St. John Chrysostom

[Ghoti]

The Mass is specifically the Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite (and its subrites: Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Mozarabic, Ambrosian).

The term “Mass” is used by some Chaldeans and Maronites for their liturgies when speaking in English.

In a word, yes, they mean the same thing in practice, and yes, “Mass” is a term that really applies only to the Latin Church.

Thank you for your kind (and patient) clarifications.

So it is just a matter of proper Rite-specific terminologies, as opposed to being substantially different.

Thanks.

 

[malphono]

Thank you for your kind (and patient) clarifications.

So it is just a matter of proper Rite-specific terminologies, as opposed to being substantially different.

Thanks.

It’s more like “Church specific” terminology, but yes, that about sums it up.

 

[Triciacat]

The word “Liturgy” derives from Greek meaning, “the work of the people.”

 

[Ghoti]

It’s more like “Church specific” terminology, but yes, that about sums it up.

Sorry, no offense meant.

I’m still learning all the “lingo”.

For example, I was unaware of the existence of the sui iuris Churches before high school, and then only by the dreaded “U” word. It was only after coming here, over 20 years later, I encountered the phrase “sui iuris”, and that there were “Churches” within “The Church”…I think… :whacky:

Anyway, I’m trying.

BTW, what does “OCC” stand for?

 

[Triciacat]

It means “Orthodox Church of Canada” in my world!

 

[malphono]

Sorry, no offense meant.

I’m still learning all the “lingo”.

For example, I was unaware of the existence of the sui iuris Churches before high school, and then only by the dreaded “U” word. It was only after coming here, over 20 years later, I encountered the phrase “sui iuris”, and that there were “Churches” within “The Church”…I think… :whacky:

Anyway, I’m trying.

BTW, what does “OCC” stand for?

No offense taken …

And btw, “OCC” is simply shorthand for “Oriental” CC …

 

[Cluny]

Is it like saying that there are really no Latin Rite priests, since in Latin they are sacerdotas as opposed to presbyteros?

---

Sacerdos, corresponding to the Greek ierevs, is used in the liturgical books to refer to the Priest as celebrant.

But in the Latin canons, the second order of ministry is frequenetly called presbyterus (cognate of Greek presbyteros).

The English word “priest” comes from the Greek, through the Middle English form prester.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Is it like saying that there are really no Latin Rite priests, since in Latin they are sacerdotas as opposed to presbyteros?

---

Sacerdos, corresponding to the Greek ierevs, is used in the liturgical books to refer to the Priest as celebrant.

But in the Latin canons, the second order of ministry is frequenetly called presbyterus (cognate of Greek presbyteros).

The English word “priest” comes from the Greek, through the Middle English form prester.

What do you mean by “second order of ministry”?

 

[gthever]

Continuing the thread regarding the “mass,” I feel like it has developed into a colloquialism among both the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics.

Although the Divine Liturgy is the proper term for “service” we as the Church perform on Sunday mornings, I think Mass is acceptable to describe the Roman and Eastern Divine Liturgies. I have heard both Eastern Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox priests use “Mass” to describe the Eucharistic Service. In Kerala and among the Malayalee community in the US, Qurbana (meaning sacrifice in Aramaic/Syriac) is the term we use to describe our Divine Liturgy.

Malphono, are you Syriac Catholic/Malankara/Maronite by any chance?

 

[Aramis]

Continuing the thread regarding the “mass,” I feel like it has developed into a colloquialism among both the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics.

Although the Divine Liturgy is the proper term for “service” we as the Church perform on Sunday mornings, I think Mass is acceptable to describe the Roman and Eastern Divine Liturgies.

A lot of Byzantines disagree. Some quite strongly.

Divine Liturgy or Divine Worship Service are the proper terms.

 

[malphono]

Continuing the thread regarding the “mass,” I feel like it has developed into a colloquialism among both the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics.

Although the Divine Liturgy is the proper term for “service” we as the Church perform on Sunday mornings, I think Mass is acceptable to describe the Roman and Eastern Divine Liturgies. I have heard both Eastern Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox priests use “Mass” to describe the Eucharistic Service. In Kerala and among the Malayalee community in the US, Qurbana (meaning sacrifice in Aramaic/Syriac) is the term we use to describe our Divine Liturgy.

Actually, Qourbono (or Qurbana, depending on the dialect) means “offering.” The Syriac Church (both CC, and Orthodox) use the word Qourobo which means “drawing near.” (I believe that the Syro-Malankara do likewise.)

