Eastern Liturgical Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eilrahc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The more common liturgical abuse is altar girls, which I have seen. Why this situation arises is puzzling since any boy, teen or adult man may serve. The abuse is the misunderstanding that only boys can be servers rather than adults.

The most common abuse in my all too humble opinion is the Ruthenian Vesper-liturgy used all year as an “anticipated” Sunday Divine Liturgy. Why not serve Vespers as is proper? A “vesper-liturgy” only serves to make some feel ok about having “anticipated” Divine Liturgies. In parishes where the priest isn’t available for Sundays that would be ok, but I am speaking of parishes that have the "anticipated’ DL on Saturday evening, AND two Divine Liturgies on Sunday morning at the same church.
 
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...
That may have been the case at one time but to say that today a beardless priest is an abuse is wrong.
 
Friar_David_O.Carm said:
That may have been the case at one time but to say that today a beardless priest is an abuse is wrong.
Click to expand...
The problem is, Good Friar, that many Orthodox writers still hold that a cleric without a beard should not be serving, because he’s not looking like a cleric.

It’s the old “give not scandal” and “obey the disciplines of the church”… it’s very much the same as, say, a Roman diocesan priest wearing a grey or blue clerical shirt when saying the liturgy. Not properly a liturgical abuse, but a clear violation of the rubrics of his church.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
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.
Click to expand...
It could be argued, but it would be incorrect. A new and admittedly flawed service book is not a “liturgical abuse”. :rolleyes:

And I have to speak up in defense of the so-called “Teal Terror”, as Prof. J. Michael Thompson is a friend of mine.

This book certainly has its flaws but it is MUCH better and easier to use than any of the books that existed before, IMHO. Plus it’s WAY easier for visitors who aren’t familiar with the Divine Liturgy to follow along.

I wish it had a Table of Contents, but other than that … 👍
 
I think I want to create a new account under the moniker “Teal Terror”

😃
 
Aramis said:
The problem is, Good Friar, that many Orthodox writers still hold that a cleric without a beard should not be serving, because he’s not looking like a cleric.

It’s the old “give not scandal” and “obey the disciplines of the church”… it’s very much the same as, say, a Roman diocesan priest wearing a grey or blue clerical shirt when saying the liturgy. Not properly a liturgical abuse, but a clear violation of the rubrics of his church.
Click to expand...
I can see what you are saything though they are can not be raised to a true liturgical abuse.

I, reather recently as toying with the idea of a bread but the new chemo drug I am on and the evidence of the hair ij the sing, alas I think this is just aother lost one or the moment.
 
Crescentinus said:
Wait.
Does using a liturgical spoon count as abuse?
Click to expand...
Not any more. When it was first introduced it was condemned by many in authority as an abuse. Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. has done an in-depth study of the matter in his voluminous work on the history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. He pretty definitively demonstrates that receiving Communion under both species was normative, and that it was also normative to receive the precious bread in one’s hands and to drink directly from the chalice. Numerous quotes from the Church Fathers are provided as proof, and more reference to Patristic texts are given in the footnotes. But that’s a matter for another thread.😃
 
theistgal said:
It could be argued, but it would be incorrect. A new and admittedly flawed service book is not a “liturgical abuse”. :rolleyes:

And I have to speak up in defense of the so-called “Teal Terror”, as Prof. J. Michael Thompson is a friend of mine.

This book certainly has its flaws but it is MUCH better and easier to use than any of the books that existed before, IMHO. Plus it’s WAY easier for visitors who aren’t familiar with the Divine Liturgy to follow along.

I wish it had a Table of Contents, but other than that … 👍
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree, I suppose.

When I first started attending a Byzantine parish up in Michigan I had the hardest time trying to figure out the new book, and I had the deacon’s wife and son both standing there trying to help me. Eventually I gave up and just did what I could to memorize the chants. When my wife and I joined the Melkite parish here in Northern Virginia there were no books for us to follow along with, so we just memorized. It only takes about three trips to the DL to memorize the majority of the fixed texts along with their standard chants.

Incidentally, nearly all of my Ruthenian friends have complained about the “Teal Terror” and how difficult it is to use. I’ve also known a number of people who have shifted from the Ruthenians to the Melkites because of the Revised Divine Liturgy. So whether or not it is a liturgical abuse can, indeed, be argued; as can whether or not the reform itself was successful.
 
griego_catolico said:
There is the controversial practice of having altar girls serving at the Liturgy which I have witnessed.
Click to expand...
At least in the Ruthenian Church in the U.S., that is strictly prohibited by the Norms of Particular Law.
Canon 707 §8. Women are prohibited from serving at the altar.
Click to expand...
If it is being permitted at the parish level, it is contrary to Particular Law.
 
