Eastern Saints and Eucharistic Adoration

[ByzCathCantor]

… and now, back to our regularly scheduled programming!

BTW - interesting that we explore this further today, on the Feast of Corpus Christi (there was no Divine Liturgy scheduled, nor can I find mention in the Typikon …)!

For some reason, this topic has drawn me captive.

In poking on the internet, I actually found a form of Benediction service, similar to the one in Kyr Raya’s BDW, on a Ukrainian Orthodox church website: Byzantine Rite Benediction of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood (Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America). I will not make that an argument for Latinization in the Orthodox Church, but it certain was an interesting find.

Although as a cradle Byzantine-Ruthenian for my 40+ years on God’s earth, I have never witnessed this Benediction, yet I know it is part of our “lore” and is no longer in use. I distinctly remember seeing a form of the Benediction in an old service book, and I’m looking through my library to find it. I remember it being similar to that found in BDW.

I had posted earlier a piece from the EWTN Library. As to the OP, again, while reservation of the Holy Eucharist can be traced back to the Early Church Fathers (starting with St. Basil), the practice of Adoration appears to be a much later development, attributed in part to St. Francis of Assisi and the Franciscans. Interestingly enough, my “Italian / Roman Catholic quarter” (maternal grandfather’s family) hails from a small town in Umbria, where it is said that the Franciscans first widely popularized the devotion in Italy. Eucharistic adoration is still very much part of the religious life in these small towns in the Italian foothills, as I can attest.

 

[Trebor135]

If anyone can provide an example of Orthodoxy being influenced by the West on a corporate level, I’m all ears. The only real example I can think of is Russian Orthodoxy’s adoption of choral musical arrangements in the liturgical services.

I’d like to see an example of such arrangements–please share any YouTube videos if you have them.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’d like to see an example of such arrangements–please share any YouTube videos if you have them.

Here’s one: youtube.com/watch?v=vyFkPd6fEuI&feature=related . I post it just because I’m a Tchaikovsky fan… always have been. I’m also a Motzart and Bach fan. I love these pieces, but honestly don’t believe they have a proper place in the Mass/Liturgy. But that’s another conversation for another time.

One can find a ton of examples on YouTube simply by doing a search for “Russian Orthodox Chant.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’d like to see an example of such arrangements–please share any YouTube videos if you have them.

Which one of Tchaikovsky’s liturgical settings would you like to hear? or Rimsky-Korsakov’s? etc. I happen to be a great admirer, but many of more scholarly bent than myself, unworthy as I am, have noted the influence of Western music and tradition as adopted in the Eastern Churches, particularly those of Slavic descent. My own Carpatho-Rusyns were all too happy to borrow from this body of work, as well. I have sang in many a choir, from arrangements painstakingly compiled by our cantors and choir directors of yesteryear, bearing attribution and tribute to those composer’s names.

On the simplest level, when one considers the plainchant traditions that are truly organic to the Eastern Slav Churches, one can easily convince oneself that adaptation of choral works of the scale and splendor rendered by those mentioned and others to Liturgical worship was, on at least some level, a Western influence.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I post it just because I’m a Tchaikovsky fan…

:yup: that’s funny - take a look at my post

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which one of Tchaikovsky’s liturgical settings would you like to hear? or Rimsky-Korsakov’s? etc. I happen to be a great admirer, but many of more scholarly bent than myself, unworthy as I am, have noted the influence of Western music and tradition as adopted in the Eastern Churches, particularly those of Slavic descent. My own Carpatho-Rusyns were all too happy to borrow from this body of work, as well. I have sang in many a choir, from arrangements painstakingly compiled by our cantors and choir directors of yesteryear, bearing attribution and tribute to those composer’s names.

On the simplest level, when one considers the plainchant traditions that are truly organic to the Eastern Slav Churches, one can easily convince oneself that adaptation of choral works of the scale and splendor rendered by those mentioned and others to Liturgical worship was, on at least some level, a Western influence.

It is interesting, because we see a fusion of the two with Rachmaninoff, who for his setting of the all-night vigil arranged mostly chant melodies (this is not true of his setting of the divine liturgy), only using a handful of original compositions.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is interesting, because we see a fusion of the two with Rachmaninoff, who for his setting of the all-night vigil arranged mostly chant melodies (this is not true of his setting of the divine liturgy), only using a handful of original compositions.

Indeed, there are also most notable examples of “harmonized chant” that are absolutely marvelous. In fact, I was just listening to some of the chant at the funeral services of the late +Patriarch Alexy II (one thing led to another …), and heard the most familiar Kievan Tone 6 (used by the Carpatho-Rusyns for the Hymn of the Resurrection in Pascal Matins) rendered in most heavenly fashion by the Cathedral Choir.

The “old timers” in many of our Ruthenian parishes are used to harmonizing Plainchant, and do so quite naturally (and predictably, with respect to the patterns used).

