Eastern Saints and Eucharistic Adoration

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Was the return to what people claim was the earilier tradition of frequent communion organic? Was it of local provenance? Or was it an imitation of the trends that had gained currency among the Latins? The latter would be considered Latinization, in the definition of some, if done by Greek Catholics.

Among the Orthodox, the trend seems to have been led by such people as Fr. John Meyendorff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann, as well as Met. Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia. Eastern Catholics were perhaps influenced by both the Orthodox movement towards more frequent receptions, as well as the Roman movement towards the same. It is very typical of Eastern Catholics to “look over both shoulders,” as Fr. Robert Taft says, to see what both the Romans and the Orthodox are doing.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The fact remains that Eucharistic Benediction and/or Adoration in the Eastern Churches (at least those of the Byzantine tradition) is a Latinization. The practice grew out of the historical situations peculiar to the West and within a theological and liturgical framework that made sense in the West. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was actually an outgrowth of the elevation of the newly consecrated Host during the Mass. People wanted more time to gaze upon the Sacred Species, so priests began to reserve it in a special monstrance. Over time rites developed around this reservation.

The adoption of such practices among Eastern Catholics, according to Korolevsky in his fantastic essay Uniatism, came in part out of a sense of inferiority to Roman Catholics, as well as a desire to “prove” to Roman Catholics that Eastern Catholics are Catholic too. This was particularly the case in boarder countries such as Ukraine, where the Polish Roman Catholics held Eastern Catholics under a great deal of suspicion for “not being Catholic enough.” Politically the Polish Roman Catholics often believed that Eastern Catholics’ loyalties lay with Russia. For this reason many Ukrainian Catholics were martyred by their Roman Catholic brethren. So in an attempt to “prove” that they were really Catholic, many Ukrainian Catholics adopted Roman practices such as Adoration/Benediction, “Low Mass,” Sanctus bells, etc., etc., etc. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read Uniatism**. Fr. Korolevsky is was very well acquainted with the situation not only through extensive academic study, but also through extensive first-hand experience.

 

[smad0142]

The fact remains that Eucharistic Benediction and/or Adoration in the Eastern Churches (at least those of the Byzantine tradition) is a Latinization. The practice grew out of the historical situations peculiar to the West and within a theological and liturgical framework that made sense in the West. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was actually an outgrowth of the elevation of the newly consecrated Host during the Mass. People wanted more time to gaze upon the Sacred Species, so priests began to reserve it in a special monstrance. Over time rites developed around this reservation.

The adoption of such practices among Eastern Catholics, according to Korolevsky in his fantastic essay Uniatism, came in part out of a sense of inferiority to Roman Catholics, as well as a desire to “prove” to Roman Catholics that Eastern Catholics are Catholic too. This was particularly the case in boarder countries such as Ukraine, where the Polish Roman Catholics held Eastern Catholics under a great deal of suspicion for “not being Catholic enough.” Politically the Polish Roman Catholics often believed that Eastern Catholics’ loyalties lay with Russia. For this reason many Ukrainian Catholics were martyred by their Roman Catholic brethren. So in an attempt to “prove” that they were really Catholic, many Ukrainian Catholics adopted Roman practices such as Adoration/Benediction, **“Low Mass,” Sanctus bells, etc., etc., etc. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read Uniatism. Fr. Korolevsky is was very well acquainted with the situation not only through extensive academic study, but also through extensive first-hand experience.

What does a Byzantine Low Mass look like?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What does a Byzantine Low Mass look like?

I’ve never actually seen one, but from what I’ve read it doesn’t look much different than a Low Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

 

[malphono]

I’ve never actually seen one, but from what I’ve read it doesn’t look much different than a Low Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

As should, by now, be common knowledge in these parts, I generally don’t involve myself in matters Byzantine (once burned, twice warned , as the old saying goes) but it’s not surprising that you’ve never seen it. AFAIK, the only non-Latin Church to have been saddled with a formal “Low Mass” was the Syro-Malabar. Even the Maronites never had it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As should, by now, be common knowledge in these parts, I generally don’t involve myself in matters Byzantine (once burned, twice warned , as the old saying goes) but it’s not surprising that you’ve never seen it. AFAIK, the only non-Latin Church to have been saddled with a formal “Low Mass” was the Syro-Malabar. Even the Maronites never had it.

The Byzantine “Low Mass” wasn’t really a formal Low Mass, nor was it the Low Mass as celebrated by the Latins of that time. It was, from what I understand, a rather bad imitation of a Roman Low Mass. If memory serves me correctly they used the Byzantine texts, very abbreviated and in books made to function the same was as the Roman Missal, but they used the rubrics from the Roman Low Mass. If the priest celebrated it “privately” he simply read his parts and the people’s parts. It was also not uncommon for the priest to wear vestments that were bad imitations of Roman vestments, as well as using liturgical vessels taken directly from the Roman tradition (e.g. replacing the discos with a paten).

It was also somewhat of a rarity in the larger Byzantine world. I’ve only heard of instances of this occurring in Ukraine, and possibly from time to time among the Carpatho-Russyns. It was completely thrown out with the Liturgical reforms of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

 

[dvdjs]

Among the Orthodox, the trend seems to have been led by such people as Fr. John Meyendorff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann, as well as Met. Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia.

Ahh, so from the West.

 

[dvdjs]

The fact remains that Eucharistic Benediction and/or Adoration in the Eastern Churches (at least those of the Byzantine tradition) is a Latinization.

