Eastern Novus Ordo?

[Crusading_Canuk]

I know that after Vatican II, there was a entirely new liturgy installed in the Latin Rite (and some others like the Ambrosian Rite) and thus we mainly use the Novus Ordo. I was curious if any of the Eastern Catholic Rites had any of their liturgys or Masses replaced after Vatican II.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Depends. For the Byzantine Rite its still the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or DL of St. Basil. But there would have to be some organic development since Vatican II, so you can say there are some changes.

I heart the Chaldean Qurbana was reformed recently, I don’t know how much and to what extent. I also heard reforms by the Ruthenians. Some here attend Ruthenian parishes, they can comment on it.

 

[malphono]

I know that after Vatican II, there was a entirely new liturgy installed in the Latin Rite (and some others like the Ambrosian Rite) and thus we mainly use the Novus Ordo. I was curious if any of the Eastern Catholic Rites had any of their liturgys or Masses replaced after Vatican II.

Yes, unfortunately, the same poison has infected the Orient (and, to a degree, the East) as well. The Churches that come to mind are the Maronite and the Syro-Malabar and, to a lesser extent, the Ruthenians (at least in the US).

This issue is a pet peeve of mine and there have been a number of threads in this forum where it has been discussed. It would probably be best to have a look [thread=291165]here[/thread], [thread=297388]here[/thread], [thread=304168]here[/thread], [thread=304168]here[/thread], [thread=344449]here[/thread], [thread=347411]here[/thread], [thread=349702]here[/thread], etc., (or even better, just do a search on “Novus Ordo” and see what comes back (saves me from copying-and-pasting the rest of those links ) first.

 

[Aramis]

The Ruthenian DL is not a move towards the neo-latinizations. It’s got some translation issues, and a lot of people online complain incessantly about the new music (most of which is very close, even annoyingly close, to the old music).

Solfege, Movable do System
Annotation note: _ indicates additional beat on note, - indicates notes in same word. | indicates a single bar line and || a double. ’ indicates high octave
Di is Do#

The annoyingly close ones (Bold indicates differences):

Sun. First Antiphon:
Old at St. Nick: Do-Re Mi-Mi-Mi Mi Mi **Mi Re **Fa Mi | Do-Re Mi Mi Mi Mi_ Mi Mi Mi Re-Re-Fa Mi. ||
Current: Do-Re Mi-Mi-Mi Mi Mi Re Fa Fa Mi | Do-Re Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi_ Mi Mi Re-Fa-Fa Mi ||
(second half same)

Sun. Second Antiphon:
OSN: Do-Re Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Fa Mi | Do Re Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Fa-Fa Re Mi |
Curr: Do-Re Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Re-Fa Mi | Do Re Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi **Re-Re Fa **Mi |
(Rest same)

Third Antiphon, at the Save Us:
OSN: | La_ La La Sol-La Sol-Fa Mi_
Curr (A): | **Do’ **La La Sol-La Sol-Fa Mi_
(Rest Same)

Thrice Holy Hymn:
OSN: Do’-Sol Mi’ | Re’-Do’ Re’ Mi’ Do’_ | La_-Ti Do’_ La_-Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ | Fa Mi-**Re Re **Do___ :|| Do’-Do’ Do’ Re’-Do’_ Do’ Do’ Do’ Do’__ | Do’ Do’ Do’ Do’-Do’ Re’-Do’ | Re’ Re’ Re’-Re’ Re’ Re’ | Re’-Re’ Ti-Do’___ ||
Curr (C): Do’-Sol Mi’__ | Re’-**Di’ **Re’ Mi’_ Do’___ | La_-Ti Do’_ La_-Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ | Fa’_ Mi’_-Mi’_ Re’-Di’-Re’-Mi Do’___ :|| **Do’-Sol Mi’ Mi’ Mi’-Mi’ Re’-Di’ Re’ Mi’ Do’__ | La_ Ti Ti Do’_ La_ Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa Sol_ | Do’__-Sol Mi’Re’-Di’-Re-Mi Do | La_ Ti_-Do’-La Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ **||

