OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 02:26:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liturgical Modifications  (Read 3245 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dpaula
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian w/ Romanian background
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 295


« Reply #90 on: April 16, 2013, 06:44:44 PM »

Liturgical modifications?
I vote .....none needed.
The Divine Liturgy is perfect just the way it is.
I love it more and more. Each time I hear the priest saying "Again and again..." it's like a reminder for where I am and why I am where I am and what I need to do while I am there....listen, pray, worship! No need to make it different, really!




Logged

Not posting anymore due to the rudeness on this site.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #91 on: April 16, 2013, 07:57:42 PM »

I'd ban opera-like singing from churches. My last St. Basil's lasted 2 hours.

Reminds me of the Onion Dome article from years back the headline of which was, "New, even longer version of Liturgy of St. Basil found."

Interestingly, in my current parish, where the Priests say the prayers aloud, the Liturgy lasts pretty much just as long as St. John Chrysostom's, maybe only a few more minutes longer. Then again, they don't necessarily chant the prayers.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,143


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2013, 12:38:45 AM »

Quote
Microphones? Ask when you are 50 not 20.

There is no need at all for microphones, whatever your age, if the church is built with proper acoustics, which is a feature of most traditional architectural styles. The local Russian church where I live is a veritable joy, a jewel of Novgorodian authenticity, and with perfect acoustics. No mikes required.

OTOH, the Greeks, who are greatest in numbers, and have the largest number of churches here, and the largest church buildings, have largely turned going to church into an auditory frustration, not least because of the combination of bad acoustics in their increasing deviation from traditional architecture, and woefully set-up sound systems, accompanied by the inevitable Byzantine chanter who either sings through his nose, or is off-key.  Angry Angry Angry Shocked

I should further qualify...you are correct for the chanting and singing, but those same great acoustics often kill the homily and the scripture readings especially when the priest and readers don't project their voices well or don't properly enunciate. In my church the acoustic echo can garble the spoken word. Also if you are recording, broadcasting or web casting you must be miked.

The acoustics in the Russian church I spoke of are so good, there is no need for strong projection. Guest priests and bishops with less-than-strident voices have no trouble being heard there, whether chanting or giving the homily. Indeed, the choirmistress sometimes has to crank the choir down from time to time when they get a little too exuberant, such as on major feasts. Perhaps the loveliest service I have ever attended there was a vigil where only four singers were in attendance: one soprano, one tenor, one bass. No histrionics, no bellowing, the singers' volume and harmony was perfect, and everything clicked. The whole nave was filled with the most sublime sound, as moving and reverent as any professional choir.

Bad enunciation is bad enunciation. A microphone will not correct garbled speech.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2013, 01:23:52 AM »

Sorry I forgot to mention that I am not exactly very serious in my post, just things that popped up in my head .


Quote
I would ban all those newfangled types of singing in the Russian church, bring it back to the traditional ways. No more opera singing
Quote
Some of the compositions should be done away with, but a lot of the Russian Chanting and singing is just as heavenly as Byzantine and Gregorian. When it gets overly complicated and over-the-top is when it kind of loses the mystery.

I mostly just meant the songs which you cannot even tell what is being sung. I think if one cannot tell what is even being sung it defeates the purpose


Quote
Rip out all the pews
Quote
I'd be okay with this, but pews/chairs should remain on the exterior walls for those who can't stand. Even Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos have stasidia for the elderly Monks.

yes i only meant the protestant kind of pews

Quote
Melt down the organs
Quote
There is absolutely no  problem with organs in western rite parishes. However, organs don't really have a place in Byzantine Rite churches. Organs pre-date the schism by several hundred years, and are perfectly Orthodox and perfectly Christian. However, they just don't fit with the Byzantine Rite, which is based entirely on a cappella. The one exception to instruments would be drums in Byzantine-rite parishes in Africa.

i personally believe that only the human voice should be used, God did not create the metals of an organ in his image ;P

Quote
Make sure all churches at least in USA do the liturgy of the catechumen, because of so many converts
Quote
The Liturgy of the Catechumens? Do you mean the Litany? I do feel that the litany should always be included, because of not only the catechumens in other parishes (if yours has none) but also because we are all constantly in catechisis.

i only said it because i hear some churches just skip it and do the liturgy of the faithful

