Differences between Eastern Catholic rites/liturgies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
Please feel free to provide any information you can, but some quick questions I have in mind:

Are the differences between Greek, Ruthenian, Russian, Melkite, and other so-called Byzantine rites only the language used? I assume there are more similarities than differences.

What are main liturgical differences between the major liturgical families (see chart)?

Is Eastern Orthodoxy mostly Byzantine? Or does it have other liturgical families too, like Syriac and Alexandrian?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Churches use the Byzantine rite, almost exclusively, although there a very small number of Western Rite parishes that within the Antiochian and Russian Churches.

The Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Churches use multiple rites, including Alexandrian, Armenian, and West Syriac.
 
So does this mean the same thing for those Eastern Catholic churches that spring from these traditions?

And also, what are the differences? How is liturgy different on the practical level?
 
Among the various Eastern Catholic Churches, you can find all of the rites found among the Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Byzantine rite used by the Eastern Orthodox. There various rites use different prayers, for both the litanies and the anaphora.
 
The various churches of the Byzantine rite do not necessarily use different languages. For example, some of the various Slavic churches may still use Church Slavonic. However, generally, the main difference is in the language used. Also, there are some variations between the Greek usage and the Slavic usage with respect to the lectionary. Then, there is the matter of the calendar. Some churches use the Julian calendar, while others use the Gregorian calendar.
 
If someone were to ask me the difference between a Latin-influenced liturgy (Roman rite) and Eastern (Byzantine that is), I’d be able to toss out some differences. Maybe I’d say the use of instruments in Latin rite, the iconostasis in Byzantine, the unleavened bread at Mass, iconography in Byzantine, standing up, and so on.

What are some practical differences that one could distinguish, say, a Byzantine liturgy and a Maronite or Syriac liturgy? Is artwork different? The Eucharist? And so on.
 
I have very little experience with the Eastern liturgies that are not Byzantine. However, there are differences in iconography,artwork, church architecture, and so on. Also, some use leavened bread, and some use unleavened.
 
Last edited:
One thing I noticed when I attended an Armenian Apostolic Church was the use of a communal confession and absolution prior to communion.
 
catholic1seeks said:
What are some practical differences that one could distinguish, say, a Byzantine liturgy and a Maronite or Syriac liturgy? Is artwork different? The Eucharist? And so on.
Click to expand...
Mind you, I was received into the Syriac Maronite Church through marriage fairly recently and I can only speak of the latinized practices not the original traditions of the this Eastern church. The language is in the vernacular, except a few prayers and hymns in Syriac, the consecration is in Syriac. Inside the church itself, only icons, differing styles, Syriac, Byzantine, Coptic, Russian, though. Eucharist is the latin wafer, however, we receive it standing, only from a priest or deacon, after it has been intincted in the chalice, and then received in the tongue. The liturgy itself is rich in hymnody, we mostly stand and only kneel once a year at Pentacost. The censer is still used. Newborns are baptized and chrismated at the same time, yet FHC is set for 8 yrs old/2nd grade (this is a latinization I have heard they are working on reversing).
 
Last edited:
Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox use the same Liturgy and calendar. The rest would be oriental orthodox.
 
RyanBlack said:
Actually, some Byzantine Catholics use the Gregorian Calendar.
Click to expand...
Given that the only reason not to use the Gregorian is that it was promulgated by a pope . . .

in the US, most EC use the Gregorian. In some, though, it actually varies by parish!

hawk
 
RyanBlack said:
Also, some use leavened bread, and some use unleavened.
Click to expand...
Only the Oriental Orthodox Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Catholic Armenian Churches use unleavened bread (and obviously the Western Church).

All other Eastern Churches use leavened bread.

OP: I suggest going on Youtube and typing in “Coptic orthodox liturgy,” “russian orthodox liturgy” etc. and observe… If unable to visit the different Churches in person.
 
How does one half of the entire church, (essentially) geographically, end up using two different kinds of bread?

I assume it has to stem from one tradition/location either in West OR East starting a different tradition and then it got absorbed really fast everywhere else?
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
How does one half of the entire church, (essentially) geographically, end up using two different kinds of bread?
Click to expand...
In the early second millennium, the RCC switched from leavened to unleavened. I forget the year but Father mentioned it a week or two ago.

Don’t the Romanians also use unleavened?

hawk
 
I’ve heard otherwise, that unleavened bread was used in at least some places from the beginning, since the Passover meal, which the Eucharist fulfills, used unleavened bread.
the bread must be, at present unleavened in the Western Church, but leavened bread in the Eastern Church, except among the Maronites, the Armenians, and in the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, where it is unleavened. It is probable that Christ used unleavened bread at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, because the Jews were not allowed to have leavened bread in their houses on the days of the Azymes. Some authors are of the opinion that down to the tenth century both the Eastern and Western Churches used leavened bread; others maintain that unleavened bread was used from the beginning in the Western Church; still others hold that unleavened or leavened bread was used indifferently. St. Thomas (IV, Dist. xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the East and West unleavened bread was used; that when the sect of the Ebionites arose, who wished that the Mosaic Law should be obligatory on all converts, leavened bread was used, and when this heresy ceased the Latins used again unleavened bread, but the Greeks retained the use of leavened bread. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
I’ve heard otherwise, that unleavened bread was used in at least some places from the beginning, since the Passover meal, which the Eucharist fulfills, used unleavened bread.
Click to expand...
Both were certainly used early, but the west standardized on unleavened before switching.

Also note that John doesn’t place the Las Supper on Passover . . .

Given the wide and ancient use of both, I find the absolutists for either to be hard to deal with . . .

Also, this time of year in the East, we have the pre-sanctified liturgy during the week (fasting from the full liturgy!). Only the bread is kept from Sunday, and added to wine on Wed/Fri. It can be, uhm, petrified–and apparently she priests feel obliged to use a heat lamp or hair dryer to achieve this! (Flashbacks of Sister Mary Holywater glaring, “Are you chewing Jesus???”

🙂

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top