|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Eastern Catholic Church Liturgy
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I have been reading in Wikipedia etc about Uniate churches, and they seem fascinting. If I got it right they are Churches which keep their liturgies - like the Orthodox churches but are in full union with the Holy Father.
I take it this is what is also proposed for some Anglicans.
What I'm not so clear is whether or not the Uniate churches keep the same liturgy as the non- Uniate church i.e. does for example the Russian orthodox Church and the Russian Catholic Church use the same liturgy?
I can't quite see how they can as they must differ in doctrine if one is in union with the Holy Father and the other isn't.
Whatever, it seems to me that the principal is a good one.
Perhaps it could extend elsewhere. For example, Methodists in full union with the Archbishop of Canterbury who are allowed to use their Methodis liturgy.
[Title edit, T² Eccles Host]
[ 06. October 2010, 06:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I attended a Byzantine Catholic service once and the paper in my hand told me it was the "Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom," which I believe is also what the Orthodox use.
The priest invited both Orthodox and RC to receive communion.
The language used for the service was Old Church Slovonic (can't quite remember the spelling). It was fascinating.
But it was my only experience, so I can't provide more information.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I can't quite see how they can as they must differ in doctrine if one is in union with the Holy Father and the other isn't.
The Catholic Church allows the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as a valid eucharistic prayer, even though it does not contain the Words of Institution at all. It is used by Chaldeans in communion with Rome.
This directly concerns the most important part of the Catholic Mass--indeed concerns the moment of consecration, the words placed in HUMONGOUS letters in almost all missals--and those words are missing. Yet Rome still allows it.
Doctrinally speaking, if they allow that, what is to stop them from allowing pretty much anything else?
[eta, like Sabine, I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in an Eastern Rite Catholic church. Although I have no frame of reference, I can say it was what I would have expected for the DL of SJC, given what I have read. The liturgy I attended was mostly in English, with a tiny bit of Slavonic thrown in, mostly Gospodi stuff.]
[ 22. April 2010, 22:07: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
I know that Eastern Catholic* liturgies vary somewhat in detail one between the other (I have rather an interesting illustrated book on them which I much dip nto one day) but I believe that the liturgies are similar in most respects to those used in their counterpart Eastern Orthodox Churches, barring some accommodation which I have heard has taken place in some of them to Vatican II.
*a small note - I believe that "Uniate" is considered an offensive term by Eastern Catholics.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
That is so interesting Martin L, and suggests in these Uniate Churches the RC Church allows things in doctrine and understanding of liturgy that they are not allowing or are even speaking against in other places. Now I call that pretty odd. But maybe some guy here can explain why it should be so.
I dont know about that Addai and Mari liturgy. I've not come across it, but it certainly doesnt sound as if it will go in the Missal.
But if these churches are in union with the Holy Father does he celebrate using there liturgies then?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I was under the understanding that the service was the same as the Russian Orthodox Liturgy of St. Ivan Goldenmouth. Even to the extent of leaving out the Philly O'Quay. I've been to one Byzantine Catholic service and didn't notice any difference at all from outside the iconostas, except there was no choir and they had pyooz and sat down for big chunks of the service (evil western influence). But I don't remember if the epiclesis was done aloud or silently so I can't say if the words were the same.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
It seems odd to e if the liturgies are identical, and do they have the same orders that the Orthodox church do - like readers and subdeacons and so on, for there liturgies.
I dont know if the Orthodox liturgy names the bishop in it but if so then that'll be a difference if they are praying for the Holy father in the liturgy.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
Canonically I am a Ukrainian Greek Catholic. Most Eastern Catholics consider "uniate" a bad word, so be prepared to take some flack over that. Also, recent documents and agreements between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics all say that the old "uniate" model is very outdated and something to be avoided. Eastern Catholics prefer to be called by their proper titles, i.e. Melkites, Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, etc. If I remember correctly there are 22 Sui Juris Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.
As for Liturgy, they are all "supposed" to use the exact same Liturgy as their Orthodox counterparts. Some may adapt the Liturgy in various ways, some may have illegally retained some Latin rite influence. Rome has called for them to return to their historical liturgical roots, but some have not always done so.
This is the best source for information on the various Eastern Christian Churches, both Orthodox and in Union with the Church of Rome. If you have more in depth questions, I can also put you in touch with the deacon at the local Ukrainian Catholic parish. He loves talking about the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
PS I am sorry if Uniate is a none PC term.
Can someone clarify and help on this one, please?
No offense is meant in my using the term.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
But if these churches are in union with the Holy Father does he celebrate using there liturgies then?
I don't know if there has been a pope yet who could speak Syriac or Aramaic let alone use them liturgically.
