Novus Ordo versus Byzantine Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montalo

Guest
I found out that one of my friends was byzantine Catholic, and it lead me to wonder

what are the differences between the latin rite( NO, in my case) and the byzantines\

any thoughts or links are greatly appreciated
 
The best way is to “come and see”, as it says in the Gospels. Experience the worship for yourself.

A much lesser way is to read the liturgical and prayer texts for yourself.

Here is the Melkite translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which will have a few verbal and rubrical differences (minor and probably unnoticeable by the average person in the pew).

melkite.org/Dliturgy.htm

Of course, the chant and music will be different.
 
Montalo said:
I found out that one of my friends was byzantine Catholic, and it lead me to wonder

what are the differences between the latin rite( NO, in my case) and the byzantines\

any thoughts or links are greatly appreciated
Click to expand...
In my sig is the link to the Ruthenian Pewbook. (It is notated for most of the liturgy.)

While the basic structure of the liturgy (Entrance, Instruction, Eucharist, Dismissal) is the same, the details are quite different.

Amongst other things, there are 14 Catholic Churches Sui Iuris in the byzantine rite; only one Church Sui Iuris in the Roman. While the roman church is large, and has a lot of variation in the details, the Byzantines have little variation, and what variation there is is primarily from church sui iuris to church sui iuris.

Plus the use of the Iconostas (Icon Screen)… there are a lot of good threads covering the differences in this subforum.
 
Easy, Latins say they believe one thing, and the way they pray says another.
The East, with the Fullness of the Faith and Tradition, has a full unity of belief and prayer, with richness of doctrine, historical continuity, all-encompassing beauty, intellectual rigor, high mysticism, and an organoleptic and holistic approach to the human person, all completely missing from the West. There is no comparison, once you have been to the East, the West becomes contemptible.
 
Timbot2000 said:
Easy, Latins say they believe one thing, and the way they pray says another.
The East, with the Fullness of the Faith and Tradition, has a full unity of belief and prayer, with richness of doctrine, historical continuity, all-encompassing beauty, intellectual rigor, high mysticism, and an organoleptic and holistic approach to the human person, all completely missing from the West. There is no comparison, once you have been to the East, the West becomes contemptible.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I may have gone to the East but there are some beautiful aspects of the West. I’d hardly say the majority of Eastern Christians hold them in contempt.
 
The Byzantine Rite is more beautiful and reverent than the NO Latin Rite, but that’s just my opinion. Basically, every external thing is different. But they are in essence the same Catholic Faith and Truth.
 
thunderballs75 said:
The Byzantine Rite is more beautiful and reverent than the NO Latin Rite, but that’s just my opinion. Basically, every external thing is different. But they are in essence the same Catholic Faith and Truth.
Click to expand...
But if one man takes the time on the externals, lets say about loving his wife, and another man does not, which man points more fully towards love. And if the other man neglects to express his love, is it not fit to question whether he loves her, or whether he perhaps loves to lesser degree than the first man.

He was the same Jesus in Mary’s arms, he was the same Jesus rejected by the crowds, he was the same Jesus many heard but walked away from, he was the same Jesus mocked and derided as he died: If the grant that it is the same Jesus in both liturgies, which grants him greater glory? Which communicates the mystigogical realities more effectively? Which has more intellectual, theological, and historical content for those so minded? I’m afraid I can only come to the conclusion from Western praxis that they do not really believe as a Rite what they say the believe. The structure is too incoherent, the recent changes too great, the epistimolgical ordering of truths implicit in the praxis too inverted, the historical continuity too lacking. We can say that the same sacramental reality exists between the two rites, but to say it is the same faith seems too much of a stretch to me. The statement is too undefined.
 
Note from Moderator:

This thread is temporarily closed to allow time for review tomorrow.

Thank you for your patience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top