Suppression and Change of Traditional Rites

[Nephi]

Does anyone know where to look regarding the alleged suppression of traditional rites? The Traditional Syrian liturgy of the Antiochian Church, later replaced by the Rite of Constantinople, comes to mind. I've heard some say this was through suppressive force, but others say it can't be proven from the historical record.

Anyway, we all know there was a lot more variation in Eastern Orthodoxy than there is today, and some of it happened through violence. I'm just curious as to how this happened, and which rites were actively suppressed in favor of another. Books, articles, papers, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

[dzheremi]

Isn't there a user here by the name of "Samn!" or something like that who posted a while ago about the use of Syriac in Byzantine monasteries in the Levant c.12th century? It was via some blog post, if I remember correctly. If I'm not dreaming this all up (highly probable), it might be good to do a search for this info.

I don't know anything about this topic, of course (being OO, not EO), but I've been told by multiple people here and in real life that the EO in Egypt used to worship as we do, a long, long time ago. If true, I would assume based on that that the other EO churches in areas like Syria probably likewise matched (or at least were more closely aligned with) the liturgical practices of the OO, seeing as how the demographics of the place probably made the EO population the minority (unless the Hellenized population of Damascus and the other major cities was so large that it outnumbered everyone else in the country). Also, I would think the Georgians having been once OO (not sure if they admit this formally, but I've read about it in scholarly sources not even written by OO partisans) would've had some distinctive practices related to that which were not carried on after switching allegiances. I hope you can find some good resources on this, as I find it pretty interesting, too. I must confess that I'm not enough of a history buff to understand why the EO churches ended up seeming so much more uniform in comparison to the OO. I mean, I know Byzantinzation is a historical fact that has some reasons for happening, but I'm woefully ignorant of what those reasons might be.

[OrthoNoob]

There may well have been some force (I'm not well-versed in that history), but I suspect a lot of it also has to do with ethnic Greeks staying EO while the local nations went OO.

[Cantor Krishnich]

Today, there are a few village churches under the Antiochian Patriarch who continue to use Syriac-rite liturgy or Byzantine liturgy in Syriac. At one time in history, I don't exactly know when, the Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Church used Syriac very frequently.

During the reign of the Arab-Christian Ghassanid Kingdom, the Antiochian Orthodox Church underwent Arabization and Hellenization in which Arabic and Greek became the languages of the court and of the church. At this time, many Antiochian Chalcedonians who were closer to Syrian culture went to the Oriental Syriac Churches but many stayed in the Chalcedonian Church as well.

I personally would like to see a reuse of the beautiful Syriac-rite by the Antiochian Church, as its one of my favorites of all the ancient Christian rites.

The Akathist Hymn in Syriac!!!: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-akathist-hymn-in-syriac.html       

[Samn!]

People often make too much of a distinction between the liturgies of Constantinople (usually a shorthand for the eucharistic liturgies with the anaphoras of St John Chrysostom and St Basil) and the 'Liturgy of St James' in its various forms. The current EO liturgy is an outgrowth of Antiochene liturgy, influenced as much by the Palestinian monasteries as by Constantinople. Further, the current Syriac Orthodox liturgy has undergone its own evolution, which was not without strong influence from EO liturgy-- the addition of "O Only Begotten" (while attributed to Severus, the scholarly consensus is that it was adapted from the EO in the 10th or 11th century) and the adoption of Greek-style canons. Maronite liturgy, of course, had its own development as well...

I've been working on a critical edition of that Syriac translation of the Akathist linked to above, from multiple manuscripts, and what I'm realizing is that astonishingly little solid research has been done on the history of EO liturgy in Syria and Palestine. Part of this is because there's historically been an understandable emphasis on trying to discover earliest forms of things. But, there's not even a comprehensive catalog of Orthodox liturgical manuscripts in Syriac, let alone a systematic study of them. There's a lot of work that needs to be done here!

What I have looked at, however, is a pile of Syriac translations of standard EO liturgical texts that have been preserved on Mount Sinai (listed here, many can be viewed online-- http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/10/orthodox-liturgy-in-syriac-sinai.html ). These particular manuscripts represent the earliest phase of the homogenization of the EO liturgy, under the influence of the monasteries of Palestine in the period between the 11th and 13th centuries. So, all the standard liturgical texts are represented. Interestingly, almost all the texts of the eucharistic liturgy in Syriac were only found in the 1970's in the New Finds (not listed on the blog posting), and are almost always eiletaria-- scrolls specifically for liturgical use. Many of them have text in Greek written in Syriac characters, which would indicate that many monks on Sinai at the time had no knowledge of Greek.

One important way to understand the process of liturgical change on the grand scale is to understand the context of translation. Since in the Patriarchates of Antioch especially, but even Jerusalem, Greek was not widely used between ca. the 9th and 15th centuries, the way that liturgy changed in parishes and monasteries was the introduction of new Syriac and Arabic translations. Unfortunately, very few manuscripts give information about how they were translated. The only named translator I'm aware of is the Nun Sophia, who apparently translated the Octoechos and some other hymns at the Monastery of Saint Moses on Sinai sometime before the end of the 12th century.

