Eastern Liturgical Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eilrahc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eilrahc

Guest
Whenever we hear about liturgical abuse (Puppet Mass, Clown Mass, etc.), it’s always in a Parish that’s of the Latin Rite. But has anyone ever seen or heard of liturgical abuse going on inside any of the Eastern Rite Parishes?
 
Never heard of it.

If there has been liturgical abuse in Eastern Churches, I would probably never be able to spot it 😛
 
Eilrahc said:
Whenever we hear about liturgical abuse (Puppet Mass, Clown Mass, etc.), it’s always in a Parish that’s of the Latin Rite. But has anyone ever seen or heard of liturgical abuse going on inside any of the Eastern Rite Parishes?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of liturgical abuses in the East. They are just of a different nature. Heck, there were plenty of liturgical abuses in the West even prior to the reforms of Paul VI, but that’s a different matter and has been discussed ad nausiam. (I would point out, however, that even such extreme liturgical abuses in the West are actually fairly uncommon. I don’t deny that they occur, but they certainly aren’t as common as some self-proclaimed “traditionalists” would have us believe.).

Liturgical abuses in the (Byzantine) East take many forms. The most well-known are the various “Latinizations,” which have been thoroughly discussed here. The liturgical spoon used for Holy Communion was condemned by many as a liturgical abuses back in the day. Obviously it has now become widely accepted as the standard form of receiving Communion in parishes of the Byzantine tradition now. I have heard of Melkite parishes in South America where “guitar Masses” are not uncommon. I’ve also heard of some Byzantine parishes where folks will gather round the altar for the consecration of the Eucharist. 🤷 I’ve never witnessed any of this myself though.

It could be (and has been) argued that the current English translation of the Ruthenian Recension (the “Teal Terror” as I’ve heard some folks call it) is almost thoroughly a liturgical abuse. There are some here who would argue that the current English translation of the Maronite Qurbono is also a borderline liturgical abuse. 🤷

The reality is that liturgical abuses have been with us since the beginning of the Church’s history and they will be with us until Christ comes again. Liturgy in this world will never be perfect because it is meant to reflect the heavenly Liturgy that we hope for in the age to come. This does not mean that we ought not to strive to celebrate the Liturgy in the best way we possibly can. It simply means that we should not be so cast down when our Liturgies fall short of the ideal.
 
I think it’s Interesting to ponder whether or not there were people in the patristic age who, when the Liturgies were first being changed to meet local needs, carried the banner of “liturgical abuse.” Of course, as time passed, what was once considered novel and an abuse became common and traditional. Just thinking out loud.

I visited two separate EO Churches a long time ago when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. In both churches, there were people who came late to the DL only to pray in front of an icon and then leave before the DL was finished. As an outsider, I thought it was an abuse. I mentioned it to some other EO folk who said that was not normative. About a month or two ago, there was a thread where a Latin Catholic visited some EO churches in Europe, and he observed and complained about the same thing. It made me stop and think that maybe in the eyes of many in the Eastern Tradition, this is not an “abuse” but is just part of the Eastern Liturgical experience. I was an outsider at the EO DL, just as the Latin Catholic was an outsider, and we were just noticing things that, as outsiders, we were not used to,

I don’t doubt that there are real abuses, and I think it is only natural that people will consider anything they are not used to as “an abuse.” I’m just proposing that we need to be more discerning on the matter. I think this is important to avoid the sins of (1) scandal, and (2) disobedience to our priests and bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Eilrahc said:
Whenever we hear about liturgical abuse (Puppet Mass, Clown Mass, etc.), it’s always in a Parish that’s of the Latin Rite. But has anyone ever seen or heard of liturgical abuse going on inside any of the Eastern Rite Parishes?
Click to expand...
Yes -

heard of: In the Ukraine. By the SSJK. Tho’ the nature of that abuse was to persist in using illicit latinizations against the instructions of their patriarch and bishops.

Seen on video: spoken divine liturgy. Not the Ukrainian style speak then end in chant for a sung response, but entirely spoken, no singing at all. Papal commemorations used. Circa 1970’s from congregation’s clothing.

Seen in person: Roman priests vested byzantine without faculties.
 
mardukm said:
I think it’s Interesting to ponder whether or not there were people in the patristic age who, when the Liturgies were first being changed to meet local needs, carried the banner of “liturgical abuse.” Of course, as time passed, what was once considered novel and an abuse became common and traditional. Just thinking out loud.

I visited two separate EO Churches a long time ago when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. In both churches, there were people who came late to the DL only to pray in front of an icon and then leave before the DL was finished. As an outsider, I thought it was an abuse. I mentioned it to some other EO folk who said that was not normative. About a month or two ago, there was a thread where a Latin Catholic visited some EO churches in Europe, and he observed and complained about the same thing. It made me stop and think that maybe in the eyes of many in the Eastern Tradition, this is not an “abuse” but is just part of the Eastern Liturgical experience. I was an outsider at the EO DL, just as the Latin Catholic was an outsider, and we were just noticing things that, as outsiders, we were not used to,
Click to expand...
No, that truly is not supposed to happen. Those who show up for the liturgy should stay through the entire liturgy. People do come in and out during exceedingly long services like all-night vigils, but for the liturgy itself, people should remain for the entire liturgy, especially if they intend to commune. That this can be found universally does not make the practice normative anymore than the many people who show up close to when communion starts, try to take communion, and then leave right after communion make that particular practice normative.
 
Eilrahc said:
But has anyone ever seen or heard of liturgical abuse going on inside any of the Eastern Rite Parishes?
Click to expand...
There is the controversial practice of having altar girls serving at the Liturgy which I have witnessed.
 
When I attended a Ruthenian church in Oregon, they used the filioque in the Creed. This was not supposed to happen, as the priest admitted to me privately. Whether that qualifies as an ‘abuse’ is I suppose up to someone else to decide, but I was pleased at the priest’s candor. Maybe they’ve since fixed this issue at that particular parish.
 
Mary_Poppins said:
to look really cool. 😃
Click to expand...
As far as the Liturgy is concerned, my impression is that is the extent of it too.😃

Seriously, though, the beard has nothing to do with the Liturgy, but has to do with a discpline related to how a priest conducts his life.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Friar_David_O.Carm said:
Actually neither. It is not spelt out in any canons or rubrics.

Most, if not all monastics, in the east have this written into their rule but it is in no way a liturgical abuse.
Click to expand...
In some of the Orthodox Churches, historically, beards were required for clergy. Not just monastics, but all clergy and male religious.

The Russian Church, and Russian Civil Law, during the 19th Century required clergy to be bearded, and exempted them from the Beard Taxes. Which lead to a surfeit of subdeacons… as subdeacons were exempted from the tax as minor clerics…
 
Aramis said:
In some of the Orthodox Churches, historically, beards were required for clergy. Not just monastics, but all clergy and male religious.

The Russian Church, and Russian Civil Law, during the 19th Century required clergy to be bearded, and exempted them from the Beard Taxes. Which lead to a surfeit of subdeacons… as subdeacons were exempted from the tax as minor clerics…
Click to expand...
Neat. Would readers also have been exempted from the beard tax, being a minor order?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top