Eastern Vestments for Latin Rite?

[belgianwaffles9]

so i was wondering:

many vestments used by the eastern and western rites derived from the same original source and fulfill the same functions. I’m thinking of specifically the Byzantine Orarion and the Phelonion, which are very nearly identical to the Latin Chasuble and Stole, respectively, both stylistically and liturgically.

So, my question is, could a Latin-Rite priest wear either a Orarion or Phelonion at Mass, provided they were consecrated in a way appropriate to the Latin Rite?

Conversely, could a Byzantine priest wear a Chasuble or a Stole?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

so i was wondering:

many vestments used by the eastern and western rites derived from the same original source and fulfill the same functions. I’m thinking of specifically the Byzantine Orarion and the Phelonion, which are very nearly identical to the Latin Chasuble and Stole, respectively, both stylistically and liturgically.

So, my question is, could a Latin-Rite priest wear either a Orarion or Phelonion at Mass, provided they were consecrated in a way appropriate to the Latin Rite?

Conversely, could a Byzantine priest wear a Chasuble or a Stole?

Priests must wear the vestments proper to their own church and/or rite. So a Latin priest celebrating the Roman/Ambrosian/etc. rite must wear the Latin vestments. The canons governing concelebration in other rites are a bit vague on the issue, but ordinarily a priest should even then wear the vestments proper to his own church unless other factors outweigh this consideration.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

A priest always wears the vestments proper to his rite. We found this a couple of years ago when our pastor concelebrated at a wedding in the Melkite rite; he wore his Latin vestments.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Priests must wear the vestments proper to their own church and/or rite. So a Latin priest celebrating the Roman/Ambrosian/etc. rite must wear the Latin vestments. The canons governing concelebration in other rites are a bit vague on the issue, but ordinarily a priest should even then wear the vestments proper to his own church unless other factors outweigh this consideration.

I understand this… i was just wondering… the stoles used in the Byzantine rite and the Latin rite are identical, in design and function… no one would even really know if a priest bought a stole from an orthodox company…
Look, a Byzantine stole (‘orarion’):

http://www.vesnavestments.com/images/orrarion/orrarion-purple.jpg
(perfect for lent, too!)

Also, the Byzantine phelonion is almost identical to the chasuble. And the chasuble has gone through many, many changes, which we all know. the “byzantine” style that you can buy at some traditional vestment sites is in the same style as was used before the Orthodox even split off, and the Byzantine phelonion is basically the same as that. Why, conceivably, couldnt a priest commission a vestment-maker to make a chasuble in a “byzantine” style which looks like a phelonion? As long as it goes through all the proper blessings and prayers, why shouldn’t it be acceptable in the Latin rite?

I guess the broader question is, what is is about the shape or fabrication of a chasuble shaped like a phelonion which makes it unnacceptable to the Latin rite, given the extremely varied styles of chasubles in use today?

see for yourself how similar they are, in examples from a Byzantine vestment store, and a Latin vestment store, respectively:

http://www.vesnavestments.com/images/vest/Greek7088_1.jpg
A full Byzantine vestment set

http://www.tridentinum.com/images/paramenti/lohengrin-2.jpg
A full Latin vestment set.
Notice the almost perfect similarity. The onyl difference is a shorter length in front on the Byzantine vestment.

 

[Spiller]

Vestments are not consecrated.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Vestments are not consecrated.

okay. which means there’s even less of a reason that those two styles should not be allowed.

what i was really getting at was the prayers said before they are worn.

but come on: WHAT is is about the cut or shape or whatever of that makes that an incorrect shape for a chasuble?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Vestments are not consecrated.

There is a blessing for new vestments in the Byzantine tradition.

 

[Aramis]

They are different in cut, and in freedom of movement.

Certain gestures requisite in the GIRM for the NO are not practical in the Phelonian.

Further, it can, and likely would, cause confusion. It might cause scandal.

Moreover, it would be a sin, as it would be disobedience of Laws of the Church, since canon law forbids the wearing of vestments other than the sui iuris church in which one was ordained save when due to necessity or when granted faculties in the another sui iuris church.

 

[MoreThan1Hat]

AFAIK, the orarion is a stole proper to deacons and subdeacons in the Eastern Churches; the stole worn by the priest is called an epitrachelion and is different from the stole worn by priests of the West.

The outer vestments are different as well, both between the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary in the West, and between these two and the East.

Having tailored vestments in all three styles, I have seen the differences for myself.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Spiller]

Vestments are not consecrated.

There is a blessing for new vestments in the Byzantine tradition.

A blessing is not a consecration.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

They are different in cut, and in freedom of movement.

And? So are Byzantine, Gothic, Renaissance, and Roman style chasubles. In fact, theres more of a difference between the original style chasuble and the Roman style chasuble than there is between a the original chasuble and the phelonion.