But note that Current (B) is close to the second half…

On the triple Lord have mercy in the Litany of Fervent Supplication, the first melody:
OSN: Do Do-Ti Do-Re-Mi, Mi Mi-Re Mi-Fa-Sol, Sol-La-Sol Fa Mi-Re-Do___
Curr.: Do Do-Sol Do-Re-Mi, Mi Mi-Re Mi-Fa-Sol, Sol-La-Sol Fa Mi-Re-Do___

Blessed Be the Name of the Lord:
OSN: Do-Re Mi Fa Sol_ Sol Sol Sol_ Sol Mi Fa-Mi_-Re_-Do___
Curr. (C): Do-Re Mi Fa Sol_ Sol Sol Sol_ Sol-Fa Mi Fa-Mi_-Re_-Do___
One note added in the word “Now”

Dismissal Glory to God…
OSN: Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi__ Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Re Re Re-Re-Re Re-Mi. Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Re Fa Fa Fa-Mi.
Curr: Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi__ Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Re Re Re-Re-Re Re-Mi. Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Mi.

Our old Psalm intonation: {Do} Mi | {Re} Ti Do ||
Current Psalm intonation: {Do} | {Re} Ti Do ||

Lots of little tiny differences, mostly in the addition of melismas.

@Jeff: MCI notes y’all want to know what the various parishes were using… here y’are… most of what we were using turned up in whole or in part in the current book!

 

[dvdjs]

I was curious if any of the Eastern Catholic Rites had any of their liturgies or Masses replaced after Vatican II.

The simple answer to your question is no - no one had their liturgies replaced since VII.

Different editions of the liturgy, and chant, have been promulgated in most if not all of the various churches in the US. This process has been an ongoing one since the 1950’s for the Ruthenians, as we began translating texts into English, and setting this texst to our chant. The editions do contain some elements of aggiornimento.

As you might expect, there has been some controversy over these new editions. I suspect that very few are in a position to give an overview that goes much beyond their own particular church. And sadly, the comments within a church are often hyperbolized by partisans.

However, again in answer to the question you asked, in contrast to the Latins, liturgies have not been replaced .

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Ruthenian DL is not a move towards the neo-latinizations.

I haven’t heard the issues with the music. The two I hear the most about the RDL are the publication of the pew books with the abbreviated Divine Liturgy, that is missing the Second and Third Litanies and the change to vocal prayers for what used to be sub-vocal, especially the Anaphora.

These two seem, to me, to be neo-latinizations. One to shorten the liturgies, the other to resemble what is done in the West.

But I must say, I have been to a DL at a UGCC and I swear that the Anaphora was taken out loud there too.

And as a person in the pews (yes sorry we still have pews) I do not notice that much difference between the RDL and what we do at my home parish which is Melkite. I think most of the differences are either noticed by those searching for them (kind of like a lot of little abuses which are only found by those explicitly looking for them) or by those who are really studying the service books before and after the changes.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Ok, the Liturgy was replaced with “neo-latinization”. But do any of the Eastern Rites have “new Masses” in the same (or similar) way we in the Latin Rite have since Vatican II?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ok, the Liturgy was replaced with “neo-latinization”. But do any of the Eastern Rites have “new Masses” in the same (or similar) way we in the Latin Rite have since Vatican II?

Not that I am aware of. Our rites might have undergone some reforms since Vatican II but none of them have been replaced.

 

[malphono]

The simple answer to your question is no - no one had their liturgies replaced since VII.

Not true, at least not in the case of the Maronites (and probably the Syro-Malabars as well).

Ok, the Liturgy was replaced with “neo-latinization”. But do any of the Eastern Rites have “new Masses” in the same (or similar) way we in the Latin Rite have since Vatican II?

In the case of the Maronites, although the “powers that be” will never officially admit it, the answer to that in practical terms is YES.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not true, at least not in the case of the Maronites (and probably the Syro-Malabars as well).

