Armenians and kneeling

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
I am a Latin Catholic but I recently obtained the equivalent of a “missal” for the Armenian Soorp Badarak (holy sacrifice). This “missal” includes the Armenian and the English side-by-side as well as basic instructions on rubics. What stood out for me is the fact that the missal instructs the faithul to kneel during the Words of Institution but stand during the Epiclesis. I was under the impression that all Eastern and Oriental traditionals stood throughout the liturgy on Sundays. This “missal” was published by Armenian Apostolic Christians, not Armenian Catholic Christians. Do Armenian Catholics have the same practice, and is this univeral amog Armenian Apostolic Christians? Does it suggest a Latin understanding of the confection of the Eucharist?
Thanks.
 
twf said:
I am a Latin Catholic but I recently obtained the equivalent of a “missal” for the Armenian Soorp Badarak (holy sacrifice). This “missal” includes the Armenian and the English side-by-side as well as basic instructions on rubics. What stood out for me is the fact that the missal instructs the faithul to kneel during the Words of Institution but stand during the Epiclesis. I was under the impression that all Eastern and Oriental traditionals stood throughout the liturgy on Sundays. This “missal” was published by Armenian Apostolic Christians, not Armenian Catholic Christians. Do Armenian Catholics have the same practice, and is this univeral amog Armenian Apostolic Christians? Does it suggest a Latin understanding of the confection of the Eucharist?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that Armenians share many liturgical practices with the Latin Church
 
The Words of Institution and Epiclesis are two parts of the same prayer in all the traditional liturgies.

One might as well ask which clause of the Our Father is the most important.

And technically, the Armenians are NOT Orthodox, but Non-Chalcedonian (except for Armenian Catholics).
 
Their own name for themselves is (translated to english) The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church.
(www.armeniaemb.org)

They consider themselves miaphysite and orthodox.

According to several sources, including Wikipedia, they are part of the Oriental Orthodox Communion (along with the Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox of Antioch, Eritrean Orthodox, and the Malankara Orthodox), in union with the Pope of Constantinople, currently His Holiness Shenouda III. The relationships within that communion are tighter than the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and lesser than within the Catholic Communion.
 
Aramis said:
The relationships within that communion are tighter than the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and lesser than within the Catholic Communion.
Click to expand...
Really? I was under the opposite impression. Not that I am any authority 😃
 
bpbasilphx: I know that they’re Non-Chalcedonian. In my original post I called them the “Armenian Apostolic Christians”, which is accurate.

My question still hasn’t been answered. Why do they share the Latin practice of kneeling during the Words of Institution, but then stand during the epiclesis?
 
twf said:
bpbasilphx: I know that they’re Non-Chalcedonian. In my original post I called them the “Armenian Apostolic Christians”, which is accurate.

My question still hasn’t been answered. Why do they share the Latin practice of kneeling during the Words of Institution, but then stand during the epiclesis?
Click to expand...
Because it is their small-t tradition to do so. Both are signs of respect, but of different kinds. Typically, kneeling is sorrowful, typically, in the east, and standing joyful or awed… The West, however has different understandings of posture than the middle eastern.

And, yes, I meant Alexandria in my prior.
 
**
My question still hasn’t been answered. Why do they share the Latin practice of kneeling during the Words of Institution, but then stand during the epiclesis?**

**It seems there was a time when the entire Armenian Church was in communion with Rome in the 14th-15th centuries or so. Wish I could be more specific.

It was during this period that Armenian bishops began wearing mitres of the western shape, only without the infulae. I would imagine the Last Gospel was picked up at the same time.**
 
bpbasilphx: If that is the case, it is interesting that the Armenian Church has chosen to keep the customs they adapted from Rome. I wonder why? I recently visited an Armenian church/temple (not sure which word they prefer) not in communion with Rome. The sanctuary was, for lack of a better comparison, Syriac (curtain for example), but the “nave” was certainly Latin…there were no statues, but the icons had a very Latin feel to them.

I get the general feeling that Oriental Orthodox Christians are much more open to “adopting” customs and traditions from other Apostolic Churches than are Byzantine Christians.
 
twf said:
bpbasilphx: If that is the case, it is interesting that the Armenian Church has chosen to keep the customs they adapted from Rome. I wonder why? I recently visited an Armenian church/temple (not sure which word they prefer) not in communion with Rome. The sanctuary was, for lack of a better comparison, Syriac (curtain for example), but the “nave” was certainly Latin…there were no statues, but the icons had a very Latin feel to them.

I get the general feeling that Oriental Orthodox Christians are much more open to “adopting” customs and traditions from other Apostolic Churches than are Byzantine Christians.
Click to expand...
The Roman Rite also use a syriac-style curtain for a few centuries.

