but to many. Compared to the linear, austere, haunting, qualities of the Western tradition, there's just no comparison for us.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, but saying something is better because it is longer, has more parts, takes more time, etc, seems a bit juvenile. Different traditions have different qualities and characteristics because people and cultures are different. We are not all beholden to fit the same mold, especially the Byzantine one.

[Punch]

Very well put.  You explain my thoughts on the matter perfectly and in a manner much better than I could have.  Thank you.

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

[Mor Ephrem]

Im sorry I dont feel the same way as you. I cant read from my MD any more. Not only are the prayers more like reading a dissertation rather than poetic supplication, its over before I even get started. And how the Kathisma is laid out is unorganized???

Well I see you found one pre-communion prayer. Is one supposed to be impressed with that? There is a whole hour long rule for the Eastern as Im sure you know. The canon, psalms, and the prayers.  If one is too lazy to do it, then perhaps they should not partake of the Eucharist in the first place.

I'm an Eastern Christian.  I am at home with chant, long liturgies, poetry, fasting, etc.  But if the West has a legitimate-but-different-from-us way of doing things, who are we to argue?  If a particular arrangement of the psalms worked for St Benedict and other Western saints, I don't think it can harm us.  Personally, I find some aspects of Western liturgy and spirituality really agree with me; I don't force it on anyone else, but I find them helpful.   

"Pre-Communion" prayer rules vary across rites and even within them.  One ought not to generalize too much about the form, as if all Christians from the beginning did it the way it appears in Russian prayer books.  Or are we to think the apostles read three canons, an akathist, the pre-communion prayers, fasted, and went to confession at an all-night vigil before actually receiving the Eucharist from Christ, who began the meal with "Blessed is the Kingdom, etc."?  The gospel accounts seem to agree that he didn't serve hierarchically, or even with a deacon!  How anachronistic and ridiculous if we go down such a road...

By all means, pray, and by all means follow the discipline imposed by one's Church, one's rite, one's spiritual father.  But don't generalize these things as if the West is always wrong and the East is always right.  Even in the East there are differences, and I dare say that sometimes the Byzantines just seem plain lazy compared to the rest of us.  It need not be wrong, just different, and anyway it's the goal that's important, not always the words.  Or would you disagree with the desert fathers? 

Abba Macarius was asked, 'How should one pray?' The old man said 'There is no need at all to make long discourses; it is enough to stretch out one's hands and say, "Lord, as you will, and as you know, have mercy." And if the conflict
grows fiercer say, "Lord, help!" He knows very well what we need and he shews us his mercy.'

It doesn't get much shorter and unpoetic as "Lord, help!"  You won't find it in any collection of akathists on the market.  But evidently it got St Makarios where he needed to go.

Liturgies develop, and they develop in cultures, in communities, among peoples.  They form us, to be sure, but they don't just fall out of heaven in book form--we also have some "say" in how they are shaped.  What works for us may not work so well in the West, and vice versa, but if what we do can sanctify us, and what they do can sanctify them, what does it matter to you?  Work on your own spiritual life with the resources the Church gives you.  Don't think that what doesn't work for you can't possibly work for anyone else.  They have a God, too. 

[Schultz]

Ah, a fair wind has blown!

Welcome back, Father Deacon!

[Alveus Lacuna]

Since people are talking about Western pre-communion prayers, I just wanted to note that I still use a pre-communion prayer from the Roman Catholic Mass that I learned as a child every time I approach the chalice. I do most of the Russian routine, but all that length and depth aside, as I approach the chalice I still say under my breath: "Oh Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed."

Like others said, short and sweet. That's something the Latins are much better at.

[Sleeper]

Im sorry I dont feel the same way as you. I cant read from my MD any more. Not only are the prayers more like reading a dissertation rather than poetic supplication, its over before I even get started. And how the Kathisma is laid out is unorganized???

Well I see you found one pre-communion prayer. Is one supposed to be impressed with that? There is a whole hour long rule for the Eastern as Im sure you know. The canon, psalms, and the prayers.  If one is too lazy to do it, then perhaps they should not partake of the Eucharist in the first place.

I'm an Eastern Christian.  I am at home with chant, long liturgies, poetry, fasting, etc.  But if the West has a legitimate-but-different-from-us way of doing things, who are we to argue?  If a particular arrangement of the psalms worked for St Benedict and other Western saints, I don't think it can harm us.  Personally, I find some aspects of Western liturgy and spirituality really agree with me; I don't force it on anyone else, but I find them helpful.   