[Orthodox11]

Today, there are a few village churches under the Antiochian Patriarch who continue to use Syriac-rite liturgy or Byzantine liturgy in Syriac.

Really? I know there are a few villages where Syriac is used among EO, but thought the liturgical language used was Arabic. Do you have any more details?

[Samn!]

Today, there are a few village churches under the Antiochian Patriarch who continue to use Syriac-rite liturgy or Byzantine liturgy in Syriac.

Really? I know there are a few villages where Syriac is used among EO, but thought the liturgical language used was Arabic. Do you have any more details?

There are both Catholic and Orthodox villages around Ma'lula where people speak a kind of modern Aramaic and historically used Syriac as their liturgical languages. But, at the Orthodox monastery at Ma'lula, liturgy has been in Arabic for at least a couple hundred years now. The last use of Syriac I'm aware of in the Patriarchate of Antioch would've been in the 18th century, at the latest.

[ialmisry]

Does anyone know where to look regarding the alleged suppression of traditional rites? The Traditional Syrian liturgy of the Antiochian Church, later replaced by the Rite of Constantinople, comes to mind. I've heard some say this was through suppressive force, but others say it can't be proven from the historical record.

Anyway, we all know there was a lot more variation in Eastern Orthodoxy than there is today, and some of it happened through violence. I'm just curious as to how this happened, and which rites were actively suppressed in favor of another. Books, articles, papers, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

The suppression came from around 1200, when the absentee "Patriarch of Antioch"-himself never setting foot outside of Constantinople-demanded that Antioch adopt the Constantinopolitan rite, and told Alexandria to adopt it (the Pope had written asking some canonical questions, and Pat. Balsamon was a canonist).

[Samn!]

Does anyone know where to look regarding the alleged suppression of traditional rites? The Traditional Syrian liturgy of the Antiochian Church, later replaced by the Rite of Constantinople, comes to mind. I've heard some say this was through suppressive force, but others say it can't be proven from the historical record.

Anyway, we all know there was a lot more variation in Eastern Orthodoxy than there is today, and some of it happened through violence. I'm just curious as to how this happened, and which rites were actively suppressed in favor of another. Books, articles, papers, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

The suppression came from around 1200, when the absentee "Patriarch of Antioch"-himself never setting foot outside of Constantinople-demanded that Antioch adopt the Constantinopolitan rite, and told Alexandria to adopt it (the Pope had written asking some canonical questions, and Pat. Balsamon was a canonist).

I think the actual impact of Balsamon's letters is easy to overestimate, and other historical factors were at play in encouraging liturgical homogeneity before his time. Here's Joseph Nasrallah's take on this question, which I translate from his Histoire du mouvement littteraire dans l'eglise melchite du Ve au XXe siecle vol. ii t. 2, pp. 154-156

Despite the injunctions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, manifested in Balsamon's Responses to the questions posed to him by the Patriarch Macarius of Alexandria in February 1195, this patriarchate continued for a time to make use of the Liturgies of Saints James and Mark. The testiminonies of the manuscripts and of the author of the Tartib al-Kahanut (ed. J. Assfalg, Die Ordnung des Priestertums, Cairo, 1965) lend credence to this. For the Liturgy of Saint James, manuscript 258 of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and Vatican Greek 228; for that of Saint Mark, Vatican Greek 2281 (1207), Sinai Greek 2147, two manuscripts of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, one of which has the number 173/36 and is a copy of a codex transcribed in 1585/86 by the future patriarch Meletius Pigas. The liturgy of Saint Peter [a South Italian liturgy found in a few Greek and Arabic manuscripts -Samn!] is also found in Vatican Greek 2281.

Sinai also used the Liturgy of Saint James up until the 14th century, as testified by Messanensis 177 (end of the 10th century) and Sinai Greek 1040 (14th century) and that of Saint Mark: Messanenses 117 contains this anaphora on the verso, dating from the 12th century; Sinai Greek 2147 (12th/13th century) which gives the Greek text accompanied on the margin by the Arabic version.

The commentaries accompanying the three liturgies in Sinai Arabic 237 are an evident sign that it is not a petrified witness, but rather was in use in the monastic community.

Finally, use on Sinai of the Liturgy of Saint Peter, of which Sinai Arabic 237 is the only witness. Melkites occasionally used the Anaphora of Saint Ephrem.

Hagiographical, ascetical, and even canonical collections sometimes contain extracts from liturgical books, generally not too long, troparia, hymns, and benedictions from the Euchologion. The latter are the most interesting; they frequently constitute liturgical peculiarities. [...]

Despite the fragmentary analysis of which these liturgical books have been the object, we can say that, as a whole, by the 13th century they were fixed in the state in which we know them in our own day.  [...]