It takes only a generation or three for something to become traditional and part of normative praxis.

Since about 1850, the Ukrainian Church has genuflected; other Byzantines don’t. When ordered to restore their authentic traditions, this resulted in much whining and moaning about losing their traditions. Traditions which made the UGCC more of a Ukrainian Rite than just a Church Sui Iuris, as it was neither Byzantine nor Roman, but hybrid of the two. (The Ruthenians as well suffered the same, in some ways worse, even going so far as deleting Iconostasi.)
 
Aramis said:
Since about 1850, the Ukrainian Church has genuflected; other Byzantines don’t.
Click to expand...
This observation set me back. Perhaps this is a local tradition?

I’ve been to Ukrainian Catholic churches in Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Delaware and have never seen anyone genuflect unless they were a visiting Latin Rite. No one genuflected at the three churches I attended in Western Ukraine a few years back, either.

It just surprised me to read that.
 
I went to a Greek Orthodox church and no one genuflected.
Is this even relevant to this Armenian discussion?
 
notsmart said:
I went to a Greek Orthodox church and no one genuflected.
Is this even relevant to this Armenian discussion?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, like politics, religious traditions are local. Their adoption won’t be consistent geographically or over time, and variations may then be evident.
 
mariyka said:
Perhaps, like politics, religious traditions are local. Their adoption won’t be consistent geographically or over time, and variations may then be evident.
Click to expand...
Thanks. So, is it worth debating about then? When Greek Orthodox are in union with these others also? (sorry if I use the wrong terms, I am just learning)
 
notsmart said:
Thanks. So, is it worth debating about then? When Greek Orthodox are in union with these others also? (sorry if I use the wrong terms, I am just learning)
Click to expand...
Probably not. I am learning that the history, traditions, and relationships among the Eastern Churches are quite “byzantine”. 😉

But it is fascinating to observe all the variations that still have the same cohesive central focus.

Blessings to you.
 
mariyka said:
Probably not. I am learning that the history, traditions, and relationships among the Eastern Churches are quite “byzantine”. 😉

But it is fascinating to observe all the variations that still have the same cohesive central focus.

Blessings to you.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Is it a matter of personal preference then, for someone not born of any of the above ethnic backrounds?
I think it is nice that all can be preserved. I am just wondering what makes one better than another with no one claiming to be in charge of all?
 
mariyka said:
This observation set me back. Perhaps this is a local tradition?

I’ve been to Ukrainian Catholic churches in Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Delaware and have never seen anyone genuflect unless they were a visiting Latin Rite. No one genuflected at the three churches I attended in Western Ukraine a few years back, either.

It just surprised me to read that.
Click to expand...
In my dad’s library is a book from the 1950’s comparing all the “rites” … the photos of the Ukrainian DL include genuflections at the holy table (By the celebrant) and the tetrapod (by the people). It specifically mentioned this difference. (It’s also something noted by the FSSJ as something they wanted to keep).

I’ve seen a number of Ukrainians who genuflect at the tetrapod when reverencing the icon there.

Then again, after V II, the Ukrainians were noted for rapidly adopting, top-down, a return to their “authentic” traditions. Hence the development of the FSSJ who didn’t want to lose the Latinizations accrued.
 
Perhaps, like politics, religious traditions are local. Their adoption won’t be consistent geographically or over time, and variations may then be evident.

**I’ve noticed that, as a general rule, the longer an Eastern Church was in union with Rome, the more Latinisms occurred (until the last 30 years or so).

There was a big orange book, full of photographs, called THE EUCHARISTIC LITURGIES OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.

In the Maronite liturgy at the time, the servers wore Western style surplices, and even the celebrant wore Roman vestments–complete with fiddleback. (As you know, the Maronites are unique in having no non-Catholic counterpart.)

It gave 4 versions of the Byzantine liturgy. The Ukrainian/Ruthenian, which had been in union the longest, had the most Latinisms, pre-cut altar breads among them. (This practice has since been suppressed.) The Melkites were less so. The Greek even less. And the Russian Catholic use (dating only to 1900 or so) was very pure.

The Syriac and Malankara liturgies (ostensibly the same), had some visible differences as I recall–but the Malankara union dates only from 1930.**
 
twf said:
bpbasilphx: If that is the case, it is interesting that the Armenian Church has chosen to keep the customs they adapted from Rome. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
They got them during the Crusades, and after a while they became traditional to them and became Armeninian, just how some Latinizations were/are considered “Ukrainian” and to remove them would go against their tradition (something I tend to agree with even though I was not raised in the Greek Catholic Church)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top