"Pre-Communion" prayer rules vary across rites and even within them.  One ought not to generalize too much about the form, as if all Christians from the beginning did it the way it appears in Russian prayer books.  Or are we to think the apostles read three canons, an akathist, the pre-communion prayers, fasted, and went to confession at an all-night vigil before actually receiving the Eucharist from Christ, who began the meal with "Blessed is the Kingdom, etc."?  The gospel accounts seem to agree that he didn't serve hierarchically, or even with a deacon!  How anachronistic and ridiculous if we go down such a road...

By all means, pray, and by all means follow the discipline imposed by one's Church, one's rite, one's spiritual father.  But don't generalize these things as if the West is always wrong and the East is always right.  Even in the East there are differences, and I dare say that sometimes the Byzantines just seem plain lazy compared to the rest of us.  It need not be wrong, just different, and anyway it's the goal that's important, not always the words.  Or would you disagree with the desert fathers? 

Abba Macarius was asked, 'How should one pray?' The old man said 'There is no need at all to make long discourses; it is enough to stretch out one's hands and say, "Lord, as you will, and as you know, have mercy." And if the conflict
grows fiercer say, "Lord, help!" He knows very well what we need and he shews us his mercy.'

It doesn't get much shorter and unpoetic as "Lord, help!"  You won't find it in any collection of akathists on the market.  But evidently it got St Makarios where he needed to go.

Liturgies develop, and they develop in cultures, in communities, among peoples.  They form us, to be sure, but they don't just fall out of heaven in book form--we also have some "say" in how they are shaped.  What works for us may not work so well in the West, and vice versa, but if what we do can sanctify us, and what they do can sanctify them, what does it matter to you?  Work on your own spiritual life with the resources the Church gives you.  Don't think that what doesn't work for you can't possibly work for anyone else.  They have a God, too. 

Beautiful.

[KShaft]

More does not mean better. More does not mean fuller. More does not mean more beautiful. More means more, and usually more redundant.

As someone pointed out, the Eastern liturgy has itself gone through simplifications. We see this mentioned, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy...he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849). That continued under St. John Chrysostom. "Not long afterwards our Father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly uprooted every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all forms lest anyone...stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution" (ibid).

It has always been part of the character of Latins to be terse, to choose words carefully, to be direct and precise, for thoughts to follow a linear pattern. This is the natural state of Western thinking patterns and it's only natural that our worship be this way too. Our measuring stick is the Apostolic tradition bequeathed to us and handed down to us by our Western Fathers and saints, not the Byzantine tradition.

Very well said.

I've been using the monastic diurnal so far this year for morning and evening prayer (and compline).  I certainly don't feel like my prayer is "incomplete" at all.  I certainly miss certain beloved Eastern prayers, but I just add those in at the end of the Office if I feel like I want to say them.  Most importantly, I'm praying the Psalter in an organized and defined manner, something my brain appreciates very much.  

As for pre-Communion prayers, they certainly exist in the old RC prayer books, especially the pre-communion prayer of St. Ambrose of Milan, among others.  If I were home I'd check my prayerbook/missal library for other ancient Western prayers, but, alas, I'm not.

Im sorry I dont feel the same way as you. I cant read from my MD any more. Not only are the prayers more like reading a dissertation rather than poetic supplication, its over before I even get started. And how the Kathisma is laid out is unorganized???

It's organized on a thematic level.  It was quite a revelation once I realized that.  I also learned to slow down and say the prayers out loud.  It has worked wonders for me.  But what works for me may not work for you.

Well I see you found one pre-communion prayer. Is one supposed to be impressed with that? There is a whole hour long rule for the Eastern as Im sure you know. The canon, psalms, and the prayers.  If one is too lazy to do it, then perhaps they should not partake of the Eucharist in the first place.

No, I said I remembered one specific one from one specific saint off the top of my head.  I know there are pages of pre-communion prayers, I just don't know their pedigree nor their content at the moment.

As for the length of the prayers, I'm glad to see that you've managed to surpass us all with your spiritual endurance to the point where you can scoff at those who, in your not-so-humble opinion, are too lazy.  Please pray for me.