[Gunnarr]

Well, the State of Israel made the Patriarchate of Jerusalem cut some things out of the liturgy because it sounded "anti-semitic"

[arimethea]

Well, the State of Israel made the Patriarchate of Jerusalem cut some things out of the liturgy because it sounded "anti-semitic"

This is an interesting bit of news I had never heard before, where can I look this up?

[dzheremi]

Yeah...Israel has the power to mess with the liturgy since when? Israel is a tiny blip...

[Gunnarr]

I will get you a source, hold on though it might take awhile.

I tried contacting the professer who knows more about it but he is dead.

[Gunnarr]

Found it:

Professor Thomas A. Idinopulos

the thing where i found it (the article)

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1303

and the quote which tells me the Patriarchate of Jerusalem had to change their liturgy (for the holy fire at least) when Israel came to power:

"In the midst of the crowd I saw a young
man without a torch wearing a powder-blue knitted yarmulke. He was standing
there, looking on intently. Did he know that one of the hymns formerly sung
during the Holy Fire contrasted it with the Jews’ 'feast of devils'? But the
times have changed. The hymn is no longer sung, and the 'sorrowful Jews' have
become Israeli state authorities delighted to attend a ceremony they have spent
the better part of a month organizing."

[Michał Kalina]

DO you consider this Presbyterian guy to be a reliable source?

[Nephi]

DO you consider this Presbyterian guy to be a reliable source?

Is it an unbelievable claim? AFAIK Israel already regulates and oversees the Holy Fire ordeal somewhat as it is, taking over from where the Ottoman Empire left of.

[Michał Kalina]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

[Cyrillic]

DO you consider this Presbyterian guy to be a reliable source?

Someone with Idinopulos as last name doesn't sound like a Presbyterian to me.

[Michał Kalina]

DO you consider this Presbyterian guy to be a reliable source?

Someone with Idinopulos as last name doesn't sound like a Presbyterian to me.

"A memorial service will be held 10:30 a.m. Saturday, March 13, at the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church,"

http://www.miami.muohio.edu/news/article/view/13178

[Nephi]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

Popular science?

[Michał Kalina]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

Popular science?

It wasn't published in a book about liturgics, was it?

[Nephi]

It wasn't published in a book about liturgics, was it?

It wasn't, but that doesn't explain what "popular science" means.

[Gunnarr]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

I see no reason why i should not trust him, he was a professor and professors tend not to lie for no reason they usually have a reason to say something. And I don't see what being protestent has to do with observing a change in liturgy. you don't have to be orthodox to study the liturgy


Why would he lie anyway, if anything he would want the church to be antisemitic or something to make it look bad, yet he is saying things have changed and those things were taken out. but just my opinion

[Michał Kalina]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

I see no reason why i should not trust him, he was a professor and professors tend not to lie for no reason they usually have a reason to say something. And I don't see what being protestent has to do with observing a change in liturgy. you don't have to be orthodox to study the liturgy


Why would he lie anyway, if anything he would want the church to be antisemitic or something to make it look bad, yet he is saying things have changed and those things were taken out. but just my opinion

Protestant neophyte trying to libel the Church he had left?

[Gunnarr]

I'm not taking seriously popular science texts about Orthodoxy written by Protestants.

I see no reason why i should not trust him, he was a professor and professors tend not to lie for no reason they usually have a reason to say something. And I don't see what being protestent has to do with observing a change in liturgy. you don't have to be orthodox to study the liturgy


Why would he lie anyway, if anything he would want the church to be antisemitic or something to make it look bad, yet he is saying things have changed and those things were taken out. but just my opinion

Protestant neophyte trying to libel the Church he had left?

I dont see it as libel, although he is condemning them for those hymns, at the same time he gives credit to them for taking that hymn out. If he just wanted to rip on them he would not mention times changed and the hymn is no longer sung. It makes no sense to lie about the last part at all because that would not support a thesis of the church still being anti-semitic or whatever

[Michał Kalina]

But it might support the thesis: Orthodox Church is secretly ruled by Jewish freemason Satanists and it does not keep the unchanged faith since it changed.

[Gunnarr]

But it might support the thesis: Orthodox Church is secretly ruled by Jewish freemason Satanists and it does not keep the unchanged faith since it changed.

 

Well I doubt a professor would hold such views but who knows... oh well, next time anyone is in Jeruasalem, ask the angry young black bearded man in the archmandrite vestments at the patriarchal liturgies running all around. I see him in half the videos that the Jerusalem Patriarchate puts out, always angry and yelling either at deacons or the alterboys. "go there!" "WHY DID YOU CIRCLE THE HOLY SEPLICHURE ONLY ONCE!?!? GO GO GO TWO MORE TIMES YOU CAUSED A TRAFFIC JAM OF PEOPLE!!!" or at least that is what I assume he is saying, by what his facial expressions and pointing and the scared kids

so i assume he is the one in charge of making sure each of the many unique celebrations there are done correctly...

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Suppression and Change of Traditional Rites