Easter Orthodox rites

[Harpazo]

Harpazo, evidently you know very little of the liturgical history of the Orthodox. Why don’t you then just let those who do respond?

What purpose does this post serve? All I can see is to inflame and break out into an argument. I agree with dzheremi. Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Go back and read your first post; you brought up Rome forcing conformity, and this thread isn’t even about the Catholic Communion.

Ah, yes. You are right. For some reason my eyes were not working correctly last night. Forgive me.

It did have relevance to the thread though because Western Orthodoxy employs many of the rites that were suppressed by Rome. I probably could have worded that post better. My apologies if anyone was offended.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[MarcoPolo]

(the Antiochian Orthodox used to follow the Syriac Rite, like their Oriental counterparts, but this was abolished by a Byzantine Patriarch). This standardization happened over time, in some cases peacefully and in some cases violently.

To which incident do you refer when you say a Byzantine Patriarch abolished a Rite? And to which cases do you refer in which there was violence involved?

 

[dvdjs]

What purpose does this post serve? All I can see is to inflame and break out into an argument. I agree with dzheremi. Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Andrew

I am not interested in an argument; nor do I wish to inflame. I simply wish, as an Eastern Christian, that information on Eastern Christianity is presented correctly, with careful regard for actual facts. No amount of zeal and good intentions justify makin’ stuff up.

 

[Ghosty]

Ah, yes. You are right. For some reason my eyes were not working correctly last night. Forgive me.

It did have relevance to the thread though because Western Orthodoxy employs many of the rites that were suppressed by Rome. I probably could have worded that post better. My apologies if anyone was offended.

In Christ,
Andrew

No worries. In fact, I wasn’t even basing my response on yours when I first posted; I only noticed it after your post directed towards me. It just shows how easily such things can pass from our fingers with no ill will intended, and how easily they can be taken the wrong way.

MarcoPolo: The cases of violence are primarily with the Old Believers. There are so many resources available from so many different perspectives that your best bet is to just Google “Russian Old Believers” and go from there. Here’s a general article on them at the Orthodox Wiki: orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

I think you’ll find that the facts of the case, namely the violence done to the Old Believers who resisted the Nikonian Reforms, are not really desputed by anyone today. The Russian Orthodox Church has been seeking to make amends with the Old Believers for the wrongs done to them, but there has been mixed success.

As for the change from West Syriac to the Constinopolitan (Byzantine) Rite of the Church of Antioch, there is reference to it here, but only briefly. You can also see it referenced here and here. The “Byzantification” of the Melkites/Antiochians wasn’t as controversial nor as quick as the the changes to the Russian sub-Rite, and there is no lasting schism over the issue so far as I know. Being that it’s more of an academic issue of interest to few people, it’s tough to find much about it online other than passing mention. I’ve mostly read about it in books about the Melkite-Antiochian tradition off-line. If I find more that I can link to, I’ll be sure to post it!

God bless!

 

[Harpazo]

I am not interested in an argument; nor do I wish to inflame. I simply wish, as an Eastern Christian, that information on Eastern Christianity is presented correctly, with careful regard for actual facts. No amount of zeal and good intentions justify makin’ stuff up.

Nor am I interested in an argument. My question would be is it fair to make an accusation like that and not follow through? I think many people would agree that a “hit and run” post does not do much justice to the topic, but generally does inflame. I would like to see where I am “makin’ stuff up.” Please keep in mind I did not say there were “no changes.”

When I am wrong, I have no problem admitting that I am wrong. Notice my previous reply to Ghosty.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

Fair enough: I don’t like hit and run posts. But your comment, itself, was pretty much a hit and run. Without criteria and norms that delineate what you call “changed” or “unchanged”, it is impossible to attach meaning to your remark.

If you reduce the liturgy to essential form: scripture readings, homily, anaphora, communion, then, yes, the EO liturgy is little changed over the past 1700 years. But that is also true even of the Latin Novos Ordo.

On the other hand, if you are talking about texts used in liturgical prayers and hymns, and in particular the non-scriptual texts, then what you celebrated today has only very little in common with that which was celebrated 1700 years ago.

You might consider each of the hymns - antiphons, trisagion, cherubikon, creed, axion estin etc. and find out when they were introduced. You might like to consider how the replacement of the syriac rite with byzantine rite changed the liturgy. There is no shortage of literature on these subjects.

 

[Harpazo]

Fair enough: I don’t like hit and run posts. But your comment, itself, was pretty much a hit an run.

I apologize if that’s how it came across. It certainly was not intended to be like that.

If you reduce the liturgy to essential form: scrpture readings, homily, anaphora, communion, then yes the EO liturgy is litle changed over the past 1700 years. But that is also true even for the Latin Novos Ordo.

I’m not quite sure I follow. The Novus Ordo Missae is a tricky creature, since that was created in the last 50 or so years. Certainly not completely from scratch, but I don’t see how it has not changed in the past 1700 years when it is only 50 years or so old. Are you saying that the Novus Ordo Missae has the same basic components that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom does? If so, then you’ll get no argument from me there. I completely agree with that.

On the other hand if you are talking about texts used in liturgical prayers and hymns, and in particular the non-scriptual texts, then what you celebrated today has only very little in common with that which was celebrated 1700 years ago.

Well, in that sense I can see the argument. But then in turn, you would have to say the same from the Tridentine Mass as well as the Novus Ordo Missae. Aren’t they called “propers” in the West?

You might consider each of the hymns - antiphons, risagion, cherubikon, creed, axion estin etc. and find out when they were introduced. You might like to consider how the replacement of the syriac rite with byzantine rite and what changed the liturgy. There is no shortage ofliterature on these subjects.

Wouldn’t the Syriac Rite situation only be an issue for the Antiochians? I admit I am not as well versed on the subject of liturgical conformity vis-a-vis the Antiochians, but I am familiar with it a little bit in regards to the Maronites. I would venture to say that it was not too drastic of a change for the Antiochians to adopt the Byzantine Rite. Have you been to a Syriac Orthodox liturgy? It is extremely similar to the DL of St. John. My former Maronite priest told me that he went with a Melkite priest one time to a Syriac Orthodox liturgy. The Melkite priest turned to him and said “I am glad we adopted the Byzantine Rite. They sound like they’re calling for sheep!” I will say that I do not consider one superior to another though. Syriac chanting has a unique aesthetic feel to it.

From what I have read and understand, St. John Chrysostom took the liturgy that had been in use for perhaps centuries and shortened it. Apparently, the liturgy before that was 6 hours long! But I don’t think the additions of various hymns constitutes a change to the corpus of the liturgy. I always thought of them as synonymous to the Propers in the West. Would this be a correct analogy?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

I was talking about the “ordinary” liturgical hymns, not the variable troparia etc.

1700 years ago, there was no office of antiphons in the DL, there was no monogenes, the trisagion was probably absent, the cherubic hymn was absent, the creed was absent, the anaphora was different, the axion estin was absent, etc.

So the idea that it hasn’t changed much, only raises the question: what is “change” and what is “much”?

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not interested in getting into the debate over the changes made in the “Byzantine Rite”, but a good place to read up on them is the work of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He did extensive studies of the changes in the Rite over the centuries.

Most interesting, to me, was that pretty much everything before the “Little Entrance” is a late addition; the “Little Entrance” was originally the actual entrance into the church! Interesting stuff.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just want to post these links here on Fr. Schmemann for future reference.

Liturgy
Other writings