I am sorry I just mean a nice coherent rule for the reception of the Divine. One who is partaking in the Divine would be wise to have a pre communion rule of some sort to be sure to be a help as to "not eat and drink condemnation unto ones self" and there is just a whole bunch in the East whereas in the West you kind of have to go looking and Im not so sure if that was always the case but it may have well been so. The unearthing of pre-schism prayers shows a tendancy to be more like eastern prayers in ornateness and length.

[choy]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

[Deacon Lance]

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Not Scholaticism.  The Roman Rite was sober, staid, and direct long before Scholasticism came along.  Almost everything that isn't is an import from the Gallican Rite.

[Deacon Lance]

I am sorry I just mean a nice coherent rule for the reception of the Divine. One who is partaking in the Divine would be wise to have a pre communion rule of some sort to be sure to be a help as to "not eat and drink condemnation unto ones self" and there is just a whole bunch in the East whereas in the West you kind of have to go looking and Im not so sure if that was always the case but it may have well been so. The unearthing of pre-schism prayers shows a tendancy to be more like eastern prayers in ornateness and length.

Indeed, but I (and I believe others) would judge praying the Divine Office (of any tradition) everyday as sufficient preparation and superior preparation because of its antiquity.  The Communion rule and all the private prayer rule is a rather recent invention only a couple hundrd years old.

[KShaft]

Everything you're describing is a matter of taste, but you speak as if these are objective truths that any thoughtful person would agree with. They are not. It may surprise you that the verbose, flowery, circular language common to much of the Eastern tradition is tiresome, clunky, redundant, and disjointed to the Western mind. Not to all, of course, but to many. Compared to the linear, austere, haunting, qualities of the Western tradition, there's just no comparison for us.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, but saying something is better because it is longer, has more parts, takes more time, etc, seems a bit juvenile. Different traditions have different qualities and characteristics because people and cultures are different. We are not all beholden to fit the same mold, especially the Byzantine one.

Well if you were to tell me imagist poetry is along the same lines as Shakespeare, Dante, or Keats Id call you lunatic. But I guess thats subjective as well... Hey imagist is straight to the point with minimal verbage.... No its not an exact parallel by any means but I think if the prophet David would weigh in, hed probably prefer the eastern prayers.  The imagist would definitely prefer the western prayers....

[KShaft]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Scholasticism is a product of Aquanis or at least formed during that time definitively , but precursors were there to be sure. This is what happens when lawyers are your theologians.

[Schultz]

I have in front of me a copy of the very popular (in its day, at least) "Manual of Prayers," copyright 1888 with an imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons. 

It has some 40 pages of communion devotions, starting with a number of psalms, prayers by St. Thomas Aquinas and Ambrose of Milan, as well an examination of conscience, most (if not all) of the Roman Catholic "Acts," prayers to various saints including the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, a declaration of intention as well as additional instructions "for those who want to pray in their own words."

My similarly sized Old Orthodox Prayer Book (Erie, PA) has some 50 pages set aside for communion prayers.  No one would ever fault the Old Ritualists for being "incomplete."

So that brings us to ten pages.  Considering that it's patently obvious that the East tends to be more verbose in its prayers period, that's not much of a difference, especially when you consider that the RC book has a number of pages coaching one on how to pray in one's own words, a practice that's certainly worth ten pages.

I'm sorry, KShaft, but you don't really have a leg stand on in this.  Just because the Latin West tends to be more direct and less floral in its language does not mean it is deficient.  It just means it's different.

Deacon Lance makes a fantastic observation that if you manage to read the Daily Office literally every day, you're doing far more preparation for communion than waiting until Saturday night. 

[Tony]

I've also read that after Rome was reconquered by the East Romans in the mid-6th century a lot of Byzantine influence came into the Latin Mass. Before that the Mass was much more sober and direct than it is now.

The book that states this is: _Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752_

The changes are also touched upon in this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Not Scholaticism.  The Roman Rite was sober, staid, and direct long before Scholasticism came along.  Almost everything that isn't is an import from the Gallican Rite.

[Deacon Lance]

I've also read that after Rome was reconquered by the East Romans in the mid-6th century a lot of Byzantine influence came into the Latin Mass. Before that the Mass was much more sober and direct than it is now.

The book that states this is: _Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752_

The changes are also touched upon in this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy

I think that influence was more in mosaic and architecture than Liturgy but the Kyrie, Agnus Dei, Trisagion, were imported from the East.

[Schultz]

I would also like to add that, in regards to the MD, there is nothing stopping you from adding the service of the Seven Penitential Psalms, with litany, to any of the canonical hours.

