Are EC liturgical rubrics less codified than Latin Rite ones?

[Draper]

Are EC liturgical rubrics less codified than Latin Rite ones – especially when it comes to the very fine minutiae?

It seems to me that in the Latin Rite, liturgical matters are extremely cut and dried – not that they are always followed per the book of course.

In the East, it seems that the small things in the different Divine Liturgies (and possibly other EC sacrificial liturgies as well?) are influenced not only by the official rubrics, but by where the celebrant grew up, where he was formed, etc.

This might only be my perception, but I’m curious if the level of liturgical detail that’s well documented in the Latin Rite is also thoroughly documented in the different ECs?

 

[wynd]

I think so. Sometimes the service books will do something like instruct the priest to say “the usual prayers” or stand in “the usual place,” assuming the priest knows what those are.

 

[Errham]

Are EC liturgical rubrics less codified than Latin Rite ones – especially when it comes to the very fine minutiae?

It seems to me that in the Latin Rite, liturgical matters are extremely cut and dried – not that they are always followed per the book of course.

In the East, it seems that the small things in the different Divine Liturgies (and possibly other EC sacrificial liturgies as well?) are influenced not only by the official rubrics, but by where the celebrant grew up, where he was formed, etc.

This might only be my perception, but I’m curious if the level of liturgical detail that’s well documented in the Latin Rite is also thoroughly documented in the different ECs?

If you’re talking about the number of rubrics - definitely not. If you thought the rubrics for the LOTH are complicated, they’re a piece of cake compared to the Horologion. If I remember correctly, there are a total of 76 or 78 different ways that Matins can be recited depending upon the existance of a feast day, the type of feast day, and the typikon in use.

That being said, the issue of following the rubrics is generally less strict (at least compared to the TLM, I’ve seen priests go everywhere with the Novus Ordo). This is because the typikon - the book detailing the exact rubrics - is not standardized, and hasn’t really been translated into English very well (and possibly never in its entire, complete form). Exact typikons - and the practice of following the typikon to the letter - tend to be used in monasteries only. So well there are technically rubrics, some Divine Liturgies that you attend may be different from those in another parish. Priests can usually change or abbreviate (abbreviating is more common) the rubrics depending upon the ability of the parish to carry them out, and his own personal discretion. So it really depends on what you mean by the word “codified”. In a monastery, you’d find extremely strict rubrics, and quite a lot of them. In parish practice, you probably won’t find any more than you will in the TLM. Novus Ordo, at least in practice, is a whole different story - I don’t believe I’ve ever been to a Mass where the rubrics are followed precisely.

 

[Draper]

I think so. Sometimes the service books will do something like instruct the priest to say “the usual prayers” or stand in “the usual place,” assuming the priest knows what those are.

That would explain a lot. My parish has had three pastors and an interim administrator in the past several years and they all seem to have their own ideas on many liturgical matters. Thanks.

 

[ByzKat]

It’s also worth pointing out that the Typikon referred to earlier is primarily involved in guiding the issue of which services are to be celebrated, and with what texts (i.e. how to combine the ordinary, commons, and propers from the set of 20 or so books needed to celebrate the Byzantine Rite liturgy, in our case).

Most jurisdictions also have printed collections of rubrics or guidelines that supplement the ones in the liturgical books themselves. These books have a tendency (as one poster noted) to say things like “At the appropriate time for the service, the deacon goes to his place and says the customary prayers in the usual manner.” The additional books, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, draw from local custom, general custom, and the compiler’s preference to fill in the blanks - which doors does the procession go through? Where does the priest stand for this prayer? and so on.

 

[Draper]

It’s also worth pointing out that the Typikon referred to earlier is primarily involved in guiding the issue of which services are to be celebrated, and with what texts (i.e. how to combine the ordinary, commons, and propers from the set of 20 or so books needed to celebrate the Byzantine Rite liturgy, in our case).

Most jurisdictions also have printed collections of rubrics or guidelines that supplement the ones in the liturgical books themselves. These books have a tendency (as one poster noted) to say things like “At the appropriate time for the service, the deacon goes to his place and says the customary prayers in the usual manner.” The additional books, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, draw from local custom, general custom, and the compiler’s preference to fill in the blanks - which doors does the procession go through? Where does the priest stand for this prayer? and so on.

That definitely seems to be the case around here. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[wynd]

That would explain a lot. My parish has had three pastors and an interim administrator in the past several years and they all seem to have their own ideas on many liturgical matters. Thanks.

Can you give examples? Some things are vague but others are quite specific.

 

[Errham]

It’s also worth pointing out that the Typikon referred to earlier is primarily involved in guiding the issue of which services are to be celebrated, and with what texts (i.e. how to combine the ordinary, commons, and propers from the set of 20 or so books needed to celebrate the Byzantine Rite liturgy, in our case).

Most jurisdictions also have printed collections of rubrics or guidelines that supplement the ones in the liturgical books themselves. These books have a tendency (as one poster noted) to say things like “At the appropriate time for the service, the deacon goes to his place and says the customary prayers in the usual manner.” The additional books, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, draw from local custom, general custom, and the compiler’s preference to fill in the blanks - which doors does the procession go through? Where does the priest stand for this prayer? and so on.

From what I understand, the OCA and some other Churches email the parishes the rubrics for upcoming feasts and solemn days beforehand. That way some rubrics are had even in the abcense of a full typikon telling them what to do.

 

[Draper]

Can you give examples? Some things are vague but others are quite specific.

Typically small things. What exact parts of the liturgy are chanted by the priest vs. the deacon. Where the servers stand at what point in the DL. Their hand positions and those of clerics. The amount of incensing that takes place. That sort of thing. Very small differences, but there are a great many of them.

I don’t think any of the variances contravene the liturgical books, but they can effect the overall “feel” of the liturgy quite a bit.

 

[dvdjs]

Typically small things. What exact parts of the liturgy are chanted by the priest vs. the deacon. Where the servers stand at what point in the DL. Their hand positions and those of clerics. The amount of incensing that takes place. That sort of thing…

Apart from the reading of the gospel, the parts that the deacon chants or the priest (serving with a deacon) chants are prescribed.

Here is a link to a Russian sluzhebnik. orthodox.net/services/sluzebnic-chrysostom.pdf It is very simlilar to the DL of the BCC, but there are a numerous differences. There was a Liturgikon at the Patronage (Baltimore) website, but it the site has been changed.

It has the rubrics - which describes the movements, censing, etc that accompanying the texts; it also refers to the typikon - which identifies the propers for the liturgy.
As noted above, the rubrics are a bit elliptical. The ordo is spelled out in greater detail in the Ordo Celebrationis. secure.webvalence.com/ecommerce/kiosk.lasso?merchant=ecpubs&kiosk=books&class=4

 

[babochka]

Typically small things. What exact parts of the liturgy are chanted by the priest vs. the deacon. Where the servers stand at what point in the DL. Their hand positions and those of clerics. The amount of incensing that takes place. That sort of thing. Very small differences, but there are a great many of them.

I don’t think any of the variances contravene the liturgical books, but they can effect the overall “feel” of the liturgy quite a bit.

Our priest always incenses the church clock-wise. Every pastor we’ve ever had inceses the church clockwise. We have an occasional visiting priest who incenses the church counter-clockwise. ( Drives me nuts.) I’ve also noticed that in some places, the altar servers are taught to cross their arms (as if receiving communion) any time they are at rest. We don’t do that in our parish. Are these the sort of things that you’re talking about?