Eastern Liturgical Abuse

[dzheremi]

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

How do you figure? There are some more complicated and less complicated chants, but in no case are the congregation ‘playing spectator’. That’s a weird criticism. Where’s the line here, and more importantly, who gets to decide? If you are paying attention to what is actually going on (hence the frequent exhortation in our churches that we stand and be attentive), then you are not a mere spectator, even if you are not giving a response.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

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 have witnessed this but it shouldn’t be a sweeping assumption towards Orthodox parishes, and it exists in eastern Catholic churches as well. I’ve attended parishes where the choir was singing in such a high octave, with polyphony, in a style of chant differing from that of their Church,and the complete lack of promotion of understanding which hymns are to be said on that particular day.

The participation of the congregation is a very serious issue, and these methods used by parishes makes it less important for active participation during liturgy, having encouragement of a showy choir with nice music, and a quieter church. Churches boast about their choirs, how nice the organ sounds, the solo by a cantor, but leave everyone else in the nave as spectators. This exists in many parishes of all rites and change can only be done when the parishioners have the choir chant along with them and leading them, instead of singing above them.

God bless

 

[Aramis]

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 have witnessed this but it shouldn’t be a sweeping assumption towards Orthodox parishes, and it exists in eastern Catholic churches as well. I’ve attended parishes where the choir was singing in such a high octave, with polyphony, in a style of chant differing from that of their Church,and the complete lack of promotion of understanding which hymns are to be said on that particular day.

The participation of the congregation is a very serious issue, and these methods used by parishes makes it less important for active participation during liturgy, having encouragement of a showy choir with nice music, and a quieter church. Churches boast about their choirs, how nice the organ sounds, the solo by a cantor, but leave everyone else in the nave as spectators. This exists in many parishes of all rites and change can only be done when the parishioners have the choir chant along with them and leading them, instead of singing above them.

God bless

Remember: “active participation” means joining in prayer and being engaged with the liturgy that’s happening. It doesn’t, at least according to Rome, require that one be doing the responses.

Now, the idea is everyone is singing the responses, but that’s above and beyond mere “active participation” - it’s not like the Roman Mass in the 50’s at its worst, where no one heard what was going on except the readings, and so would be saying the rosary during mass.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

Surely yes, yet ByzCath was not the official forum for such exchange. Whether the chicken came before the egg as regards criticism of the process, the fact remains that it was an extraordinarily closed process, even to some of those who were direct participants.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t know if any Byzantine churches serve a “low liturgy” as the Ruthenians did up till the 1990s or so.

Perhaps that was the case out West, but in the Eparchy of Passaic, that form of DL was out with the introduction of the 1978 Levkulic DL text / pew book.

 

[yawsep1569]

There are quite a few.

The most serious include skipping over parts and even entire prayers of the Qurbana (which are not allowed to be eliminated). Even entire prayers of the anaphora and the majority of the epiclesis are omitted. The rationale seems to be that “we’ve spent so much time over every syllable of the words of institution in dramatic fashion and that’s all that really matters doncha know?”

Another very common one is the playing of pre-recorded instrumental tracks (with unapproved music).

I don’t know if these are abuses, but they aren’t exactly “right” according to the rubrics: omission of incense, wearing Latin vestments rather than our own, skipping readings from Scripture, not using the main altar in order to face the people, girl altar servers, the use of so many lay “eucharistic ministers” (yes, I know the proper term, but this is what they call themselves) that they have to go to the back, the denial of the Blood to the laity (a latinization), choirs usurping the role of priest and deacon, and many others

 

[kalinin65]