[Sleeper]

Everything you're describing is a matter of taste, but you speak as if these are objective truths that any thoughtful person would agree with. They are not. It may surprise you that the verbose, flowery, circular language common to much of the Eastern tradition is tiresome, clunky, redundant, and disjointed to the Western mind. Not to all, of course, but to many. Compared to the linear, austere, haunting, qualities of the Western tradition, there's just no comparison for us.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, but saying something is better because it is longer, has more parts, takes more time, etc, seems a bit juvenile. Different traditions have different qualities and characteristics because people and cultures are different. We are not all beholden to fit the same mold, especially the Byzantine one.

Well if you were to tell me imagist poetry is along the same lines as Shakespeare, Dante, or Keats Id call you lunatic. But I guess thats subjective as well... Hey imagist is straight to the point with minimal verbage.... No its not an exact parallel by any means but I think if the prophet David would weigh in, hed probably prefer the eastern prayers.  The imagist would definitely prefer the western prayers....

No one is advocating minimalism. And the Latin tradition is not without its poetry. The issue is your false assumption that something is "better" or more "complete" merely because of its wordiness and the time it takes to work it through. Both traditions have nurtured countless saints. We should let their unique qualities be what they are.

[Andrew21091]

I have in front of me a copy of the very popular (in its day, at least) "Manual of Prayers," copyright 1888 with an imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons. 

It has some 40 pages of communion devotions, starting with a number of psalms, prayers by St. Thomas Aquinas and Ambrose of Milan, as well an examination of conscience, most (if not all) of the Roman Catholic "Acts," prayers to various saints including the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, a declaration of intention as well as additional instructions "for those who want to pray in their own words."

Similarly, my Roman Catholic Missal contains nine pre-Communion prayers plus other instructions for preparation. Following those are some 15 post-Communion prayers (which include the Te Deum).

[Shanghaiski]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

[Shanghaiski]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Scholasticism is a product of Aquanis or at least formed during that time definitively , but precursors were there to be sure. This is what happens when lawyers are your theologians.

I don't recall any lawyers amongst the Irish saints and they have the shortest prayers of all. Would anyone fault them? I mean, all of them had the Psalter memorized and prayed it daily--often in entirety. Some of their hymns were pretty long--much longer than the Roman hymns.

[LBK]

I don't recall any lawyers amongst the Irish saints and they have the shortest prayers of all.

Ever seen Lorica? Also known as St Patrick's Breastplate. It seems to go on forever. 

[KShaft]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

Does it? Compliations of pre-schism prayers Ive seen are more akin to eastern prayers than most stuff Ive seen in modern RC prayer books (even traditional ones).  It makes me wonder if these prayers are the result of scholastic thinking and theology. Meaning post schism since stuff began to be strictly regimented, some of the local prayers by local and pre schism saints were phased out for more recent prayers in a perhaps graceless church more tied up in philosophical thinking than supplication and seeking the Lord with ones heart and mind. Its almost like eastern prayers are like a childs view of the forest, and later western prayers are like a detectives view of a crime scene.

I am pleased to hear about pre-communion prayers and would think that if you kept the Divine office then that would suffice for preparation as well. The rule that has come into effect for Orthodox may be recent in its regimented form, but I would bet that it did in fact exist in some prototypical form very early in the church's history.

Oh Schultz I use your suggestion for the penitential prayers. I just use the Eastern introductory / exiting prayers with it. Thank you for the suggestion.

[jwinch2]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

I'm not doubting you but if you have a source on that, I would love to see it.  I was having a similar conversation with someone outside of this forum and that information would be beneficial.

Thanks! 

[Deacon Lance]

Good article on Morning and Evening Prayer Rules

http://frsergei.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/morning-and-evening-prayer-rules-in-the-russian-orthodox-tradition/

[Deacon Lance]

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

Does it?

It does.  Study the Mass and Office of the Roman Rite pre-schism.  Services were even more staid than now.  Compare the Domincan or Carthusian Uses of the Roma Rite to the Tridentine Use and you can see how many accretions got added.  As I said, most things found in the Roman Rite similar to the East are imports from the Gallican Rite. The Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites on the otherhand have many similarities with the East.

[Shanghaiski]

I don't recall any lawyers amongst the Irish saints and they have the shortest prayers of all.

Ever seen Lorica? Also known as St Patrick's Breastplate. It seems to go on forever. 

Ah, not forever enough!