Well that’s that.

The adoption of such practices among Eastern Catholics, according to Korolevsky in his fantastic essay Uniatism, came in part out of a sense of inferiority to Roman Catholics, as well as a desire to “prove” to Roman Catholics that Eastern Catholics are Catholic too. This was particularly the case in boarder countries such as Ukraine, where the Polish Roman Catholics held Eastern Catholics under a great deal of suspicion for “not being Catholic enough.”

I am not in a position to dispute Korolevsky’s take on Ukrainians. The idea irks me however. First, I have a hard time trying to imagine what facts can be produced to prove such an assertion. Second, for Rusyns there were two ideas at work. Objectivey, we we did not have the assets or the high culture of Poland, Hungary, or Austria - or America. We were “inferior” in some sense, in comparison. At the same time, my sense is that we were and are independent and proud of our own way. the idea of changing to impress non-nash is just absurd. Korolevsky, as reported by PR, may be right about the Ukrainians. I am skeptical and would look for proof beyond punditry. He could be on firmer ground - and less inflammatory - if he were talking about leadership. That is a different claim, however.

Politically the Polish Roman Catholics often believed that Eastern Catholics’ loyalties lay with Russia.

Of course, concerns over Russian ambitions wer, of course correct.

For this reason many Ukrainian Catholics were martyred by their Roman Catholic brethren.

Can you elaborate on this?

So in an attempt to “prove” that they were really Catholic, many Ukrainian Catholics adopted Roman practices such as Adoration/Benediction, “Low Mass,” Sanctus bells, etc., etc., etc. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read Uniatism**. Fr. Korolevsky is was very well acquainted with the situation not only through extensive academic study, but also through extensive first-hand experience.

I think you are right that it is necessary to have a critical read of Korolevsky.

 

[dvdjs]

The Byzantine “Low Mass” wasn’t really a formal Low Mass, nor was it the Low Mass as celebrated by the Latins of that time. It was, from what I understand, a rather bad imitation of a Roman Low Mass. If memory serves me correctly they used the Byzantine texts, very abbreviated and in books made to function the same was as the Roman Missal, but they used the rubrics from the Roman Low Mass. If the priest celebrated it “privately” he simply read his parts and the people’s parts. It was also not uncommon for the priest to wear vestments that were bad imitations of Roman vestments, as well as using liturgical vessels taken directly from the Roman tradition (e.g. replacing the discos with a paten).

It was also somewhat of a rarity in the larger Byzantine world. I’ve only heard of instances of this occurring in Ukraine, and possibly from time to time among the Carpatho-Russyns. It was completely thrown out with the Liturgical reforms of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

Never heard of what you describe among the Carpatho-Rusyns. There were common patterns of abbreviations that some like to call a “low mass” but apart from abbreviations the Rubrics were as in the usual liturgy. No private masses or Roman vestments.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well, this conversation has not only strayed WAY off topic, but it’s also going nowhere. So…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Never heard of what you describe among the Carpatho-Rusyns. There were common patterns of abbreviations that some like to call a “low mass” but apart from abbreviations the Rubrics were as in the usual liturgy. No private masses or Roman vestments.

I have a copy of the 1965 [green] pew book used in the “Diocese” of Passaic. There are sections throughout clearly marked “High Liturgy Only”. These include the Entrance Hymn concluding the Little Entrance (“Come let us worship and bow before Christ …”), the first part of the Liturgy of the Word (Prokeimenon, Epistle Reading and Alleluia), the Litany of Supplication and a couple of petitions afterward.

Whether or not that constituted an formal rubric for “High Mass” and “Low Mass” among the Ruthenians may be a subject for further consideration (and another thread), but it certainly seemed as if the concept was not unknown based on that particular pew book.

The “replacement” 1978 Levkulic pew book did not include any references to “High Liturgy”, and contained propers for feasts.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, this conversation has not only strayed WAY off topic, but it’s also going nowhere. So…

Agreed

 

[dvdjs]

I have a copy of the 1965 [green] pew book used in the “Diocese” of Passaic. There are sections throughout clearly marked “High Liturgy Only”. These include the Entrance Hymn concluding the Little Entrance (“Come let us worship and bow before Christ …”), the first part of the Liturgy of the Word (Prokeimenon, Epistle Reading and Alleluia), the Litany of Supplication and a couple of petitions afterward.

Whether or not that constituted an formal rubric for “High Mass” and “Low Mass” among the Ruthenians may be a subject for further consideration (and another thread), but it certainly seemed as if the concept was not unknown based on that particular pew book.

The “replacement” 1978 Levkulic pew book did not include any references to “High Liturgy”, and contained propers for feasts.

Yes I know about this use of “high” in the green and grey pew books. We did import the word high. But there was no importation of “low” - perhaps to avoid confusion with the low mass that was described in by PR, with which, apart from more abbreviations, it has very little in common, as I pointed out above. I had also heard the use of “high” to distinguish liturgies with choirs singing responses by Bortnianksy, Vedel, etc versus liturgies with plain chant responses. Again, this has nothing to do with PR usage of “low” mass.

 

[dvdjs]

I am not sure where people think this thread should be going.

I thought that it was great that a few people posted some thoughts on what Latinization - that actually is progress.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve never actually seen one, but from what I’ve read it doesn’t look much different than a Low Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

You mean a recited Liturgy as opposed to a sung one?