Eastern Catholic/Orthodox traditions and customs

[rben20]

Thank you for the replies so far. Very enlightening!

Well I don’t want to start a new thread since it’s still on the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox traditions. I recently thought them up and curious now:

1. I think we can both agree on everything Roman Catholics teach about Mary up to the defined Doctrines of Pope Pius XII on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Is there anything else specifically that is taught about Mary in the Eastern tradition that the Roman Catholics do not teach?

E.G. Mary being a perpetual virgin, Mary remaining sinless taught by Roman Catholics. Is this accepted by Eastern Catholics/Orthodox?

1. I noticed also that the Liturgy of St. James, James is referred as a brother of Jesus. Is this the brother sense taught by protestants?..Jesus having siblings therefore Mary not a perpetual virgin?

Just curious as you can see they all relate to Mary. I specifically am interested in how much more the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox define Mary…anything else besides her being the Holy Mother of God?

 

[searn77]

1. I noticed also that the Liturgy of St. James, James is referred as a brother of Jesus. Is this the brother sense taught by protestants?..Jesus having siblings therefore Mary not a perpetual virgin?

No, we believe James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. He’s referred to as the bother of Jesus in other places too, not just in the Liturgy of St. James. And the Liturgy of St. James is hard to come by in the EO churches. Some churches whose patron saint is St. James are allowed to do the liturgy only on their patronal feast day. I think the Patriarchate of Jerusalem uses it sometimes too, not really sure. And I think an OO Church uses it as their main liturgy, but I’m not quite sure. Anyways, you’ll rarely see it in the EO Church.

 

[5Loaves]

Sitting and standing being mandated by a book is another Latinization that has crept into the Byzantine church.

Following the Divine Services in a book is another pet peeve of mine but we can save that for another time.

We have no books in my parish nor in the Russian Orthodox parish I frequent for festal vigils/vespers. Our priest doesn’t want our noses in books. They want us to be listing to the prayers and following the action or gazing at the icons… A couple people in my parish have DL books they follow. It’s not that Father would come out and snatch the book away from them. Once I printed out the prayers for a feast day for someone who was going with me to the Orthodox parish. I found myself looking at the print out when ever those prayers were being sung instead of just listening to the choir, because I wanted to sing along. Ninty percent of what they sang that night I knew already by heart. That 10 % that was specific to the feast I’d have been much better listening to while having my eyes elsewhere in the beautiful temple. It was a real lesson to me, confirming what my priests have wanted in terms of us not looking at service books during liturgy.

For the homily, which tends to be much shorter than in a Sunday homily in a Latin parish, closer to a daily Mass homily, everyone in both parishes sits on the few chairs and benches or on the floor. Other than the homily it’s pretty much only the elderly who sit during parts of the DL. And they stand for many parts of course.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sitting and standing being mandated by a book is another Latinization that has crept into the Byzantine church.

The UGCC parish St. Elias in Toronto seems to have no pews by the photos on their website. But the ones here in the Vancouver area do.

Sitting through the litanies is another pet peeve of mine. As the litinies are the prayers of the people the people should be standing and praying. A priest friend of mine says he would rather see the people sit through the anaphora then through the litanies.

The book I’m referring to is an older one in the pews. The newer one doesn’t instruct sit, but the parish does anyway maybe because thats how they have done it in the past.

Following the Divine Services in a book is another pet peeve of mine but we can save that for another time.

Hey, I just dropped a pretty dime for the book

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. I noticed also that the Liturgy of St. James, James is referred as a brother of Jesus. Is this the brother sense taught by protestants?..Jesus having siblings therefore Mary not a perpetual virgin?

Just curious as you can see they all relate to Mary. I specifically am interested in how much more the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox define Mary…anything else besides her being the Holy Mother of God?

Eastern Catholics follow the tradition reflected on the Protoevangelium of James that Joseph is an older man who had children from a previous marriage. He was a widower when Mary was betrothed upon him.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for the replies so far. Very enlightening!