In the case of the Maronites, although the “powers that be” will never officially admit it, the answer to that in practical terms is YES.

So the Maronites and Syro-Malabars have new rites that were developed following Vatican II?

I thought that they just had reformed their existing rites.

 

[malphono]

So the Maronites and Syro-Malabars have new rites that were developed following Vatican II?

I thought that they just had reformed their existing rites.

Ah yes, that wonderfully ambiguous word “reform” … isn’t that what the Novus Ordo proponents in the Latin Church claim as well?

In any case, I can’t speak in specifics about the Syro-Malabars (which is why I used “probably” in my earlier post), but for the Maronites it’s a big :yup: (albeit that, as I said, the “powers that be” will never officially admit it). When you have the chance (and if you’re interested), have a look at some of my posts in earlier threads for a better idea.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ah yes, that wonderfully ambiguous word “reform” … isn’t that what the Novus Ordo proponents in the Latin Church claim as well?

In any case, I can’t speak in specifics about the Syro-Malabars (which is why I used “probably” in my earlier post), but for the Maronites it’s a big :yup: (albeit that, as I said, the “powers that be” will never officially admit it). When you have the chance (and if you’re interested), have a look at some of my posts in earlier threads for a better idea.

Thanks!

 

[malphono]

Thanks!

Try the search the way I suggested earlier (post #3). You might even remember some of the threads involved. Anyway (and this also to the OP), if there are any questions, I’ll try (no guarantees expressed or implied ) to field them here in this thread.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, the Liturgy was replaced with “neo-latinization”. But do any of the Eastern Rites have “new Masses” in the same (or similar) way we in the Latin Rite have since Vatican II?

Certainly sounds like it if you consider that national languages have replaced the traditional ones.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Certainly sounds like it if you consider that national languages have replaced the traditional ones.

There are no “traditional” languages in the Eastern Churches for the most part. Our Liturgies have always been in the vernacular. The focus on a “traditional” language could be called a “neo-latinization”.

 

[Aramis]

There are no “traditional” languages in the Eastern Churches for the most part. Our Liturgies have always been in the vernacular. The focus on a “traditional” language could be called a “neo-latinization”.

Actually, Church Slavonic never was the vernacular. It was a particular hybrid slavic tongue, which, by its liturgical use, kept the slavic languages very close to each other. They all seem to orbit around Church Slavonic, rather than simply diverging. The various Slavic-Byzantine churches really only adopted the vernacular in the 19th or 20th Century. But Church Slavonic versus Ukrainian is equivalent to 1600’s English vs Modern. Intelligible, with some differences.

Likewise, the Greek Churches use Koine, not modern, Greek, albeit with modern pronunciation. Again, intelligibility is comparable to 1600’s vs modern English… again, because the liturgical use informed the common use and restricted drift of the language to an orbit of the liturgical tongue.

Note also: the use of English in the Ruthenian church in the US predates V II by 5 years.

@ByzCath:
the arguments over the inclusive language are interesting, but not a VII inspired Neo-latinization; more an Americanization.

The “dropping” of the litanies? well… looking through the new Melkite DL book… they are present in the Ruthenian Revised, tho’ one is reduced to a single petition, and the other optionally may be reduced to a single petition.

And the anaphora in Ukrainian and Ruthenian use was spoken by many priests, spoken aloud. Before the new books. Back around 1990, when we still had the filioque inserted in the English. A few even chanted it. I’ve seen documentary evidence that they were spoken in normal voice in the 50’s, not sotto voce as the Latin rite does.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, Church Slavonic never was the vernacular. It was a particular hybrid slavic tongue, which, by its liturgical use, kept the slavic languages very close to each other. They all seem to orbit around Church Slavonic, rather than simply diverging. The various Slavic-Byzantine churches really only adopted the vernacular in the 19th or 20th Century. But Church Slavonic versus Ukrainian is equivalent to 1600’s English vs Modern. Intelligible, with some differences.