Did not mean to imply that the choral tradition was completely foreign or “influenced”, but as acknowledged, it is beyond simple harmonization of the chant traditions in notable instances.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I find it ironic that while Philip Rolfes makes an argument in favor of frequent reception of Holy Communion, I’ve heard other OICWR types who at least seem to be subtly making an argument against it, claiming in even some instances that’s it’s a Latinization.

Infrequent reception is an issue that all denominations, brands, and sects of Christianity have to deal with. It arose due to a variety of circumstances throughout history, and the pendulum is swinging the other way; even amongst Christians who traditionally have held that frequent celebration and reception of the Lord’s Supper is fine, more frequent celebration and reception is on the rise.

That being said, I’m interested in why you make the comparison you do between what Philip is saying, and “other OICWR types who at least seem to be subtly making an argument against it”. All sorts of people make arguments for certain positions (subtly or not), and I fail to see how their arguments connect in any way (even ironically) to what Philip is saying here, especially given how (from a Catholic, and even Orthodox perspective), frequent reception has been encouraged from the highest levels. And I can certainly understand how some might mistakenly say that frequent reception is a “Latinization”, especially given for how long infrequent reception has become entrenched in some areas. However, a simple study of history (one that does not even require terribly long hours or years) shows this is simply false; thus, it cannot be properly called a Latinization in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Trebor135]

Which one of Tchaikovsky’s liturgical settings would you like to hear? or Rimsky-Korsakov’s? etc.

Surprise me. –I’m unfamiliar with all such works.

I happen to be a great admirer, but many of more scholarly bent than myself, unworthy as I am, have noted the influence of Western music and tradition as adopted in the Eastern Churches, particularly those of Slavic descent. My own Carpatho-Rusyns were all too happy to borrow from this body of work, as well. I have sang in many a choir, from arrangements painstakingly compiled by our cantors and choir directors of yesteryear, bearing attribution and tribute to those composer’s names.

On the simplest level, when one considers the plainchant traditions that are truly organic to the Eastern Slav Churches, one can easily convince oneself that adaptation of choral works of the scale and splendor rendered by those mentioned and others to Liturgical worship was, on at least some level, a Western influence.

Thanks. Interesting.

 

[Trebor135]

Here’s one: youtube.com/watch?v=vyFkPd6fEuI&feature=related . I post it just because I’m a Tchaikovsky fan… always have been. I’m also a Motzart and Bach fan. I love these pieces, but honestly don’t believe they have a proper place in the Mass/Liturgy. But that’s another conversation for another time.

Wow, that’s definitely unlike anything I’ve heard at the Slavic-origin Vespers/Liturgies I’ve been to! I agree it just doesn’t work in a church setting, and much prefer this approach.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Surprise me. –I’m unfamiliar with all such works.

Enjoy!

Hymn of the Cherubim (P.I. Tchaikovsky)

As mentioned earlier, a YouTube search on Russian Orthodox chant will bring up many examples.

Thanks. Interesting.

A pleasure!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wow, that’s definitely unlike anything I’ve heard at the Slavic-origin Vespers/Liturgies I’ve been to! I agree it just doesn’t work in a church setting, and much prefer this approach.

St. Elias UGCC is stiff competition!!!

FWIW - not as many as there used to be, but if you ever go to an Eastern Church with a standing choir, you will undoubtedly hear choral works that are not chant derivatives.

This is a sample of one of the best choirs in the Ruthenian Church (with a few semi-pro singers in the group, from what I understand):

Svjat Svjat Svjat (Verbitsky - Westminster Slavic Choir - Assumption BCC - Trenton, NJ)

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

St. Elias UGCC is stiff competition!!!

Tell me about it!

 

[dvdjs]

… the analyses I’ve read on the phenominom of infrequent reception of Communion in Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) seem to focus on other trends which, while may be arguably influenced by the Latin Church (such as societal notions of piety), are not the direct, forced result of the Latin Church.

… “Latinization”… applies to both forced adoption or suppression of traditions that are not inherent to the Eastern Churches … as well as to those changes (adaptations or suppressions) which were “voluntarily” undertaken due to a “Latinization of the mind”.

This is a nice start. No problems with the the “forced” part - although we should be very careful about documenting and quantifying “force”. There is a problem, with the rest. On the one hand you dismiss trends influenced by the Latin church in the case of Orthodox accretions, on the other you include such voluntary accretions by Greek Catholics who are Latinized in the mind.

What is the difference?

Western accretions in Slavic Orthodoxy starting from the around the time of the union of Uzhhorod - from Peter Mohila to, within a century, the voluntary-forced westernizing of Peter the Great. The was the beginning of the “western captivity”, when theology was - as Florovsky put it - trapped in paradigms of Western thought. Seminaries and schools of theology developed. This was the time in which a major Orthodox council adopted the western terminology of transubstantiation. Choral singing was much later. Overall, during this period, the Western mentality was deliberately sought out and imported; and it has left an indelible mark.