In the novendiales masses after the death of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Sfeir celebrated an Eastern Rite liturgy, concelebrated by Cardinal Daoud, who for a long time (possibly still) could be seen along with the other cardinal-bishop concelebrants at most televised papal masses. He sometimes even concelebrated at the Roman rite papal masses, but in his Eastern vestments.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I dont know if the Orthodox liturgy names the bishop in it but if so then that'll be a difference if they are praying for the Holy father in the liturgy.
That doesn't count as a difference in the liturgy. Obviously the Orthodox parishes under different bishops are going to say their bishop's name rather than some other one -- but that doesn't mean they're not using the same liturgy. You wouldn't say you used a different baptismal service just because you stated the name of a different person to be baptised.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
PS I am sorry if Uniate is a none PC term.
Can someone clarify and help on this one, please?
No offense is meant in my using the term.
As I noted in my post above, "Uniate" can be considered an offensive term. I am not familiar enough with the background as to why this might be to supply an answer at the moment but will see what I can find out.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
As for Liturgy, they are all "supposed" to use the exact same Liturgy as their Orthodox counterparts. Some may adapt the Liturgy in various ways, some may have illegally retained some Latin rite influence. Rome has called for them to return to their historical liturgical roots, but some have not always done so.
Thank you for this, teddybear.
I have no direct experience of Eastern Catholic worship but have relied on printed texts and videos. I have formed something of an e-friendship with a priest of a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish which is quite prolific on Youtube, (many of you will know the parish I mean), and I have held them up before now as a model of faithfulness to the services of the Byzantine Rite. From what I have seen of their videos and service booklets, they actually offer the services more correctly than many Orthodox do!
However, I have seen photograps of the interior of my local Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and it does show some signs of latinisation. While that is only anecdotal, as is this, I did an analysis of one of the forms of the St John Chrysostom Liturgy used in the Catholic church and this is what I found.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
In fact, having looked once again at that version of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, I notice that the priest's beautiful prayer of preparation before the Great Entrance has also been omitted, as has the dialogue of the cherubic hymn between the priest and deacon that follows it. I failed to notice this when I last looked at that liturgical text. The other prayers that the priest says quietly are included in that text so the fact that these examples are said quietly cannot be the reason for their omission. I can only assume that they are simply left out.
Here is the missing text:
quote:
None is worthy among those who are bound with fleshly desires and pleasures to approach Thee, or to draw nigh unto Thee, or to minister unto Thee, O King of Glory, for to serve Thee is grave and fearful even unto the heavenly hosts. Yet, by reason of thine ineffable and immeasurable love for mankind, Thou becamest man without undergoing change or alteration, and art become our High Priest, and hast delivered unto us the priestly service of this liturgical and unbloody sacrifice, as Master of all. For Thou alone, O Lord our God, art Master of things heavenly and earthly, Who art borne on the throne of the cherubim, Who art good and ready to hear: look upon me, thy sinful and unprofitable servant, and purge my soul and my heart from an evil conscience; and by the power of the Holy Spirit enable me, who have been invested with the grace of the priesthood, to stand before this thy Holy Table and to celebrate the priestly service of thy holy and immaculate Body and most precious Blood. For unto Thee I draw nigh, bowing my neck, and I pray Thee: turn not away thy face from me, nor reject me from among thy children, but vouchsafe that these gifts may be offered to Thee by me, thy sinful and unworthy servant. For Thou art He Who offereth and is offered, and Who accepteth and is distributed, O Christ our God, and unto Thee do we send up glory, with thine unoriginate Father, and thine all-holy, and good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
The censing being complete, the priest and deacon stand before the Holy Table, and say the Cherubic hymn three times in a low voice. Each time, the priest raises his hands and the deacon his orarion. If there is no deacon, the priest says the entire hymn alone.
Priest: We who, in a mystery, represent the Cherubim, and who sing the thrice-holy hymn unto the life-creating Trinity: let us now lay aside all earthly cares...
They make a reverence.
Deacon: ...that we may receive the King of all, invisibly upborne in triumph by the ranks of Angels. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Ukrainian Catholic church in Edinburgh has no iconstasis (being sited in a former Presbyterian church) It has behind the altar a wonderful picture representing St Andrew,patron of Scotland ,in Kiev where ther is a church off St Andrew also.The liturgy used there is the same as the Orthodox liturgy,but in the list of bishops pryaed for there is the name of the pope of Rome.That is the only difference as I assume that the Orthodox do not have regular prayers for the pope, though I am not an expert on Eastern liturgies.