Well I don’t want to start a new thread since it’s still on the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox traditions. I recently thought them up and curious now:

1. I think we can both agree on everything Roman Catholics teach about Mary up to the defined Doctrines of Pope Pius XII on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Is there anything else specifically that is taught about Mary in the Eastern tradition that the Roman Catholics do not teach?

E.G. Mary being a perpetual virgin, Mary remaining sinless taught by Roman Catholics. Is this accepted by Eastern Catholics/Orthodox?

1. I noticed also that the Liturgy of St. James, James is referred as a brother of Jesus. Is this the brother sense taught by protestants?..Jesus having siblings therefore Mary not a perpetual virgin?

Just curious as you can see they all relate to Mary. I specifically am interested in how much more the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox define Mary…anything else besides her being the Holy Mother of God?

St James was St. Joseph’s son, but not Mary’s. At least according to Tradition, and the liturgical texts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was reading my DL book and found that in the Communion of the Clergy, the Deacon receives before the Priest (and from the priest of course). I just find it interesting.

 

[ciero]

I was reading my DL book and found that in the Communion of the Clergy, the Deacon receives before the Priest (and from the priest of course). I just find it interesting.

In most Byzantine usages the order for receiving the precious is from Junior to Senior and when receiving the precious blood from Senior to Junior. So yes…the deacon would receive the precious body before the priest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In most Byzantine usages the order for receiving the precious is from Junior to Senior and when receiving the precious blood from Senior to Junior. So yes…the deacon would receive the precious body before the priest.

Awesome! Good to know!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hang on as catholics don’t we go left to right rather right to left?

In the 13th century, Pope Innocent III decreed that the sign of the cross should be
made with three fingers from the forehead to the chest, and from the right to the left
shoulder. At a later date, the whole hand was used, and the direction changed from
the left to the right shoulder. Even today, in the Byzantine Rite (they are joined to
the Catholic Church), they join the thumb and first two fingers and move from the
forehead, to the chest, to the right, and then to the left shoulder. Ail other Catholics
join their five fingers and touch their forehead, chest, left shoulder, and right
shoulder.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One reason why RC’s began to cross from left to right was that laity followed the direction of their Priests’ hands when they blessed them (i.e. the Priest would go from left to right as Eastern priests do today, since they follow the laity who made/make the Sign of the Cross from right to left).

It was a tradition that soon became universally accepted in the Latin West. But it was not so from the beginning.

If RC’s would like to return to their original tradition, they should cross themselves with three fingers from right to left.

Alex

 

[yaHalyna]

With regard to standing up - if you look in old European churches, you will see many without pews. It used to be the norm for all but the nobility to stand in Catholic churches too. Pews were, I believe, adopted from Protestants.

Yes in the old country there were no pews, but still people knelt during consecration and communion. Even in the underground church, DL being celebrated in hiding in fields and in forests. In the UGCC we stood only from Easter to Ascension to represent the Risen Christ and the Ascended Christ.
My daughter’s priest (Ruthenian) simply said, “that’s how it was done in the old country and our Bishop wants us to return to that”. BUT they only did that during Eastertide.
The Byzantine church I go to now the old people kneel, the young people stand (I kneel because I’ve been taught that all my life and I want to show reverence). I want to get on my knees in the presence of the Lord.

 

[ciero]

Yes in the old country there were no pews, but still people knelt during consecration and communion. Even in the underground church, DL being celebrated in hiding in fields and in forests. In the UGCC we stood only from Easter to Ascension to represent the Risen Christ and the Ascended Christ.
My daughter’s priest (Ruthenian) simply said, “that’s how it was done in the old country and our Bishop wants us to return to that”. BUT they only did that during Eastertide.
The Byzantine church I go to now the old people kneel, the young people stand (I kneel because I’ve been taught that all my life and I want to show reverence). I want to get on my knees in the presence of the Lord.