Crescentinus said:
Wait.
Does using a liturgical spoon count as abuse?
Click to expand...
Not in the Byzantine Rite.

Not in the Roman Rite, either… Yes, the Roman Mass has provisions for communion via tube and/or spoon. It’s rarely done in the Roman Rite, but it is allowed. Especially for individuals who have had their jaw wired shut for medical reasons.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
So whether or not it is a liturgical abuse can, indeed, be argued; as can whether or not the reform itself was successful.
Click to expand...
I think like the reformation in the Latin Rite, it’s been successful in some ways, unsuccessful in others; but either way, the “Teal Terror” is only a symptom, not a cause. 🙂
 
I guess vesper-liturgies regularly celebrated as an anticipated Sunday liturgy isn’t considered an abuse or at least not as serious as whether a priest has a beard it seems…
 
theistgal said:
I have to speak up in defense of the so-called “Teal Terror”, as Prof. J. Michael Thompson is a friend of mine.
Click to expand...
Respectful of your noted friendship, that in and of itself is not a defense.

IMHO, by all known accounts, the result was not nearly as bad as the process which led to the result. The criticism of the published work seems more a reflection of that process.

We pray in years to come that intellectual honesty and Christian charity may permit a healthy re-evaluation of the work, with more collaboration within the Ruthenian Church and with sister Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite.
 
Aramis said:
Not in the Byzantine Rite.

Not in the Roman Rite, either… Yes, the Roman Mass has provisions for communion via tube and/or spoon. It’s rarely done in the Roman Rite, but it is allowed. Especially for individuals who have had their jaw wired shut for medical reasons.
Click to expand...
Interesting. :
 
What about rushing through Liturgy? I have heard this labeled an abuse when it happens in the Latin Rite (both in the EF and OF) but I’m not an expert on these matters
 
The OP gives a context to the idea of liturgical abuse “… liturgical abuse (Puppet Mass, Clown Mass, etc.)…”. In this context, a discussion of the new congregation books in the Ruthenian church is absurdly far off topic.

However, since the thread has wandered to this other topic, I’d like to add some comments:
  1. On ease of use. My mother’s home parish bought, but never implemented the books, although the liturgy is served like the RDL. We were visiting a parish in another city that does use the books. After her first experience with them - she is in her eighties - I asked if she found them hard to use. She said, “no”, glaring as though I had accused her of senility. Mileage varies, I guess.
  2. “…by all known accounts, the result was not nearly as bad as the process which led to the result.…” There had been extensive discussions with many participants during at the time of “preview” and promulgation at ByzCath, Invariably the criticism of process *followed *disagreement with content. Some of the disagreement on process - for example, concern about ethnicity - was shameful; some was special pleading for favorites. But overall, the process was objectively more broadly inclusive than that used in any analogous prior work in the BCC…
  3. Ultimately a point was reached where some suggested, as perhaps echoed above, that what is needed is a translation and rubrics, that are common to and crafted by al churches that celebrate the DL in English. That goal is laudable, but there is zero indication in either the Orthodox or Catholic communion that is a reachable one, or that it is much on the mind of the particular churches - e.g., similar works undertaken in the same time frame by the Ukrainians and Melkites, or a little earlier by ACROD, were not undertaken as a universal project. In fact, it is not unusual for different Bishops wihin a si juris church to use different texts - the adoption of this publication throughout the Metropolitan church was novel - and that received favorable comment in a review by Fr. P. Galadza of the UGCC.
  4. “I’ve also known a number of people who have shifted from the Ruthenians to the Melkites because of the Revised Divine Liturgy.” I don’t really understand what can logically be inferred from this comment. The reality is that a vastly greater number did not shift. And the former parish of some of your friends, in the past year, consecrated of a beautiful new and bigger temple. Overall there are parishes that are struggling and those that are thriving; there are many, varied reasons for struggles and for success. It is really not possible to assess the success of the reform on the basis of “a number of people” that you’ve known.
 
Celticnovice said:
What about rushing through Liturgy? I have heard this labeled an abuse when it happens in the Latin Rite (both in the EF and OF) but I’m not an expert on these matters
Click to expand...
I don’t know if any Byzantine churches serve a “low liturgy” as the Ruthenians did up till the 1990s or so. Speed seems to always be a factor in liturgical worship. I’ve seen from the OCA (orthodox) side of things, hymns and prayer so rushed as to be almost unintelligible in order to keep the liturgy shorter than it might otherwise be.

The Orthodox tendency toward fancy choir arrangement instead of simpler chants that essentially leave the congregation playing spectator.

While not abuses per se, they are an abuse to the faithful in attendance.

I’m betting that no one really reads my posts anyway, so lets continue with beards and now the Ruthenian revised divine liturgy as the only seeming examples of liturgical abuse in the Eastern churches…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top