The word 'Uniate' is considered as a pejorative term because a good number of the 'Uniate' churches came into communion with rome possibly in the first place because of political considerations - e.g. a numeber of 'Uniate 'churches came into fullcommunion with rome during the period of Roman catholic domination over their territories.Western ukraine was incorporated into the Polish Lithuanian state and later into the Hapsburg empire.At this time the bishops saw it as politically expedient as indeed also thought the rulers to be united with Rome.That at least is the view both of some Orthodox as well as some Eastern rite Catholics,sometimes also called Greek Catholics. these Catholics may of course be no more Greek than roman Catholics are necessarily Romans. It just refers to the rite.
The Ukrainian church in Edinburgh has some Western looking icons of the Sacred Heart and our Lady of Lourdes,but is otherwise the same as an Orthodox church.The lack of iconostasis is a feature of this particular church building,not of the Ukrainian church in general.Eastern rite liturgies are regularly celebrated also in Latin rite churches in Scotland as pastoral necessity dictates.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
P.S.sorry for the many spelling and typing errors.I should have read more carefully.I think that it can be understood.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
On a slight aside - do the Uniate / Eastern Catholic churches use the Pope's version of the creed (Nicene) or do they use the Greek orthodox version?
That would be a bit of a doctrinal difference wouldnt it?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I hadn't realised tht the usual western formula of the Nicene Creed was the pope's version.So do anglicans use the pope's version of the Creed ? And ,if so, does that make them (almost) roman Catholics ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I hadn't realised tht the usual western formula of the Nicene Creed was the pope's version.So do anglicans use the pope's version of the Creed ? And ,if so, does that make them (almost) roman Catholics ?
To my knowledge, those Catholic churches which use the Byzantine rite say the creed sans filioque because their liturgy is of Greek rather than Latin origin, and the filioque doesn't exist in the Greek version.
Anglicans are a mixed bag where this is concerned. Their heritage is from the Latin liturgical tradition and it is on this that the original BCP was based, so the filioque was simply inherited and that was that. However, recent times have seen variation. The Anglican Province of the West Indies did not print the filioque in its 1980 prayer book but it appeared in the 1995 (current) version. My understanding is that, while TEC has it, a motion has been passed to remove it at the next revision of its prayer book. The Church of England has the Creed with filioque in its main texts, but provides an alternative version without for use on "suitable ecumenical occasions", leaving it up to local authority to decide what such an occasion might be. I once heard that the Scottish Episcopal Church got rid of the filioque but I can't say when - it certainly appears in their 1982 services but I don't know whether they have done any revisions since.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I hadn't realised tht the usual western formula of the Nicene Creed was the pope's version.So do anglicans use the pope's version of the Creed ? And ,if so, does that make them (almost) roman Catholics ?
Sorry for the shorthand. What I meant is do the Uniate churches use the usual western version of the creed or the other version?
You see if there is full unity with Rome then surely I think there is doctrinal unoty. So do the Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception and other western doctrines that the Orthodox christians do not accept.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
TEC got rid of the filioque in the Liturgies for Trial Use (the "Green Book") that preceeded the adoption of the current 1979 BCP in which the filioque is restored. Should the filioque be definitively thrown out in the next prayerbook revision I would expect that a minority of parishes - Anglican liturgical traditionalists and more old fashioned Anglo-Catholics - won't conform to the "new" Creed sine filioque.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
You see if there is full unity with Rome then surely I think there is doctrinal unoty. So do the Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception and other western doctrines that the Orthodox christians do not accept.
This is a very interesting question. I've always thought that Rome and the Eastern Churches fudged a little here. Maybe I am not informed enough on the matter?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Thanks New Yorker. I'm hoping someone can answer this one. It seems to me that whatever may be said there will be differences and I wonder how the RC Church copes with them, and how much doctrinal difference is allowed.
I think, but am not very up in the knowledge here, that there are in fact quite a few doctrinal differences between the Catholic (RC style) church and, say, the Greek Orthodox Church.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Well, I surfed the net and its seems that most Eastern Catholic sites that I came across state that they fully accept all of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, although they have their own version that deals with matters from an Eastern viewpoint. I bet they agree with Rome on all matters, but that they language used is crafted carefully.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Thanks for that New Yorker. One thing I think is that the Catholic church of the west says doctrine can develop and new things come - like Our Lady's Assumption as dogma. I think the East churches arent so keen on that and so that may make a difference.