[Shanghaiski]

Just as the title says, why are not just the prayers shorter typically in the west, but also the Order of prayers. The Divine office is shorter, the liturgy is Shorter.  Not to mention where are all the supplementary Canons and Akathists and such that are found in the East. How about preparatory prayers for Holy Communion? They're almost non-existent...

Seeing the fullness of the Eastern Churches, it seems like there is an incompleteness about the west. Was this always the case or perhaps stuff was forcibly phased out or things dying out?

Scholasticism.  The West thinks this way, say it clearly, directly, plainly, and it should only be said once.  One should be able to understand the prayer from there.

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

I'm not doubting you but if you have a source on that, I would love to see it.  I was having a similar conversation with someone outside of this forum and that information would be beneficial.

Thanks! 

Check out the Antiphonary of Bangor. Several collects therein are just a sentence or two, shorter than the other Western rites' collects, generally speaking. Granted, what we have of the Celtic Rite is incomplete, but it's fascinating still.

[Shanghaiski]

It seems to me there's a tendency to contrast East and West too sharply, leading to some pretty broad generalizations that can create some pretty weird distortions of the truth all for the sake of arguing some odd point. This happens in other cases when the two things being compared and contrasted are actually very similar.

But there is the problem of timing, from an Orthodox POV, when comparing East and West. To which West are we comparing/contrasting "ourselves?" To the pre-schism Orthodox West? To the post-schism medieval West? To the West we came from before converting, which may or may not have existed in a reality other than our own perception? To the West we find in summaries? To the West of today? And what on earth do we really mean when we say West and East?

[jwinch2]

Actually, the relative shortness of Western prayers and the relative length of Eastern prayers predates scholasticism by many centuries.

I'm not doubting you but if you have a source on that, I would love to see it.  I was having a similar conversation with someone outside of this forum and that information would be beneficial.

Thanks! 

Check out the Antiphonary of Bangor. Several collects therein are just a sentence or two, shorter than the other Western rites' collects, generally speaking. Granted, what we have of the Celtic Rite is incomplete, but it's fascinating still.

Will do.  Thanks!

[Christopher McAvoy]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

Their are most definitely hundreds prayers from before the year 1200 that can be used to enrich the office.
Fr. Aidan's prayer book has a good selection of them in it. The long litanies to specific saints and devotions is in some ways similar to the eastern akathists, than there are also the various votive offices which can usually replace the ferial office if one desires. (Before vatican II many of the masses during the week at average parishes were Requiems for praying for the dead using black vestments, old men who were altar boys back than tell stories about it.)

I tend to add this prayer to lauds and vespers when I pray it in private, I doubt anything would stop a parish or priest from using it either after the collect toward the end as their own individual or parish devotion (assuming no one minds).
At matins, lauds and vespers you can also use the preces such as these anytime, although more recentl centuries practice was to use them on penitential days, it is very clear from earlier manuscripts and councils that they were originally used all the time.
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/uploads/FileUpload/a7/963e3ae53943051998b3281a191a9f.pdf

taken from: Meditationes S. Augustine (11th c.)

Written by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), ascribed to St. Augustine of Hippo.
Anselmus Cantaurienses (1033-1109) attribuitur  S. Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis

GOD, the true life, of, and by, and in
whom all things live, the summit and
source of all good! our faith in thee
excites, our hope exalts, our love
unites us. Thou commandest us to
seek thee, and art ready to be found;
thou biddest us knock, and openest
when we do so. (Mat. vii. 7.) To turn
from thee, is to fall into ruin and
death. To turn to thee, is to rise to life
and glory. To abide in thee, is to
stand fast and secure from danger.
No man loses thee, who does not
suffer himself to be deceived: no man
seeks thee, who does not submit to
instruction and reproof; no man
finds thee, who does not seek after
thee with a clean heart and purified
affections. To know thee is life, to
serve thee is to reign (in thy kingdom),
to praise thee is the joy and salvation
of the soul. I praise, bless and adore
thee, for thy clemency and goodness,
for all thy universal benefits, and
sing a hymn of thy glory:
holy, holy, holy, (art thou).

I humbly beseech thee,
O blessed Trinity, to come to me,
to abide with me, to reign in me,
to make me a holy temple, a fit
habitation for thy glory. I entreat
the Father by the Son, the Son by
the Father, the Holy Ghost by the
Father and the Son, that all those
vicious dispositions may be removed
far from me; and that all the holy
virtues may be implanted in me.

