Traditional Catholicism vs Eastern orthodoxy

[dochawk]

More bells are used.

Bells? We don’t need no steenkin’ bells!

OK, we try to ring church bells at the anaphora, but even though longer, that’s less than Roman usag

is it true that the Byzantine Rite (Orthodox & EC) allowed their liturgy in a native language way back when? compared to the Latin Rite using only a native language post-Vatican II with the OF Mass.

That just isn’t correct.

While the east has always used (not “permitted”) the vernacular, the Roman transition to the vernacular was in the third and fourth centuries. Prior to that, the church in Rome used Greek rather than the latin vernacular.

Latin wasn’t universal in the West until after Trent.

 

[Tradcat1]

What did the church fathers say about the ‘Filloque’. Did they reject it?

 

[dochawk]

well, they did kind of hold a council and propound a creed . .

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What did the church fathers say about the ‘Filloque’. Did they reject it?

No, not the theology behind it by far. See this link.

well, they did kind of hold a council and propound a creed . .

Another thing, as dochawk has kind of pointed out was that Orthodoxy wasn’t necessarily just against Filioque as a doctrine, but also against it’s addition to the Creed. But historically speaking each Church could use it’s own Creed with no problems. Armenian Church had (and has) it’s own Creed and nobody minded (nor minds). It wasn’t necessarily that Pope changed Creed- he merely made new Creed pertaining to his territory. If Creed indeed was such unifier and was supposed to be same everywhere, Armenians do not fit either. But it is historical fact that it wasn’t true. Second Council of Nicea also contains Filioque theology in Latin translation but not in Greek one.

Filioque if translated to Greek sounds heretical. It is a thing of incorrect translation. That is largely why Orthodox started rejecting it as a doctrine.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Bells? We don’t need no steenkin’ bells!

OK, we try to ring church bells at the anaphora, but even though longer, that’s less than Roman usag

I was referring to the bells on the censor.

 

[Alexandria2020]

Latin wasn’t universal in the West until after Trent.

I see. very interesting.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Latin wasn’t universal in the West until after Trent.

Are you sure about this? From what I’ve read there were calls to turn to vernacular before Trent (which would only make sense if it was indeed mandated even before Trent). Perhaps it was gradual (as was Rome’s switch from Greek to Latin) but it was surely the norm before Trent… at least couple centuries.

 

[Lasse]

I was referring to the bells on the censor.

We have bells as part of our typikon. I do not have access to my liturgical books right now, but I think this website provides a good summary as to how they are used in the Russian tradition:
http://www.russianbells.com/ringing/rubrics.html

I was once given responsibility to strike the bells myself, at a monastery I used to visit. I used the wrong bells, however (it turned out to be some sort of old fashioned doorbell), and the father of a visiting family came out to rebuke me, thinking it was his kids messing around again. :flushed:The monks never asked me to do it again.

 

[dochawk]

I was referring to the bells on the censor.

Oh, those bells . . .



Yeah, if we include those, we have them hands down . . .
:crazy_face:

For those that don’t know, a byzantine censer (not “censor”; that’s either the roman office or someone who removes offensive contact) has twelve bells–but only 11 ring.

Are you sure about this?

Yes.

Liturgy was very much not uniform from diocese to diocese before Trent. many (half? but that’s just a WAG) did indeed use the liturgy of the Archdiocese of Rome (but the next arch-Diocese over was not one of those), and a great many of the others used something similar, or heavily or partly derived from that.

Some apparently used the Eastern liturgies, and sone their own.

Many (probably a strong majority, but, same qualifier . . .) used Latin. Others used the local vernacular.

That Rome set a 200 year age as a requirement of keeping local liturgies would seem to suggest that local variance had been getting more common for at least a century.

It seems that most of those that qualified still switched over to the Tridentine liturgy.

The best resource I have for this is the archives in the byzcath.org forums. While the forum is not very active these days, many for the folks that contributed the serious meat there are still there, and tend to answer questions. [just note that the name aside, it’s more Eastern Christian than specifically Catholic; and disrespect towards the other side of the schism, from either direction, will result in rapid suspension or banning]

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That Rome set a 200 year age as a requirement of keeping local liturgies would seem to suggest that local variance had been getting more common for at least a century.

I see. I knew that there was huge variety when it came to Liturgies of Latin Church but I wasn’t aware that some were not in Latin. Interesting. Do you happen to know in which areas were Latin Rite Liturgies in vernacular or am I asking too much? Thank you for information.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Which pre-tridentine rites used vernacular languages? I have not heard of any, but I might be uninformed.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Roman Church originally celebrated her Liturgy in Greek. She switched to Latin because, at the time, it was the vernacular of the people living in Rome. At least, I believe this is what @dochawk was referring to.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Roman Church originally celebrated her Liturgy in Greek. She switched to Latin because, at the time, it was the vernacular of the people living in Rome. At least, I believe this is what @dochawk was referring to.