Standing is how we show reverence in the East, to kneel is aLatinization.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Just to expand on this, the byzantine tradition is to hold your thumb, index finger, & middle finger together while your ring finger and pinkie finger are together touching your palm. The three fingers together represents the Trinity and the two fingers touching the palm represent the two natures of Christ.

Did not know this, Searn77------thanks for this.

 

[Vico]

And there is also the Old Believers form of the sign of the cross holding two fingers together to a point (the two natures of Christ) and the thumb with the ring and little together, used prior to the reforms of Russian Patriarch Nikon in 1654, and today still.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Christus_Ravenna_Mosaic.jpg/483px-

The simplified western form represents the five wounds of Christ with the five fingers held together.

 

[dvdjs]

In the 13th century, Pope Innocent III decreed that the sign of the cross should be
made with three fingers from the forehead to the chest, and from the right to the left
shoulder.

Indeed, that decree occurred at an interesting time, when the Pope had a strong presence in Constantinople. The Old Believers felt that they preserved the earlier form of the sign of the cross, and regarded the use of the form decreed by Innocent III as a Latinization.

 

[dvdjs]

Standing is how we show reverence in the East, to kneel is a Latinization.

Huh? Of course we kneel, independent of Latinization. We refrain from kneeling on Sundays and/or during Easter time, in a spirit of joy for the Resurrection.

Reverence is shown by, uh, reverences - which are made at all times. orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/tikhon_reverences.htm

In some Orthodox jurisdictions, where services tend to be limited to (liturgical) Sunday, kneeling is promoted, but I think it incorrect to characterize this situation as a Latinization.

 

[Formosus]

Indeed, that decree occurred at an interesting time, when the Pope had a strong presence in Constantinople. The Old Believers felt that they preserved the earlier form of the sign of the cross, and regarded the use of the form decreed by Innocent III as a Latinization.

How did Pope Innocent III have a strong presence in Constantinople? The two churches were out of communion at the time and anti-latin sentiment was fairly strong. His papal reign was only 16 years after the massacre of the Latins in the City. Unless you mean that he had a strong presence their during the early years of the Latin occupation. In which case the center of Orthodox religious authority was in Nicea at the time, not Constantinople. Either way, I can not imagine the Orthodox changing how they signed the cross at the insistence of the Latins at this time.

 

[RyanBlack]

Huh? Of course we kneel, independent of Latinization. We refrain from kneeling on Sundays and/or during Easter time, in a spirit of joy for the Resurrection.

Reverence is shown by, uh, reverences - which are made at all times. orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/tikhon_reverences.htm

In some Orthodox jurisdictions, where services tend to be limited to (liturgical) Sunday, kneeling is promoted, but I think it incorrect to characterize this situation as a Latinization.

For Eastern Catholics to kneel on Sundays most certainly is a Latinization. In fact, kneeling on Sundays was forbidden by the First Council of Nicea, because in that particular historical context, kneeling was understand not as a matter of reverence, but as a penitential gesture, and therefore, inconsistent with the celebration of the Resurrection . On the other hand, in the same historical context of the First Council of Nicea, standing was recognized as a gesture of reverence. Over time, the East retained the notions of standing as a posture of reverence and kneeling as a penitential posture, while in the West, kneeling came to be viewed as a gesture of reverence. Kneeling during Mass is certainly appropriate for Roman Catholics. Kneeling during Divine Liturgy is a Latinization that is inconsistent with the liturgical traditions of Eastern Christians.

 

[dvdjs]

How did Pope Innocent III have a strong presence in Constantinople? The two churches were out of communion at the time and anti-latin sentiment was fairly strong. His papal reign was only 16 years after the massacre of the Latins in the City. Unless you mean that he had a strong presence their during the early years of the Latin occupation. In which case the center of Orthodox religious authority was in Nicea at the time, not Constantinople. Either way, I can not imagine the Orthodox changing how they signed the cross at the insistence of the Latins at this time.

You ultimately answered your own question about presence. I don’t disagree that this history sounds a bit dubious. But it is out there, and not really much more dubious than most histories that we are treated to on such matters.