B
babochka
Guest
Just don’t bring balut, or you’ll be shunned.I’ve served longganiza for breakfast
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
“Secret” prayer is also ahistoric for the Byzantine rite. There are plenty of examples of historical rubrics specifying the priests are to pray in normal voice when not praying with or over the congregation, and in full projected voice when praying over them or instructing them.
Remember also: Chanting is a method of increasing volume with minimal distortion, but it likewise is a method for keeping multiple persons together in unison.
It is easier for concelebrants to chant their parts together than to say them together.
D
Denho
Guest
There is nothing more terrifying than a large group of Maronite priests concelebrating. Each one trying to chant (aka scream/screech) the Words of Institution the loudest and to add their own “unique” twists to the melody to where it turns into a cacophony of sound from which no one can escape.
B
babochka
Guest
Of course, they don’t pray “secret” prayers, but at some points in the liturgy the priest has his prayers and we, the congregation, have ours. We just happen to be praying them at the same time.
Again, I don’t mind the praying aloud. I just worry that it is out of step with Orthodoxy. For the moment at least. And, of course, it is important to remember that Orthodoxy does not have absolute uniformity in liturgy in the way that we seem to prefer. I think that’s probably a latinization, as well.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
But is there a living remnant of that tradition? That is the key. Once it is lost in practice, it becomes no better than liturgical archaeologism.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Like I said, for the Byzantine Rite it is there. I can’t speak for the Maronites. If you look at the history of the Byzantine Rite Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, they have went through a lot of persecution and times where they were a conquered people, the Religious Traditions they have helped preserve their own ethnic identity, sort of how it was with the Jews in the Babylonian exile.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I’ve followed this thread with great interest and have learned much.
I would however, like to point out that the “Verses populum table” comes out of the benedictine monasic abbey Churches. Augustinian monks use the same. There are examples from the tenth century still standing and pictures of them on the internet.
The “Versus populum table” or freestanding altar is not “Novus Ordo inspired” but an ancient practice.
-Tim-
M
malphono
Guest
And allow **me **to point out that a freestanding altar is **NOT **by definition a versus populum table. A freestanding altar (and this irrespective of any Benedictine or other Western usage, which in any case has no bearing whatsoever on a discussion concerning any Oriental or Eastern Church) IS traditional in the the Orient and the East. What is NOT traditional is the versus populum part.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Also the traditional arrangement of such tables actually make it impossible to do versus populum. Although I cannot speak for the Maroniate. In the Byzantine Rite, even with tables without a tabernacle, the crucifix and the liturgical fans are placed on the far end where one would need to stand and face the people with the table in front of him. So it would be ackward at best for someone to try to do Liturgy with this arrangement.
A
Aramis
Guest
No, they don’t. The freestanding abby altars of celebration usually have the altar of reservation elsewhere, often directly behind on a high altar, and not infrequently have a tomb and/or large reliquary in front of the altar table; in others, the footing in front is as narrow as the steps, and not a safe spot. Those dual altar edifaces often have no “table” to the high altar, save the space into which the tabernacle is recessed - certainly not enough for the book and to have space to follow the rubrics of the Roman Missal (neither EF nor OF).
Further, there is a frequent misconception that the EF missal bars vs populem. It doesn’t. Likewise, the OF doesn’t mandate vs. Populem.
That said, not too long ago (2 years or so), I attended a Roman mass at a Roman parish with a table crucifix, two candelabras, a table microphone, and a tabernacle all upon the freestanding altar… the priest celebrated vs. populem, and while barely visible, was readily heard without the microphone (which was on only for the hearing assistance devices). Said priest would have been hard pressed to be seen even without the implements upon the altar - big altar, small priest. Still, he had plenty of room for the gifts - and communion for several hundred under both species - 4 communion cups, a large flagon to fill them from, 4 chalice-like cibroria/pattens, plus the celebration chalice and separate small flagon, as well as its matched patten, and a 5th, small patten for the low-gluten hosts. (The priest uses mustum, being openly a recovering alcoholic having served time for a fatal DUI. He’d have to use a separate communion chalice for the faithful as a general rule. Two parishioners were celiac, as was one visiting catholic.)
Vs. Populem has become popular in the Roman church because Vatican II has emphasized the teaching role of the Divine Worship Services (Mass, DL, Quorbono, Qurbana, etc.). The Byzantines have never lost that element in their worship.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The Carthusians also use a “versus populum table.” At least they did in the movie “Into Great Silence.”
B
BVMFatima
Guest
I agree. Especially during the Early Muslim Era where Muslims raided Byzantine Christian countries and were forced to convert, and were killed if they did not convert to Islam.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Did you read the rest of my post? Or did you just take the first sentence and ran off with it? Because the context of my post is completely different from what you are talking about here, therefore your “no” does not apply to what I said.
P
patrick457
Guest
To nitpick, applying the term “versus populum table” to a freestanding altar is anachronistic. Yes, in Roman churches the altar was freestanding and the design and the orientation of the church was such that the officiating cleric faced the doors of the church towards the East during the Liturgy (the façade was to the east and the apse with the altar being to the west), but it was not versus populum due to the simple fact that the congregation is not in front of him. Instead, the congregation, segregated into men and women, stood in opposing halves of the nave and the adjacent aisles - the men were at the southern side aisle(s), while the women were on the opposite side. They were not standing in the central nave facing the sanctuary front-and-center like we do at church today.
O
Ora_et_Labora_1
Guest
Interesting. I was unaware of the fact that the central nave facing the sanctuary was “empty”. Given that other roman basilicas were modeled after Old St. Peter’s, I take then that this would have been the case in all of them?
A
Aramis
Guest
When full, the central nave would have people standing as well. But, for the procession, one can expect it would occur down the center of the nave. The aisles would also be filled, and yet, have room for the deacon to incense the people.
P
patrick457
Guest
In some churches (especially in the East), the ambo was actually located at the center of (or slightly off-center) the nave, which was connected to the sanctuary proper by a kind of raised walkway (a solea), so directly facing the altar front-and-center would have been out of the question. Other churches (for example San Clemente in Rome), meanwhile, had two ambos on both sides of the nave. But yes, center of the church was probably left free when possible to make space for processions and other comings and goings of the ministers, although certain architectural features - such as the solea - might make this moot. In fact, it is possible that in some places the altar was actually located more or less in the middle of the central nave: a 4th-5th century mosaic of a basilica from Tabarka (Roman Thabraca) in modern Tunisia apparently portrays this orientation.
P
patrick457
Guest
I think so. You can actually see a vestige of this orientation in the churches of Ravenna. In the basilica of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo, from what would have probably been the men’s side (here the northern side aisle) you can see the mosaic of Christ and male saints on the opposite southern tier, and from the women’s side (the southern side aisle) you can see the Virgin and female saints.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Now let’s get back to topic.
- Status