Likewise, the Greek Churches use Koine, not modern, Greek, albeit with modern pronunciation. Again, intelligibility is comparable to 1600’s vs modern English… again, because the liturgical use informed the common use and restricted drift of the language to an orbit of the liturgical tongue.

Note also: the use of English in the Ruthenian church in the US predates V II by 5 years.

My main point is that language is not an issue for Eastern Catholics as it is for those “traditionalist” Roman Catholics.

@ByzCath:
the arguments over the inclusive language are interesting, but not a VII inspired Neo-latinization; more an Americanization.

The “dropping” of the litanies? well… looking through the new Melkite DL book… they are present in the Ruthenian Revised, tho’ one is reduced to a single petition, and the other optionally may be reduced to a single petition.

And the anaphora in Ukrainian and Ruthenian use was spoken by many priests, spoken aloud. Before the new books. Back around 1990, when we still had the filioque inserted in the English. A few even chanted it. I’ve seen documentary evidence that they were spoken in normal voice in the 50’s, not sotto voce as the Latin rite does.

Yes, this is why I find some of the arguments against the RDL found on other sites as odd.

The revised books we have at my parish, the Blue book, do not contain the Second or Third Litanies but do contain the Second and Third Antiphons. Now my confusion is this, if you drop the Litanies shouldn’t you also drop the accompanying Antiphons?

At my parish, the dropping of the Litanies does not shorten our Liturgy at all, father just makes his homily longer. I am not upset about this though as father is a great homilist.

 

[dvdjs]

The OP asked, in comparison to the replacement of the Tridentine liturgy with the Novus Ordo in the West, is liturgies had been replaced in the East, post VII.

I will stand corrected on the Maronites, but given the big caveat noted by Malphono - that this the YES is for practical purposes and would be denied by the powers that be, I would hazard a guess that in comparison to Tridentine vs Novus Ordo the answer is not objectively clear. If the OP is seeking answers to the question that was asked, I am not sure that this “yes” is responsive.

It is certainly objectively incorrect to think of the Ruthenian RDL as a new liturgy in that context, or the new edition used by the Melkites, notwithstanding some updated elements in both. Moreover, some of the elements that have been brought up in this thread were practices introduced before VII: most notably the use of English (and before that Hungarian) instead of Old Slavonic - not to mention the use of Old Slavonic instead of Greek; the abbreviation of the office of the antiphons and the omission of some litanies. If you think the later is some kind of post-VII neo-Latinization then watch a webcast of the liturgy as taken in the ACROD to dispel this false notion.

And while it may be tempting to see the audible recitation of the anaphora and some other prayers as modeled after the Latins, it should be understood that the movement for that custom in the East originated with the Orthodox, not the Greek Catholics. I have chanted the liturgy with at least 1 Antiochian priest, five OCA priests and OCA 1 bishop - all of whom take the nearly all of the same prayers aloud as specified in the Ruthenian RDL.

I suppose that we really can’t answer the OP unless we first agree with what it means to “reform” or “modify” versus “replace”. I think that the was not considered a modification of the Tridentine but a replacement of it. One could not possibly suggest that about the new editions of the DL’s in the Melkite church or the BCC.

 

[malphono]

My main point is that language is not an issue for Eastern Catholics as it is for those “traditionalist” Roman Catholics.

Well … it is an issue, (at least in some circles) but, as I have said many times in these fora, perhaps for different reasons than in the Roman Church.

 

[malphono]

I will stand corrected on the Maronites, but given the big caveat noted by Malphono - that this the YES is for practical purposes and would be denied by the powers that be, I would hazard a guess that in comparison to Tridentine vs Novus Ordo the answer is not objectively clear. If the OP is seeking answers to the question that was asked, I am not sure that this “yes” is responsive.

Oh, it’s objectively more than clear. The fact that the “powers that be” will not admit it is testament to that fact. And trust me, it IS fact. In the end, what i had to say earlier IS responsive to the OP. I only wish it were not.