There are some who support the usage of an organ because it makes the praying and divine service less boring. If for these people praying is boring, than they might consider not praying at all. One may recommend them to go see a musical play, a movie, or just go fishing. A prayer is a dialogue with God, asking him for forgiveness and salvation… A person might just imagine this situation: “You come to your mother or father to ask them for forgiveness for something”. Does one need a guitar or an accordion in hand to do that? Why? If in one’s request for forgiveness (a prayer) there is not enough sincerity, will the musical accompaniment will be able to compensate that? No, it will probably mask that insincerity, but not form the one to whom one is praying. What about us why should we cheat ourselves?
In the Orthodoxy a human being is looked at as the most perfect instrument ,that must be tempered. For that, just like a guitar or any other instrument there needs to be a long and strenuous practice. That practice does not require one’s personal will but a will of God. This practice requires humility, forgiveness, not being hypocoristic but to honestly look at oneself as the first of the sinners. Just like our faithful grandmothers taught us: Praying, fasting, and suffering. Then there will be no desire “to better” the divine service that was commanded to us by the holy fathers, the best of the representative of the church, which was founded by our God Lord Jesus Christ himself.
To determine why Catholics and Protestants use musical instruments in the churches, that should be discussed separately. In the end, if they have established such tradition for centuries, let them keep it, since the purity of the church they chose not to keep. Looking back at the history of our Orthodox church it is difficult to imagine that during the divine service there will be playing of an organ, a guitar, or a violin orchestra. That the Holy Communion will be accommodated by Rock music, like it is done in certain Protestant sects. Orthodox chants reflect the Orthodox life, a godlike life, a life with God. Orthodox chants help us to undergo that or the other event of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Those are the gloomy chants of the holy week and those of full joy like the Paschal chants. Orthodoxy is not just emotional, it is first of all spirituality, that unity with the holy spirit. The real Orthodox chants like the Byzantine or Old Slavonic famous chants and others ideally represent the essence of Orthodoxy; mainly unity, secondly freedom in all and love. Early fathers saw instrumental music to lead to dancing and other passions that destroy the humility of the Christian life.

All of the beauty of our church services is concluded in texts of the holy chants. The text, is only capable of becoming possession of the praying when it is clearly pronounced by the human voice. Sounds of an organ undoubtedly darken and hide from the praying all the beauty and loftiness incorporated by the song-creating thoughts. From this point of view, besides harm an organ is incapable of bringing anything else into an Orthodox church services. Instead of introducing an organ into an Orthodox church to falsely improve the singing, we should put all of our efforts in to raising singing in the church that is common to the whole people. Only this path will bring our people to conscious participation in the church service, development of our choir. For two thousand years the Orthodox church has functioned without an organ and to bring in such an instrument into the church divides people. Psychology of the Orthodox people is unable to deal with such a shock. The motives of these heretic renovations are unclear. Have we not learned our history, that any apostasy does not lead to anything good and positive. Human singing involves a soul, which brings depth and mobility to the Orthodox chants thus making choir a higher form of art.

 

[kalinin65]

St. Basil the Great says: “Of the necessary to life which furnish a concrete result there is carpentry, which produces the chair; architecture, the house; shipbuilding; the ship, tailoring, the garment, forging, the blades. Of useless arts there is harp playing, dancing, flute playing of which, when the operation cease, the result disappears with it. And indeed, according to the word of the apostle, the result of these is destruction.”
John Chrysostom says: “Marriage is accounted and honorable thing both by us and by those without ; and it is honorable. But when marriages are solemnized such a number of ridiculous circumstances take place as ye shall hear of immediately; because the most part, possessed and beguiled by custom, are not even aware of their absurdity, but need others to teach them. For dancing, and cymbals, and flutes, and shameful words and songs, and drunkenness, and revellings, and all the Devil’s great help of garbage is then introduced.”
“David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh is no longer lust against the spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable paths, than will you create a spiritual melody.” John Chrysostom exposition of psalms 41, (381-398A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria says: “Leave the pipe to the shepherd the flute to the men who are in fear of goods and are intent on their idol-worshiping. Such musical instrument must be excluded form our wineless feasts, for they are more suited for beast and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men…In general, we must completely eliminate every such base sight or sound-in a word, everything immodest that strikes, the senses (for this is an abuse of the senses)-if we would avoid pleasures that merely fascinate the eye or ear, and emasculate.”
Both Origen and Eusebius explain he Psalm 33:2, “Give thanks to the Lord on the harp; with the ten stringed psaltery chant His praises” as the harp meaning the soul, and the ten-stringed psaltery being a body with 5 senses and 5 faculties.
Eusebius (as historical witness): “Of old at eh time those of the circumcision were worshiping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days… We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.” (Commentary on Psalms 91)

 

[dvdjs]

… the fact remains that it was an extraordinarily closed process, even to some of those who were direct participants.