The term “Divine Liturgy” is essentially Byzantine, and while I have no problem with it, I can’t say that it should be used by the Orientals, at least not by those of the Syro-Chaldean tradition. (I don’t know the word in Coptic, Ge’ez (Ethiopian), or Armenian, so I reserve comment on those.)

The term “Divine Liturgy” is often used by some Maronites in the US, mainly to emphasize its “eastern character” (heaven forbid they use the word Qourbono, but I digress) more than for any other reason. I’m not necessarily thrilled about it, but I can deal with that for the reason stated. Other Maronites in the US use the word “Mass” and while I’m again not necessarily thrilled, I don’t have a problem with that either. The Chaldeans either use “Qurbana” or else they use the word “Mass” in English, similar to what you know from the Syro-Malabar usage.

In fact, the words mean the same thing, and if one is going to use a non-authentic term, (i.e., a term from a different liturgical/theological/linguistic tradition) what’s the difference if it comes from Rome or Constantinople?.

Malphono, are you Syriac Catholic/Malankara/Maronite by any chance?

Hmmm … could be what do you think

 

[ronyodish]

The Chaldeans either use “Qurbana” or else they use the word “Mass” in English, similar to what you know from the Syro-Malabar usage.

malphono,

Chaldeans use the term Raza (Mystery), or Raza Qadisha (Holy Mystery) most often in reference to the liturgy. They also do use the term Qurbana or Qurbana Qadisha, though this term is most often used in reference to the Eucharist.

For example, in Chaldean, if one were to say to someone to go to the liturgy, he’d say: “Go to Raza”. If one were to say to someone to go take the Eucharist, he’d say: “Go take Qurbana”.

In English, many Chaldeans do use the term Mass simply because they think it is a translation of the term in Chaldean, or that most everyone else around them uses the term, and so they naturally equate the Chaldean liturgy with the term Mass. Many Chaldeans are not aware of any other English term to describe the liturgy.

If I were to say to a Chaldean in English: “Go to the Mystery”, he’ll look at me rather strangely and reply: “What?” So, in order to save myself and himself some unnecessary headaches, it is easier to just say: “Go to Mass” and he’ll understand right away.

Even the word “Divine Liturgy” or just the word “liturgy” itself is not all that familiar among many Chaldeans when speaking in English. Mass seems to be the word in usage, not out of preference among other words, but out of a general lack of knowledge of any other English words.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

malphono,

Chaldeans use the term Raza (Mystery), or Raza Qadisha (Holy Mystery) most often in reference to the liturgy. They also do use the term Qurbana or Qurbana Qadisha, though this term is most often used in reference to the Eucharist.

For example, in Chaldean, if one were to say to someone to go to the liturgy, he’d say: “Go to Raza”. If one were to say to someone to go take the Eucharist, he’d say: “Go take Qurbana”.

In English, many Chaldeans do use the term Mass simply because they think it is a translation of the term in Chaldean, or that most everyone else around them uses the term, and so they naturally equate the Chaldean liturgy with the term Mass. Many Chaldeans are not aware of any other English term to describe the liturgy.

If I were to say to a Chaldean in English: “Go to the Mystery”, he’ll look at me rather strangely and reply: “What?” So, in order to save myself and himself some unnecessary headaches, it is easier to just say: “Go to Mass” and he’ll understand right away.

Even the word “Divine Liturgy” or just the word “liturgy” itself is not all that familiar among many Chaldeans when speaking in English. Mass seems to be the word in usage, not out of preference among other words, but out of a general lack of knowledge of any other English words.

God bless,

Rony

een, Rony, yod’-no. Sorry that I’m not “up” on all the East Syriac usages (but I like to think I do reasonably well anyway anyway. Yeah, ok go ahead and slam me now ).

We say (well, traditionally at least) the same: rozé qadishé but the reference there is more general. The books (and manuscripts before them) were/are all entitled ktobo d-qourbono aykh tekso d’ 'edtho … and the service itself was traditionally called the qourbono, just as the suryoyé use “qourobo alohoyo.”

In any case, it seems to me we’re on the same page here. My point was that there is no harm or hurt in using the word “Mass” rather than the more Byzantine expression “Divine Liturgy.” For us of the Orient, they both amount to foreign expressions. Personally, yes, I’d much prefer we kept the Syriac names (both Eastern and Western, as do the suryoyé and Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankara), but apparently that ain’t a happenin in the US of A. In which case, it leaves me with what I said before: what harm to use the Latin variant rather then the Byzantine variant? For all practical purposes, they mean exactly the same thing.

