Are Liturgical Abuses more common in the Latin Rite than the Eastern Rite?

[Mannyfit75]

This probably pertains more to the Eastern Rite Catholics,

It has come to my observation that liturgical abuses are more common place in the Latin Rite than the Eastern Rite. So far from the news I heard the abuses are none in Latin Rite, I rarely hear any Eastern Rite Catholic Church commit any form of liturgical abuses.

Has the Latin Rite change so much that it can no longer hold itself together with it comes to a more “orthodox” rite. Should Latin Rite change its Liturgy to fit its Eastern elders?

The more I witness this type of abuse, the more I feel being pulled away from my Rite as a Latin. I’m being drawn into Eastward direction.

I also have consider becoming Orthodox since some of there arguments concerning the Schism of 1054 is more convincing and honest. Before there was the Great Schism, there were 5 Patriarchiates to include Rome. Rome separated from the majority, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople… It’s almost convincing yet. I abhor disunity so I could not go Orthodox rather I have a deep zeal in me to go Byzantine Rite…which would probably be join the Meronite Church…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This probably pertains more to the Eastern Rite Catholics,

It has come to my observation that liturgical abuses are more common place in the Latin Rite than the Eastern Rite. So far from the news I heard the abuses are none in Latin Rite, I rarely hear any Eastern Rite Catholic Church commit any form of liturgical abuses.

Has the Latin Rite change so much that it can no longer hold itself together with it comes to a more “orthodox” rite. Should Latin Rite change its Liturgy to fit its Eastern elders?

The more I witness this type of abuse, the more I feel being pulled away from my Rite as a Latin. I’m being drawn into Eastward direction.

I also have consider becoming Orthodox since some of there arguments concerning the Schism of 1054 is more convincing and honest. Before there was the Great Schism, there were 5 Patriarchiates to include Rome. Rome separated from the majority, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople… It’s almost convincing yet. I abhor disunity so I could not go Orthodox rather I have a deep zeal in me to go Byzantine Rite…which would probably be join the Meronite Church…

Do Latinizations count as abuses?

this is not just a question of Latinization, but also, if your premise is true, will the abuses creep in with Latinizations?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do Latinizations count as abuses?

this is not just a question of Latinization, but also, if your premise is true, will the abuses creep in with Latinizations?

The abuses I refering to are those that goes against the GIRM. Though the GIRM would not apply to the Byzantine Rite since it is a different rite.

I’m just noticing more pratices of pastors not keeping into the traditions. For example, the pastor this Sunday omitted the Nicene Creed while the GIRM specifically said the Creed is to be said on Sundays and days of Solemity…His reason was time constrains.

The GIRM rarely mention exception to policy. I consider myself by the book type person (probably because of my military background).

 

[dbacks5439]

To be more specific is to ask if there are more abuses in America than there are elsewhere.

 

[Mannyfit75]

To be more specific is to ask if there are more abuses in America than there are elsewhere.

That would be subject to another thread.

 

[Woodstock]

Are you as familiar with the eastern rubrics as you are with the western? I believe a number of abuses occur with the eastern churches but people are unfamiliar with the rubrics so they don’t notice them.

Some examples:
the zeplota (hot water) is not used
the Rite of Proskemidia is not fully done
incense is not used at all or in all places it is called for
chant is not used, but parts are spoken instead
non-liturgical hymns are added, especially at the beginning of liturgy (not preceeding it)
litanies are not taken
full processions are not taken (the “Ruthenian coo-coo clock” is the name of the deacon door to deacon door procession, excluding the procession around the nave)
the Eucharist is not distributed together on a spoon (where it is appropriate)
laity help dispense the Eucharist (allowed by the Ruthenians for need) when there is not need
the hours are not kept
the words are changed, for example saying Orthodox instead of “true believing Christians” or Pope Benedict XVI instead of Benedict, Pope of Rome.
female altar servers are allowed
female laity do the reading even when an orained reader is present
temples are sparse on iconograpahy or have no iconostasis out of desire, not need
western devotions such as the Sacred Heart and the rosary are promoted instead of eastern devotions and the hours

There are plenty of priests and parishes east and west which generally have good liturgy according to their norms, but I am only a casual observer and have seen all of the above. If you are looking for it, you can find it. If you study the eastern rubrics (I haven’t) and travel around a little, I’m sure you’ll spot a lot more.