It’s indeed true but it doesn’t seem to be what dochawk was referring to. I thought so at first too but after clarification it does seem like there were some pre-Tridentine Masses that weren’t in Latin but were part of Latin Rite (while Rome used To-Be-Tridentine Mass).

 

[tuffsmurf]

I know latin was once the vernacular, but were there any pre-tridentine (western) rites that used languages other than latin (and greek in ancient times)?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Bells? We don’t need no steenkin’ bells!

On Pascha (not this year, obviously), at the Gospel the altar boy would ring the Sanctus bells (yes, we have them):

• after each verse of John 1:1-17 that Father read in Ukrainian & English,
• at Anhel vopiyashe, And
• every time we sang the Paschal Troparion

Otherwise, we don’t use them.

 

[dochawk]

Which pre-tridentine rites used vernacular languages? I have not heard of any, but I might be uninformed.

I can’t list them off the cuff. Again, the best reference I can offer is the byzcath forum listed above.

Also, given the old practice of destroying the books when new one published, it is difficult to say many authoritative things about liturgy before Trent.

We’ve managed to find some, and correct thingsiun the modern Mass that the the Tridentine Mass lost, but . . .

t’s indeed true but it doesn’t seem to be what dochawk was referring to. I thought so at first too but after clarification it does seem like there were some pre-Tridentine Masses that weren’t in Latin but were part of Latin Rite (while Rome used To-Be-Tridentine Mass).

I was referring to both that
a) Rome switched to Latin, as it was the vernacular, rather than the Greek that they had been using, and
b) (a thousand years later) usage was mixed, with latin being (we think) most common, but the liturgy itself varying from diocese to diocese, some of which used the vernacular.

On Pascha (not this year, obviously), at the Gospel the altar boy would ring the Sanctus bells (yes, we have them):

We actually have a remote (old android phone) to control our electric bells to toll and then swtch over to joyful for the anaphora.

Most weeks, it works . .

 

[Jbrady]

b) (a thousand years later) usage was mixed, with latin being (we think) most common, but the liturgy itself varying from diocese to diocese, some of which used the vernacular.

That’s not correct. Latin was universal in the West, with no exceptions. No vernaculars were ever used in the West, though Church Slavonic was permitted in some parts of the East that later came under Western Control, principally what is now Croatia. Greek persisted until about the time of the Great Schism in some parts of southern Italy that had been part of the Byzantine Empire. This was a source of tension. Even all the Eastern Popes during the second half of the Byzantine Papacy used Latin exclusively in the Liturgy.

Soon after the switch to Latin, there was no longer any incentive to use any other vernacular, as the Mass would soon become a clergy-only affair behind closed doors, with the laity being able to see or hear very little through the altar and chancel screens fitted with doors and/or curtains that separated the laity from the clergy up until about the time of Trent.

Aside from the words of the Elevation, for which doors and curtains were opened so that the laity could catch a glimpse if they were lucky, there was little for them to clearly hear.

The Epistle and Gospel, which were originally read by the Deacon and Priest from the Ambon, were soon read by the Priest alone at the altar, out of earshot of the laity.

The homily was the only part of the Mass that was specifically directed to the laity, and was delivered in the vernacular by the priest standing in an opening in the chancel screen.

About the time of Trent, chancel screens were torn down and the laity could see the priest in the sanctuary, in imitation of Jesuit practice.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I was referring to both that
a) Rome switched to Latin, as it was the vernacular, rather than the Greek that they had been using, and
b) (a thousand years later) usage was mixed, with latin being (we think) most common, but the liturgy itself varying from diocese to diocese, some of which used the vernacular.

Ah, I see. I was mostly surprised by b).

 

[Elvis_George]

Another thing, as dochawk has kind of pointed out was that Orthodoxy wasn’t necessarily just against Filioque as a doctrine, but also against it’s addition to the Creed. But historically speaking each Church could use it’s own Creed with no problems. Armenian Church had (and has) it’s own Creed and nobody minded (nor minds). It wasn’t necessarily that Pope changed Creed- he merely made new Creed pertaining to his territory. If Creed indeed was such unifier and was supposed to be same everywhere, Armenians do not fit either. But it is historical fact that it wasn’t true. Second Council of Nicea also contains Filioque theology in Latin translation but not in Greek one.

Filioque if translated to Greek sounds heretical. It is a thing of incorrect translation. That is largely why Orthodox started rejecting it as a doctrine.

For a time, the Church of the East had used a Creed with a version of the fiilqoue

Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon - Wikipedia

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For a time, the Church of the East had used a Creed with a version of the fiilqoue

Interesting. Thank you for information.