I have not heard that from anyone directly involved. A bitter opponent of the RDL did attribute such remarks to a member of the inter-eparchial music commission - but only after the death of the commission member.

I can say that after some comments at Byzcath - I was offered music manuscripts to critique. It should also be noted that a draft of the service book was circulated openly - and was in fact published with criticism - before the promulgation. These are not hallmarks of an extraordinarily closed process.

 

[Mickey]

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

It is my understand that he was involved only in the music of the RDL. In my opinion, the great tragedy of this translation was the adoption of the gender neutral language.

 

[MorEphrem]

I consider the current translations and the “abbreviations” of the Maronite liturgy to be a form of abuse.

 

[malphono]

I consider the current translations and the “abbreviations” of the Maronite liturgy to be a form of abuse.

An “abuse” is really more of an ad-hoc thing, and is primarily exemplified in a priest who deviates from the officially prescribed text and/or rubrics. Say, for example, a priest who combined the action of Fraction with the Institution Narrative (and yes, I’ve seen that in Maronite churches).

What you say about what has been done to the Maronite liturgical books (and by Maronites no less) is indeed true, but I wouldn’t call it an “abuse” as such. It’s what I habitually refer to as “Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization” and is far more insidious than a simple abuse.

 

[ConstantineTG]

a priest who combined the action of Fraction with the Institution Narrative

I’m glad in the Byzantine Rite the priest never directly touch the Eucharist until it is time to receive. Very unlikely this is going to happen.

 

[theistgal]

It is my understand that he was involved only in the music of the RDL. In my opinion, the great tragedy of this translation was the adoption of the gender neutral language.

Person alive! I forgot about that.

How you doin’ Mickey?

 

[Mickey]

How you doin’ Mickey?

Still trying to deal with the prospect of four more years of Obama and his anti-life agenda…but other than that…okay.

Yourself?

 

[theistgal]

Still trying to deal with the prospect of four more years of Obama and his anti-life agenda…but other than that…okay.

Yourself?

Great, still surviving more or less happily on that Ruthenian Catholic fence.

 

[Isolde22]

Remember: “active participation” means joining in prayer and being engaged with the liturgy that’s happening. It doesn’t, at least according to Rome, require that one be doing the responses.

Now, the idea is everyone is singing the responses, but that’s above and beyond mere “active participation” - it’s not like the Roman Mass in the 50’s at its worst, where no one heard what was going on except the readings, and so would be saying the rosary during mass.

Let me clarify some things about your impression of Mass in the 50s and before. I say before because the Mass was the same for centuries. The 1950s were no different from the 1550s.

And, people have the impression that the Mass before the Council of Trent was different, but it wasn’t. The Council of Trent just codified and unified the Mass.
Creeping embellishments were occuring in different localities, and the Council intended to irradicate them and make the words and rubrics of the Mass identical throughout the Roman Empire. The Council of Trent did not change the Mass. So the Mass of 1950 was the Mass down through the ages back to the Apostles.

Somehow, Catholics were able to fully understand and appreciate what was going on at the Mass for hundreds of years after the death of the Latin language. Any Catholic from 1950 or before could tell you EXACTLY what part of the Mass was being said by the priest and what the words were, at least in paraphrase. If you ever attended a Latin Mass, the priest performs certain actions at each part and it is very easy to discern where he is in the Mass by noting his actions.

All of the greatest saints of the Church loved the Mass, fully participated in the Mass through their silent prayers, completely understood exactly what was happening on the altar, reverenced and adored Christ in the Eucharist, and received His Body and Blood with full knowledge and understanding of what they were doing; as did every Catholic who received the Sacraments of the Church.

The Holy Rosary is a recollection of the Life,Death and Resurrection of our Lord. Saying the Rosary and recollecting these Sacred Mysteries, then going to Communion and receiving His Body and Blood with full knowledge of what this means, **IS PARTICIPATING **in the Mass.

Prior to Vatican II, when several Popes referred to “active participation” , they were referring exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.

The Pope has said: Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it.

So when you disparage the quiet reverence of the old ladies in babushkas of the 50s saying their beads at Mass, I have to assert my firm conviction that they were much closer to God by praying in silence, and solemnly and reverently receiving Communion at the rail, than anything that’s going on at the Mass of ‘full participation’ today.