The Maronites have a lot of problems of their own on reclaiming their traditions. I believe the best way to deal with unorthodox liturgy is to stay and be an agent for change. If the only reason you want to look eastward is because you think they follow the traditions better, I believe you’ll be sadly mistaken. Thankfully, many easterners are staying and becoming agents for change, just as those in the west can and are doing.

 

[rowlands]

The abuses I refering to are those that goes against the GIRM. Though the GIRM would not apply to the Byzantine Rite since it is a different rite.

I’m just noticing more pratices of pastors not keeping into the traditions. For example, the pastor this Sunday omitted the Nicene Creed while the GIRM specifically said the Creed is to be said on Sundays and days of Solemity…His reason was time constrains.

The GIRM rarely mention exception to policy. I consider myself by the book type person (probably because of my military background).

If I understand ‘abuse’ as meaning ‘not going by the book’ then I might venture to say that ‘liturgical abuse’ is in fact very well developed in Eastern Orthodox usage. The Typikon lays down the ‘correct’ way of celebrating all the divine services, on any day, and in any combination, and far from being a burdensome set of rules applicable only in monasteries, is actually an inspirational treasure of the Orthodox Church.

Laying aside services outside the Divine Liturgy, criticisms have been raised on several points which contravene the rules or rubrics expressed in the typikon. For example:

1. Incorrect opening and closing of the curtain and of the Royal Doors in the course of the Liturgy, as specified in the typikon.
2. Incorrect use of the antiphons or typical psalms at the Liturgy.
   2a. Omission of the psalm verses in the singing of the antiphons, singing only the ‘refrains’.
   2b. Omission of the second antiphon and singing only Glory… Both now… Only Begotten Son & Word of God.
   2c. Omission of the verses on the Beatitudes, when the typical psalms are appointed to be chanted.
   2d. Omission of the psalm verses in the third antiphon (and chanting only the apolytikion).
3. Not chanting the full and correct sequence of troparia and kondakia after the little entrance.
4. Incorrect chanting of the prokeimenon before the reading of the Apostle.
   4a. Omission of the psalm verses on Alleluia before the Gospel.
5. Omission of the ektenia for the catechumens and some or all of the other ektenias following the Gospel.
   5a. Inclusion of the ektenia for the departed in the Sunday Divine Liturgy.
6. Priests facing the people at the exclamation ‘Let us lift up our hearts’ (this belongs to the bishop).
7. Substituting inappropriate musical performances in place of the appointed koinonikon.
8. Omission of psalm 133 after ‘Blessed be the Name of the Lord’.
9. Bishops celebrating without the full hierarchical rite!
10. Celebration of molebiens and panichidas after the Divine Liturgy when, ‘essentially’ their prayer has already been offered in the course of the divine liturgy.
11. Celebration of ‘vesperal’ Divine Liturgies on festivals (as a concession to difficulties in the faithful being able to attend during the day because of work etc).

Of course, there are recognised/recognisable differences in the practises of the various national and local churches; some of the apparent ‘abuses’ are sanctioned to some extent by the bishops (although some bishops speak critically of such ‘abuses’) and it is probable that what is done is for the greatest benefit of the congregation and uses the best abilities of the congregation.

One should also be aware that there are local variants of the typicon but, be it based on the Sabbaitic, Studite or Constantinople Typikon, so far as the Divine Liturgy is concerned, they are really no more significant than the answers to the question ‘what is the difference between Greek or Russian or Serbian (or whatever) Orthodoxy?’

 

[Mannyfit75]

If I understand ‘abuse’ as meaning ‘not going by the book’ then I might venture to say that ‘liturgical abuse’ is in fact very well developed in Eastern Orthodox usage. The Typikon lays down the ‘correct’ way of celebrating all the divine services, on any day, and in any combination, and far from being a burdensome set of rules applicable only in monasteries, is actually an inspirational treasure of the Orthodox Church.