This “difference in cut” argument is irrelevant.

Moreover, it would be a sin, as it would be disobedience of Laws of the Church, since canon law forbids the wearing of vestments other than the sui iuris church in which one was ordained save when due to necessity or when granted faculties in the another sui iuris church.

Yes, yes… But I’m looking for the “why,” the reason behind that. What I’m asking is, why is it so great a sin to wear a chasuble which happened to have the shape of a phelonion. Chasubles have gone through lots of style changes; whats wrong with it moving towards a phelonion-looking style?

AFAIK, the orarion is a stole proper to deacons and subdeacons in the Eastern Churches; the stole worn by the priest is called an epitrachelion and is different from the stole worn by priests of the West.

I’m aware that the orarion is a deacon’s stole. I know the different rules and styles of vestments for both the Latin and Byzantine rites. It is BECAUSE of that knowledge that i am wondering these things. You say you are a tailer or vestments. So if i were a priest, and i hired you to make an orarion, the final product would be no different than if i asked you to make a stole. The only differences, such as maybe length and oramentation, are normal variations that exist just as much between different styles of stoles.

The outer vestments are different as well, both between the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary in the West, and between these two and the East.

Well, i can see that they look different, obviously. I’m no idiot. But as i said above, there is less difference between the original style of chasuble and the phelonion than there is between different forms of chasubles in existence today.

Having tailored vestments in all three styles, I have seen the differences for myself.

And the similarities…

---

I’m still looking for the answer.
What is it about the shape/cut of the phelonion that makes it an improper form for a chasuble?

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
A blessing is not a consecration.**

In the Eastern tradition (except for the Eucharist), the terms are equivalent.

 

[Spiller]

**
A blessing is not a consecration.**

In the Eastern tradition (except for the Eucharist), the terms are equivalent.

I don’t believe in the Catholic Church a consecration can be equated to a blessing. Chalices (for example) used to be consecrated by the bishop. Now they are blessed.

I recently had my thurible blessed by a Byzantine Catholic priest. He used a printed ritual and holy water, but it was still a blessing and not a consecration.

 

[MoreThan1Hat]

---

I’m still looking for the answer.
What is it about the shape/cut of the phelonion that makes it an improper form for a chasuble?

The method of construction of a Roman chasuble and an Eastern phelonion are different…the chasuble has the straight (lengthwise) grain of the fabric running vertically in both front and back (please do not be offended but it is truly very much like a poncho…an oval of fabric with a head opening, open at the sides). The phelonion has the lengthwise grain in a vertical direction at the center back, but at the center front the lengthwise grain goes in a horizontal direction. The sides are not open.

Roman stoles also have a mitered corner at the center back, to enable the stole to lie flat on either side of the chest in the front. Were they cut in a long straight strip like an orarion, they wouldn’t go around the neck without looking (and probably feeling) very weird.

If you were a priest, and you hired me to make a stole, I would ask you if you were Eastern or Western, because without that knowledge I couldn’t even begin.

And a big AMEN to the reply by Aramis about it being a sin to wear vesture proper to one Church in a Church of a different Rite without express permission from one’s hierarch.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

The method of construction of a Roman chasuble and an Eastern phelonion are different…the chasuble has the straight (lengthwise) grain of the fabric running vertically in both front and back (please do not be offended but it is truly very much like a poncho…an oval of fabric with a head opening, open at the sides). The phelonion has the lengthwise grain in a vertical direction at the center back, but at the center front the lengthwise grain goes in a horizontal direction. The sides are not open.

Roman stoles also have a mitered corner at the center back, to enable the stole to lie flat on either side of the chest in the front. Were they cut in a long straight strip like an orarion, they wouldn’t go around the neck without looking (and probably feeling) very weird.

Thank you. That’s pretty much what i was looking for. I know it sounded like a stupid question to everyone; i’m really rather educated about ‘Church things.’ I know the different vestments for both rites, the parts of the liturgies (i have attended both Latin and Byzantine liturgies), the history, the structures of churches, etc etc.

I was just looking for a technicaly explanation on the difference between the two, because “theyre shaped differently” was a ridiculous(ly bad) argument, as I’ve explained.

so, many thanks.

 

[MoreThan1Hat]

You’re welcome.

 

[cten]

With all due respect, the orientation of the fabric grain argument is not absolute. A conical chasuble (perfectly acceptable in the Latin Rite) has the grain going in one direction (vertical) in the front and in the opposite direction (horizontal) in the back.

 

[Aramis]

With all due respect, the orientation of the fabric grain argument is not absolute. A conical chasuble (perfectly acceptable in the Latin Rite) has the grain going in one direction (vertical) in the front and in the opposite direction (horizontal) in the back.

There are two patterns for conical chasubles that I’ve seen; one is a single seam down the front; the other is twin seams down the arms. The latter is usually vertical grain both front and back.