There are, of course, major difference between the developments deep in Russia versus the Carpathians - but was that a matter of unia per se of the greater cultural contact of those living far to the west, close to major Catholic cultural centers like Vienna, Cracow, Budapest? Or maybe just the effect that antipathy toward Rome had in stunting more developments and borrowings that otherwise would have been natural. I am not sure but this is an interesting problem. In any case, the prevailing mentality was arguably not so different; so latinization of the mind more subtle that first meets the eye.

 

[dvdjs]

Generally the Eastern attitude is that the Eucharist is for consuming, not for “looking at.” This in no way is less reverent than Adoration because we consume in order to become that which we consume. Ideally there ought to be a great deal of preparation involved when one approaches to receive the Eucharist. Likewise, as others have mentioned here, we do all of our adoring at the Divine Liturgy, especially when we’ve prepared for participation in the Divine Liturgy by also attending Vespers and/or Matins/Orthros - if those aren’t available there are canons of preparation to receive Holy Communion written up in almost every prayer book.

First, please let’s avoid the false binary of “consuming” and “looking at”. No one has suggested, and there is no history to suggest that adoration displaced reception. It has been suggested that adoration might have developed in the aftermath of a development of infrequent reception - but that is an entirely different matter. And who has suggested that the absence of a para-liturgical rite of eucharistic adoration means a lack of reverence. So I don;t see what point your are trying to make.

Lack of reverence towards the Eucharist has nothing to do with a lack of Eucharistic Adoration and everything to do with Christians being infected by the secularist society in which they live. This “infection” is cured by frequent (weekly or even daily) reception of Communion, frequent Confession, daily prayer, and participation in the liturgical life of the Church. Eucharistic Adoration (in the sense of exposition) needn’t be a part of that, even for Roman Catholics.

Secularism is of course the root problem. What is the cure? I think that your prescription is probably insufficient. I see all of the things that you talk about in places that have a terrible laxity in reverence for the Eucharist. A greater teaching on reverence for the gifts, and greater emphasis on preparation, and perhaps a greater emphasis on refraining to avoid reception unto condemnation - maybe this would be better.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

On the one hand you **dismiss trends **influenced by the Latin church in the case of Orthodox accretions

Respectfully, I did no such thing. As expressly stated, I cannot speak of what I do not know, and therefore did not offer comment which would be little more than unsubstantiable opinion.

We have had some exchange here about musical tradition, particularly choral. As I have studied this as part or my training as a cantor, I can speak intelligently on the subject, and have offered some thoughts.

Beyond that, I look to the witness of the Orthodox faithful, if they care to share their observations. As I recall, you may have some more regular, direct experience in Orthodoxy. If memory does serve correctly here, I defer to your better judgment.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs,

I have heard a lot about Adoration at the Uniontown pilgrimage. Can you provide me a copy of the service the way it is done there? Or do you know where I should go to get a copy of it?

There is a text in the fifth post (#58972) in this thread at byzcath.
byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/58970/1
The thread has a good number of interesting points.

 

[dvdjs]

I can certainly understand how some might mistakenly say that frequent reception is a “Latinization”, especially given for how long infrequent reception has become entrenched in some areas. However, a simple study of history (one that does not even require terribly long hours or years) shows this is simply false; thus, it cannot be properly called a Latinization in any way, shape, or form.

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.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

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.

Fair enough.

I see Latinizations (again, a subjective viewpoint, but mine nonetheless) as a tradition of unique to the Latin Church, taken on by a Church of non-Latin origin by either direct coercion or indirect coercion, with the purpose being to prove that they are “Catholic” enough to be Catholic (the implication being that Latin traditions are somehow a badge of true Catholicity). Am I expressing this in an understandable manner?

My point was that frequent reception of Communion was evidenced early on (if not in practice, than in encouragement), and that the development of infrequent reception is something that cannot, strictly speaking, be pinned on the Latins. It has happened across all of Christianity, for a variety of reasons.

 

[dvdjs]

Fair enough.

I see Latinizations (again, a subjective viewpoint, but mine nonetheless) as a tradition of unique to the Latin Church, taken on by a Church of non-Latin origin by either direct coercion or indirect coercion, with the purpose being to prove that they are “Catholic” enough to be Catholic (the implication being that Latin traditions are somehow a badge of true Catholicity). Am I expressing this in an understandable manner?

Yes. But with your definition I am not sure that I can point to anything that would qualify. Who knows, maybe some people somewhere acted with such motives, but I can assure you that as a cradle BC from a parish that was called heavily Latinized by a number of internet pundits: In those day of Latinization, we still treasured the distinctiveness of our ways and prized our independence in following them; we never did anything to prove anything to any outsiders. The very idea is repugnant.