Quote
Reinstate the office of the door keeper
Quote
No, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you want to start kicking out the catechumens and those who don't take the Eucharist. That isn't going to happen, and there is no reason for the "door keeper" unless we enter a situation where we are under severe persecution (and not just ideological persecution).

sorry i only said this because of all the robbed churches in the news recently Tongue

Quote
Ban using a million light bulbs in churches, churches are too bright inside. of course just my opinion
Quote
I don't agree with this. I've been inside dark, ancient Byzantine Churches, and you can't really see any of the icons on the walls if they don't have the lights on. In fact, most Byzantine Churches in Greece have had modern lighting installed (beautiful chandeliers that are electric rather than oil/wax candles).
A church should be dim during non-Liturgical Lenten services, as well as at Vespers until the singing of "Gladsome Light". Also, they should be dim until the Great Doxology if Matins is done before Liturgy.

i am fine with lights, just not using more then necessary. only brought it up because of some renessaince era russian churches i have seen Tongue

Quote
Make sure priests do their prayers correctly, that is, not yelling all of them out and whispering the ones that they should be whispering (not putting it in a microphone so everyone can hear) i mean
Quote
No, no, no... The silent prayers are a recent innovation that was done to speed up the services. It was a stupid innovation that needs to be done away with. Also, microphones are completely kosher, especially if you have elderly chanters or an elderly Priest who have beautiful voices, but have lost the ability to project.

Are they?? I am sure at least there are some quiet prayers that are not innovations. i am talking about the prayers that the priest say that he is praying to God, saying "I" rather then "we"


Quote
maybe fix that period in the liturgy where you have two different chantings at once. sure, it sounds cool but it makes no sense.
Quote
It does make sense, and in fact, practically we are told that there can be 3 different things going on at once during Liturgy.

From who?? Anyway, I highly doubt it was meant to be done in that way originally. what makes those instances merit that method

Quote
Ban the crowns. Yes, I said it. Those crowns are not based on tradition at all, and in fact are almost exact copies of the emperor of constantinople's crown (the latter ones). The use of those crowns with bishops only came about after the fall of constantinople. Probably first started getting used by those with much pride
Quote
I don't necessarily agree with this. Also, it wasn't due to pride, it was due to the Turks. The Turks made the Bishops the secular leaders of the Greek minorities (and in some places also the leaders of other Orthodox ethnicities).

I still don't see why they should wear them still. What difference does it make if the turks made them wear it? The turks certainly did not invade russia and make them wear the crowns! They certainly are also no longer under the turks in Greece!

Quote
Perhaps it is time to no longer keep putting the body of Christ in the chalice. I don't think people nowadays will try to take any home. Or at least allow it in places where there are no people one would suspect to do such a thing.
Quote
That also makes absolutely no sense. We receive the body & blood of Christ together, as a whole. Also, you don't have any clue why we use warm water, and the benefit that placing the body in the chalice does practically. The body of Christ CAN actually solidify like stale bread, and so putting it in the chalice with water & wine (which becomes the blood) helps make it so the Priest can separate it and give it to the people.

Also, the body & blood of Christ is far to holy, far too divine, far too awesome to even risk someone taking it home.

"This is my body, shed for you. now let me put it in the wine for you, don't take it home!", as it is written ;P

Quote
Seperate the sexes again to right and left again as in tradition.
Quote
This doesn't make any sense. I've been in churches in Greece where this is done, but it falls through simply because one side fills up, and some couples sit together anyway. There is nothing wrong with having the sexes integrated, especially when children tend to get antsy and the other spouse may need to deal with them while the other watches the others.

let me guess, the female side always fills up Tongue

Quote
Prostrations
Quote
As in do away with them? They haven't stopped, pews and chairs just make it hard to prostrate. They haven't gone away by any stretch of the imagination, and aren't going away anytime soon.

some churches just bending a little is fine Tongue


Quote
All in all, not really much innovation. Just putting things back in check
Quote
Are you joking? Almost your entire post was innovation. You weren't putting anything back "into check".

hmm yes you are right anyway, innovations of innovations are indeed innovations
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 01:24:41 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #94 on: April 23, 2013, 02:04:42 AM »

Quote
I still don't see why they should wear them still. What difference does it make if the turks made them wear it? The turks certainly did not invade russia and make them wear the crowns! They certainly are also no longer under the turks in Greece!