 

[ronyodish]

een, Rony, yod’-no. Sorry that I’m not “up” on all the East Syriac usages (but I like to think I do reasonably well anyway anyway. Yeah, ok go ahead and slam me now ).

Actually, you’re doing quite well

We say (well, traditionally at least) the same: rozé qadishé but the reference there is more general. The books (and manuscripts before them) were/are all entitled ktobo d-qourbono aykh tekso d’ 'edtho … and the service itself was traditionally called the qourbono, just as the suryoyé use “qourobo alohoyo.”

Yeah, when Chaldeans likewise speak in the plural, they’ll say Raze Qadishe.

I’ve even read the term Raza Alahaya being used.

In any case, it seems to me we’re on the same page here. My point was that there is no harm or hurt in using the word “Mass” rather than the more Byzantine expression “Divine Liturgy.” For us of the Orient, they both amount to foreign expressions. Personally, yes, I’d much prefer we kept the Syriac names (both Eastern and Western, as do the suryoyé and Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankara), but apparently that ain’t a happenin in the US of A. In which case, it leaves me with what I said before: what harm to use the Latin variant rather then the Byzantine variant? For all practical purposes, they mean exactly the same thing.

Yeah, I agree. Both Mass and Divine Liturgy are foreign expressions to the Suryoye-Kaldaye-Atooraye, and so if we’re going to use non-traditional terms, then it doesn’t really matter to us which ones we pick from, whether from the Latins or Byzantines.

God bless,

Rony

P.S. Poor St. John Chrysostom, we hijacked his thread

 

[malphono]

Actually, you’re doing quite well

tawdi, Rony

P.S. Poor St. John Chrysostom, we hijacked his thread

Yes, I guess we did. But that’s half the fun

 

[Aramis]

Canon Law referes to the Quorbono, Qurbana, Divine Liturgy, Mass, etc. collectively as Divine Worship Services.

 

[Rocky8311]

But isn’t that how Surnames came about? Sam, the Baker, (his title) becomes “Sam Baker”

Joseph, the arrow maker, becomes “Joseph Fletcher.”

William, John’s son, becomes “William Johnson” (Or Ivanovich if you prefer.)

The point was valid: Chrysostom is a title, not a last name. I doubt it qualifies as a surname when there are no descendants to pass it down to.

I wonder why the English language doesn’t translate the titles Chrysostom, Aquinas, etc. but others do.

As for the pronunciation question, the way I see it sounded out here doesn’t really definitively help a person who has never heard the word spoken.

There’s a St. John Chrysostom parish in Houston, Texas and when I called them around 2001-2002 their answering machine pronounced it like “KRIZ-uss-tum”. Is that what y’all were trying to impart? I’ve also heard it “kriz-OSS-tum”. I’m not sure that comes from people who “know”, but the latter is the pronunciation I used until I heard it differently from the pastor of a parish under his patronage.

 

[Ghoti]

I wonder why the English language doesn’t translate the titles Chrysostom, Aquinas, etc. but others do…

We don’t translate “Jesus Christ” into “Jesus the Anointed”, either. Although we do also call Him the “Messiah”.

I think many of the names are “absorbed” into English from whatever source they may be first encountered, and then “anglicized” insofar as the names or sobriquets are not translated but rendered into a form in accordance with principles of English word-formation.

We have John the Evangelist, not John the Gospeller. Andrew the Apostle, not Andrew the Messenger. Thomas Aquinas, not Thomas of Aquino (although, in another case, some people do use Ignatius of Loyola). Mary Magdalene, not (usually) Mary of Magdala. John the Baptist or Baptizer, not John the Washer. Stephen Protomartyr, not Stephen First-Witness.

On the “fully-translated” side, we do have John of the Cross (Juan de la Cruz), John of God (João de Deus), Theresa of the Child Jesus (Thérèse de l’Enfant-Jésus), etc. On the other hand, we have Padre Pio (not “Father Pius”), and the Curé d’Ars instead of the “Priest of Ars”.

And just as a side note, we still haven’t “updated” Venerable Bede to full sainted status.

 

[Aramis]

Heraldically, a surname can be any identifier other than a personal name, be it a family name, patronymic, locative (of Dover, van ****), job-title (Smith, Weaver), or descriptive (Golden-tongue, The Conquerer, the Red) or associative (of the House of Avignon, of Stuart).

Chryssostum is a descriptive, John is a personal name. Thus Chryssostum is his surname, but it’s not a familial name.

 

[Ungcsertez]

I have had enough guessing. How do you pronounce Chrysostom, as St. John Chrysostom?

Kri- sos- tum.