Laying aside services outside the Divine Liturgy, criticisms have been raised on several points which contravene the rules or rubrics expressed in the typikon. For example:

1. Incorrect opening and closing of the curtain and of the Royal Doors in the course of the Liturgy, as specified in the typikon.
2. Incorrect use of the antiphons or typical psalms at the Liturgy.
   2a. Omission of the psalm verses in the singing of the antiphons, singing only the ‘refrains’.
   2b. Omission of the second antiphon and singing only Glory… Both now… Only Begotten Son & Word of God.
   2c. Omission of the verses on the Beatitudes, when the typical psalms are appointed to be chanted.
   2d. Omission of the psalm verses in the third antiphon (and chanting only the apolytikion).
3. Not chanting the full and correct sequence of troparia and kondakia after the little entrance.
4. Incorrect chanting of the prokeimenon before the reading of the Apostle.
   4a. Omission of the psalm verses on Alleluia before the Gospel.
5. Omission of the ektenia for the catechumens and some or all of the other ektenias following the Gospel.
   5a. Inclusion of the ektenia for the departed in the Sunday Divine Liturgy.
6. Priests facing the people at the exclamation ‘Let us lift up our hearts’ (this belongs to the bishop).
7. Substituting inappropriate musical performances in place of the appointed koinonikon.
8. Omission of psalm 133 after ‘Blessed be the Name of the Lord’.
9. Bishops celebrating without the full hierarchical rite!
10. Celebration of molebiens and panichidas after the Divine Liturgy when, ‘essentially’ their prayer has already been offered in the course of the divine liturgy.
11. Celebration of ‘vesperal’ Divine Liturgies on festivals (as a concession to difficulties in the faithful being able to attend during the day because of work etc).

Of course, there are recognised/recognisable differences in the practises of the various national and local churches; some of the apparent ‘abuses’ are sanctioned to some extent by the bishops (although some bishops speak critically of such ‘abuses’) and it is probable that what is done is for the greatest benefit of the congregation and uses the best abilities of the congregation.

One should also be aware that there are local variants of the typicon but, be it based on the Sabbaitic, Studite or Constantinople Typikon, so far as the Divine Liturgy is concerned, they are really no more significant than the answers to the question ‘what is the difference between Greek or Russian or Serbian (or whatever) Orthodoxy?’

Liturgical abuses are also common in Eastern Orthodox churches as well? What are the laity, and patriarchs doing about it? Are they reported even.

Usually, I would inform the pastor about his errors and try to resolve at the lowest level. If it doesn’t, I’ll have to take to the bishop…

 

[rowlands]

Liturgical abuses are also common in Eastern Orthodox churches as well? What are the laity, and patriarchs doing about it? Are they reported even.

Usually, I would inform the pastor about his errors and try to resolve at the lowest level. If it doesn’t, I’ll have to take to the bishop…

Re Post #7. If you read the penultimate paragraph you may understand that many of these ‘abuses’ might have been sanctioned by the bishop - they may therefore be seen less as ‘abuses’ and rather more (undesirable as they may be) as an adaptation or as a permissive means to preserve a regular form of liturgical life, albeit one which does not conform strictly to the rules laid down in the typikon.

You did state that you prefer things to be done ‘by the book’! There are bishops who agree with you and who issue letters and decrees calling for the restoration of the exact letter of the typikon. You may find it difficult to make a complaint to the bishop if it is about something he has sanctioned; you could complain to the Patriarch or Metropolitan, but beware - the bishop to whom/about whom you are complaining may be a member of the Patriarch’s or the Metropolitan’s Holy and Sacred Synod - he might even be chairman of the committee on liturgical practice!

I do not think it is very common that individual priests (and choirmasters) necessarily make sudden and spontaneous abusive changes (mistakes do occur!) but rather things have a tendency to evolve. For example, various musical settings have led to the dropping of verses from psalms, so that at the All Night Vigil service, at least in the Russian tradition, only a half dozen or so verses of the opening psalm are sung; older simpler versions allow the chanting of all the verses. It’s just something that has altered without necessarily any great detriment. One might bear in mind proverbs about the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit’ of the law.

Where large and significant and truly ‘abusive’ changes are made there are usually sufficient elderly grandmothers whose lives are steeped in the church services to call attention to the error - and archbishops have been known to send notes to choirmasters saying ‘it maybe that that is how you are accustomed to do it but when I serve you must…’ [If you wish, for ‘must’ substitute ‘will’!]