(DEUS summa et vera beatitudo,
a quo, per quem, et in quo beata sunt
omnia quaecumque beata sunt. Deus
vera et summa vita, a quo, per quem,
et in quo vivunt omnia quaecumque
vere et beate vivunt;  Deus bonum et
pulchrum, a quo, per quem, et in quo
bona et pulchra sunt omnia,
quaecumque bona et pulchra sunt;
Deus cujus nos fides excitat, spes
erigit, charitas jungit; Deus qui peti
te jubes, et inveniri facis, et pulsantibus
aperis; Deus a quo averti cadere est,
ad quem converti consurgere est, in
quo manere consistere est; Deus quem
nemo amittit nisi deceptus, nemo
quaerit nisi admonitus, nemo invenit
nisi purgatus; Deus quem nosse vivere
est, cui servire regnare est, quem
laudare salus et gaudium animae est:
te labiis et corde omnique qua valeo
virtute laudo, benedico atque adoro,
tuaeque clementiae et bonitati pro
universis beneficiis tuis gratias refero,
et hymnum gloriae tuae cano,
Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.

Te invoco, o beata Trinitas, ut venias
in me, et templum me facias dignum
gloriae tuae. Rogo Patrem per Filium,
rogo Filium per Patrem, rogo Spiritum
sanctum per Patrem et Filium, ut et
omnia vitia elongentur a me, et omnes
sanctae virtutes plantentur in me. )

O thou Maker and Preserver of all
things, visible and invisible! keep,
I beseech thee, the work of thy own
hands, who trusts in thy mercy alone
for safety and protection. Guard me
with the power of thy grace, here and
in all places, now and at all times,
within and without, before and
behind, above and below; let thy holy
angels pitch their tents round about
me, and so possess themselves of all
the passes to my heart, that the
treacherous enemy of souls may have
no place left open, whereby to make
his approach.

Thou art the guardian and defender
of all that trust in thee; without
whose watchful care none can be safe;
without whose mighty power
none is a match for the dangers and
temptations which every moment
beset him. Thou art God, and there is
none beside thee, in heaven above, or
in earth beneath: Thou art great and
dost wondrous things; (Isa. xlv. 5; Ps.
lxxvii. 14.) which art inconceiveable,
and of which there is no number.

To Thee we should praise and To Thee
we should hymn; to thee all angels, to
thee all heaven and universal powers
hymn and say and sing Thy praises
unceasingly and pay the constant
humble homage due from creatures
to their Creator, from servants to their
Lord, from subjects and soldiers to
their victorious Leader and universal
King. All thee who be holy and hum-
ble of heart, the souls and the spirits
of the just, to Thee all the heavenly
citizens and all the orders of the
blessed spirits, humbly adoring sings
of Thy glory and honor without end.

(Deus immense, a quo omnia, per quem
omnia, in quo omnia facta sunt,
visibilia et invisibilia; qui opera tua
extra circumdas, et intra reples, supra
tegis, et infra fers ; custodi me opus
manuum tuarum in te sperantem,
in tua solummodo misericordia
confidentem; custodi me, queso, hic et
ubique, nunc et semper, intus et foris,
ante et retro , supra et infra,
et circumcirca; ita ut nullus in me
paleat locus in sidiis inimicorum.

Tu es Deus omnipotens, custos et
protector omnium in te sperantium,
sine quo nemo est tutus, nemo de
periculis liberatus. Tu es Deus, et non
est alius preter te, neque in celo
sursum, neque in terra deorsum,
qui facis magna et mirabilia et
inscrutabilia , quorum non est
numerus.

Te decet laus, te decet hymnus,
tibi omnes Angeli, tibi coeli et
universae potestates hymnos dicunt,
et laudes indesinenter concinunt,
utpote creatori creaturae, Domino
servi, regi milites: te sanctam et
individuam Trinitatem omnis
creatura magnificat, omnis spiritus
landat. Tibi sancti et humiles corde,
tibi spiritus et animae justorum,
tibi omnes superni cives et cuncti
beatorum spirituum ordines,
gloriam et honorem suppliciter
adorantes concinunt sine fine.)

[Sleeper]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

This assumes there is some kind of actual, objective, observable standard somewhere "out there" by which we should measure each tradition. There is not.

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

"Respectable" compared to what? There is no value to length, or elaborateness, and on the opposite end, there is no value to shortness or simplicity, unless that is merely how each tradition developed on its own. Different cultures pray in different ways. Let the traditions be what they are.