I agree with you, I find the crowns to be a bit silly.
If I were a bishop I would not wear one - unless - the people demanded it I might feel obliged, or if they didnt recognize me as a bishop otherwise, that could also be a reason. However, Crowns are not part of the tradition going back before 1453.

However the problem with not using crowns is that we already have so many crowns that exist worth thousands of dollars.
What do we do with the old ones ? So, while in spirit it's a nice idea, it potentially creates problem in reality.
That is the issue with change,  older/newer traditions often seem to have problems trying to coexist within the church. Though not always.

Whenever I watch russian films that take place before 1700 the crowns on bishops are nowhere to be found.
something more like these:




I also do not like the pom poms on latin catholic biretta's priest hats


I much prefer the more ancient biretta's without the pom pom's , now those have the same dignity of a Kamilavka!


(Redrawn from Braun’s Liturgische Gewandung.)
Fig. 2.—Illustrations of the biretum from monuments in the cathedrals of—
a, Brandenburg (1281).
b, Augsburg (1342).
c, Bamberg (1483).
d, Regensburg (1550).
e, Würzburg (1521).
f, Regensburg (1564).
g, ib. (1605?).
h, Bamberg (1626).


http://orthodox-okie.blogspot.com/2005/08/english-clergy-habit.html

« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 02:25:59 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2013, 11:43:34 PM »

Quote
I still don't see why they should wear them still. What difference does it make if the turks made them wear it? The turks certainly did not invade russia and make them wear the crowns! They certainly are also no longer under the turks in Greece!

I agree with you, I find the crowns to be a bit silly.
If I were a bishop I would not wear one - unless - the people demanded it I might feel obliged, or if they didnt recognize me as a bishop otherwise, that could also be a reason. However, Crowns are not part of the tradition going back before 1453.

However the problem with not using crowns is that we already have so many crowns that exist worth thousands of dollars.
What do we do with the old ones ? So, while in spirit it's a nice idea, it potentially creates problem in reality.
That is the issue with change,  older/newer traditions often seem to have problems trying to coexist within the church. Though not always.

Whenever I watch russian films that take place before 1700 the crowns on bishops are nowhere to be found.
something more like these:




I also do not like the pom poms on latin catholic biretta's priest hats


I much prefer the more ancient biretta's without the pom pom's , now those have the same dignity of a Kamilavka!


(Redrawn from Braun’s Liturgische Gewandung.)
Fig. 2.—Illustrations of the biretum from monuments in the cathedrals of—
a, Brandenburg (1281).
b, Augsburg (1342).
c, Bamberg (1483).
d, Regensburg (1550).
e, Würzburg (1521).
f, Regensburg (1564).
g, ib. (1605?).
h, Bamberg (1626).


http://orthodox-okie.blogspot.com/2005/08/english-clergy-habit.html



"However, Crowns are not part of the tradition going back before 1453"

Not true, I saw the Mitre of St. Gregory Palamas with my own eyes, very much like those that our Bishops wear today. 
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 28, 2013, 06:04:07 PM »

Quote
"However, Crowns are not part of the tradition going back before 1453"

Not true, I saw the Mitre of St. Gregory Palamas with my own eyes, very much like those that our Bishops wear today.

Perhaps I stand corrected ?

My expertise lies primarily in the pre-16th century roman rite vestments, not the byzantine. I have spent far less time analysing the byzantine vestments, which actually is not fair because the latin rite often has the monopoly on academic studies concerning vestments.

There really should be more thorough study of byzantine rite vestments with illustrations and pictures in books.

However, at least I can say that the orthodox wiki site would be mistaken with me (It has happened before).

Quote
A miter in the imperial form was not use by Orthodox bishops until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Today, the typical miter in Orthodox churches is based on the imperial crown of the late Eastern Roman Empire.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Miter

I quite liked this Mitre.

http://www.byzantinemuseum.gr/en/permanentexhibition/from_Byzantium_to_Modern_Era/communities_of_the_Romioi/?bxm=1701

My preference for mitres that are less crown like, though no less elaborate is probably a latin rite bias.

I have better things to do than criticise vestments, this whole topic is somewhat goofy. The Orthodox church has its act together well enough for me to relax about these topics.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 06:06:01 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #97 on: April 28, 2013, 08:04:36 PM »

Not true, I saw the Mitre of St. Gregory Palamas with my own eyes, very much like those that our Bishops wear today. 

St Nicholas is often painted with one, it doesn't mean he wore it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 34 queries.