Ortodox liturgy vs. Catholic Liturgy

[observer]

The concept of Orthodox Liturgy v Roman Cathollic Mass is utter nonsense. What i say is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Church Fathers. What I do know is that at the Lliturgy, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.  If you think the Catholics experience exactly this, then your Orthodoxy is merely a romantic affair with the Byzantine Rite.

[Jennifer]

The concept of Orthodox Liturgy v Roman Cathollic Mass is utter nonsense. What i say is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Church Fathers. What I do know is that at the Lliturgy, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. If you think the Catholics experience exactly this, then your Orthodoxy is merely a romantic affair with the Byzantine Rite.

I see we have among us a great and holy elder who has been given the gift of mindreading.  We're very blessed. 

[Augustine]

Schultz,

My father, when he was a boy in 1945, used to serve regularly at the 7am Sunday Low Mass, which took less than 40 minutes, according to him and my four uncles, who also regularly assisted at the same Mass (the Beck boys had a monopoly on that particular Mass, apparently).  The way things were done in 1945 is far different than the way things are done in traditionalist parishes today.  Unless you are at least 55 years old, you really have no recollection of the "good old days" and anything you've experienced post-Ecclesia Dei is a romanticized version of pre-Vatican II.

Back in my SSPX days, this wasn't uncommon either (Low Mass said in 30-45 minutes, depending on the Priest.)  So, while your observation about modern-day-traditionalist "romanticism" probably holds some water in some places, I don't think it's universal.  And of course, anything is preferable to the essentially Lutheran service which the Vatican cranked out after Vatican II for popular consumption (and that includes a "said at light speed whisper" low-Mass in Latin with only one server, no sermon, no choir, no nutthin'.)  Now that I think about it, my experiences of the "novus ordo" low-mass weren't exactly elaborate affairs either...so I don't quite see just what the real big deal was, save for a descent into banality (if that's you're "thang".)

[Keble]

The Anglican looks at the "speed of liturgy" angle of this with some amusement. Now, I remember doing said eucharists at the chapel and UMCP with just the chaplain, myself, and whatever one or two other stray dogs wandered in. This took about thirty minutes and could be taken as a lower limit, but no Sunday liturgy could be that short unless nobody showed up. A more reasonable lower limit would be about an hour; a well-attended sung service is more likely to be in the 1 1/4 to 1/12 hour range.

Now, one thing that helps to pull Orthodox liturgies down into this range is that Orthodox priests just tend to talk a lot faster than Episcopal priests do. Even ex-Episcopal Orthodox priests talk faster than they used to. This helps to compensate for the wordiness of Orthodox liturgies. Even Rite I in the Episcopal Church is a lot shorter by syllable count than the Orthodox services. Part of the reason for this is unsurprising: almost all of the Western words are in the Eastern rite, plus all those litanies that were inserted in the East.

[Fr. George]

Part of the reason for this is unsurprising: almost all of the Western words are in the Eastern rite, plus all those litanies that were inserted in the East.

"inserted in the East"?  I think we should be careful about how we word things.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Ortodox liturgy vs. Catholic Liturgy