[Shanghaiski]

Prayers are for prayer. If you argue about them, you're not praying. Then, no prayer will do you any good.

[KShaft]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

This assumes there is some kind of actual, objective, observable standard somewhere "out there" by which we should measure each tradition. There is not.

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

"Respectable" compared to what? There is no value to length, or elaborateness, and on the opposite end, there is no value to shortness or simplicity, unless that is merely how each tradition developed on its own. Different cultures pray in different ways. Let the traditions be what they are.

Using a respected form of chant adds more "respectability" to any form of the Divine Office. Chanting the Office (particularly the western, particularly in Gregorian) adds a depth to it than is hard to put into words especially in a monastic setting. Ever venture inside one of those? Gregorian chant made it come alive. It became prayer, whereas before it was more like the slated psalm readings for that time in the day. Have you ever considered a Norvus Ordo parish? Youd feel right at home... I think ladies in head coverings might frighten you a bit... especially the ones with the primitive prayer beads! Oh my!

[Shanghaiski]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

This assumes there is some kind of actual, objective, observable standard somewhere "out there" by which we should measure each tradition. There is not.

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

"Respectable" compared to what? There is no value to length, or elaborateness, and on the opposite end, there is no value to shortness or simplicity, unless that is merely how each tradition developed on its own. Different cultures pray in different ways. Let the traditions be what they are.

Using a respected form of chant adds more "respectability" to any form of the Divine Office. Chanting the Office (particularly the western, particularly in Gregorian) adds a depth to it than is hard to put into words especially in a monastic setting. Ever venture inside one of those? Gregorian chant made it come alive. It became prayer, whereas before it was more like the slated psalm readings for that time in the day. Have you ever considered a Norvus Ordo parish? Youd feel right at home... I think ladies in head coverings might frighten you a bit... especially the ones with the primitive prayer beads! Oh my!

I hope you weren't responding to Sleeper with that. If so, I'd say you've really misread him.

[Sleeper]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

This assumes there is some kind of actual, objective, observable standard somewhere "out there" by which we should measure each tradition. There is not.

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

"Respectable" compared to what? There is no value to length, or elaborateness, and on the opposite end, there is no value to shortness or simplicity, unless that is merely how each tradition developed on its own. Different cultures pray in different ways. Let the traditions be what they are.

Using a respected form of chant adds more "respectability" to any form of the Divine Office. Chanting the Office (particularly the western, particularly in Gregorian) adds a depth to it than is hard to put into words especially in a monastic setting. Ever venture inside one of those? Gregorian chant made it come alive. It became prayer, whereas before it was more like the slated psalm readings for that time in the day. Have you ever considered a Norvus Ordo parish? Youd feel right at home... I think ladies in head coverings might frighten you a bit... especially the ones with the primitive prayer beads! Oh my!

What on earth are you talking about?

[Sleeper]

Byzantine divine office = overly elaborate
Latin divine office = overly simplified

This assumes there is some kind of actual, objective, observable standard somewhere "out there" by which we should measure each tradition. There is not.

(To a lesser degree the same might be said about their holy qurbana/mass)

Yes, I agree with the original poster to some extent, I almost could have written the post myself.
As others have said, being short doesnt mean you can't work with it. I think that due to the shortness in some of the latin liturgies, this is why it is especially important to use the original plainchant melodies with them and not simplify or replace them, they make the entire rite more respectable and seem more equal to the others.

"Respectable" compared to what? There is no value to length, or elaborateness, and on the opposite end, there is no value to shortness or simplicity, unless that is merely how each tradition developed on its own. Different cultures pray in different ways. Let the traditions be what they are.

Using a respected form of chant adds more "respectability" to any form of the Divine Office. Chanting the Office (particularly the western, particularly in Gregorian) adds a depth to it than is hard to put into words especially in a monastic setting. Ever venture inside one of those? Gregorian chant made it come alive. It became prayer, whereas before it was more like the slated psalm readings for that time in the day. Have you ever considered a Norvus Ordo parish? Youd feel right at home... I think ladies in head coverings might frighten you a bit... especially the ones with the primitive prayer beads! Oh my!

I hope you weren't responding to Sleeper with that. If so, I'd say you've really misread him.

Ah, you beat me to it. Thank you

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Shortness and incompleteness of Western Prayers compared to Eastern?