That makes me think their may be differences in the liturgy and in feast days. Like do the Eastern Catholic churches have Assumption as a Solemnity? - Or Immaculate Conception? And are their special Icons for these solemnities.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
I posess Sluzhebniks both of the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Russian eastern papal churches. The Ukrainian has the filioque in red brackets, but the Russian omits it entirely. Both differ from the orthodox in the rubric about the teplon (hot water added to the chalice before Communion). The Ukrainian has the whole ceremony of teplon in red brackets, and both specify that only a small quantity of hot water is added. The orthodox add enough hot water that the whole chalice feels warm. I believe that the red bracketed parts were used or disused at the discretion of the bishop.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Oh, to be able to explore your library! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Anglicans are a mixed bag where this is concerned. Their heritage is from the Latin liturgical tradition and it is on this that the original BCP was based, so the filioque was simply inherited and that was that. However, recent times have seen variation. The Anglican Province of the West Indies did not print the filioque in its 1980 prayer book but it appeared in the 1995 (current) version. My understanding is that, while TEC has it, a motion has been passed to remove it at the next revision of its prayer book. The Church of England has the Creed with filioque in its main texts, but provides an alternative version without for use on "suitable ecumenical occasions", leaving it up to local authority to decide what such an occasion might be. I once heard that the Scottish Episcopal Church got rid of the filioque but I can't say when - it certainly appears in their 1982 services but I don't know whether they have done any revisions since.
These removals are the result of resolutions at two successive Lambeth Conferences, and said resolutions are the rsult of our Anglican/Orthodox conversations over a number of years.
The first joint statement was produced in 1976, and it was at the 1978 Lambeth Conference that the first resolution to dump the filioque was passed
As Michael points out, some Provinces grasped the nettle and got rid of it altogether, the CofE, in my opinion, dithered, and made it an alternative. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
They have dithered for a longer time than you think: the suggestion to remove filioque was first made in the days of William and Mary at the abortive "Liturgy of Comprehension" discussions.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
I knew about the William and Mary proposal, I was just referring to more recent dithering.
Some might say we've been dithering since 1534! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I suppose what is of interest about the Eastern Catholic churches in relation to the West is whether they use the same Calendar and Liturgy of their sister Orthodox church or if they have change things a bit, to fit in more with the Roman Catholic church.
However, I am puzzled on the feasts proclaimed as dogma by the Holy Father, and the Eastern catholic Churches. I mean if they are communion with the Holy Father then they have to accept Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example. But its not just a matter of accepting is it, surely if you hold these things then you'll want to celebrate there feast days in your regular worship.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As far as I know all those in full communion of faith with the Roman pontiff ,must be - well - in full communion of faith. That means that they must agree in all essentials with the teachings of the Universal Church. How that agreement is expressed in mere human words can sometimes be a little bit difficult.
It is quite a different matter with the words and forms of the liturgy which are to some extent culture based.The exact temperature of the water added to the chalice ,for example,is not a matter of doctrine.The main thing is that there is a unity of faith and communion.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
Sorr for the hit-and-run post, but for now:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I suppose what is of interest about the Eastern Catholic churches in relation to the West is whether they use the same Calendar and Liturgy of their sister Orthodox church or if they have change things a bit, to fit in more with the Roman Catholic church.
However, I am puzzled on the feasts proclaimed as dogma by the Holy Father, and the Eastern catholic Churches. I mean if they are communion with the Holy Father then they have to accept Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example. But its not just a matter of accepting is it, surely if you hold these things then you'll want to celebrate there feast days in your regular worship.
The direction you're going with these questions is really headed more into Purgatory territory, IMHO, but for now:
The Catholic Church is made up of over 20 (forget the exact number right now) self governing churches (called sui iuris ). By far the largest is the the Latin Church everyone is familiar with, but there are also all the Eastern Catholic Churches like the Maronites, the Melkites, the Ukrainian Catholics etc.
In some cases the individual sui iuris church is identical with a Rite. Broadly speaking a Rite (with a capital 'R') is a particular tradition of prayer, spirituality, worship, liturgy and more. In other cases more than one sui iuris Church shares a Rite. This would be the case with many of the Eastern Catholic Churches who share the Byzantine Rite. For example, the Ukrainian Catholics Church and the Melkite Church both use the Byzantine Rite.
Not all Eastern Catholics use the Byzantine Rite. For example, neither the Maronites (originally from Lebanon) or the Syro-Malabars (originally from India) use the Byzantine Rite.
As far as I'm aware the churches that follow the Byzantine Rite pretty much follow the same Calendar and Liturgy of their sister Orthodox churches (It appears this was pretty much already pointed out to you above). There may be a few minor differences owing to the history and experiences of a given Eastern Catholic Church.
Because Eastern Catholics have their own Rites they have their own way of expressing the beliefs they share with Western Catholics. They have no need to express it the exact same way as it's done in the Latin Church.
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I wonder why the difference on the teplon? Was that something they used to do before joining with Rome, and if so why did they stop?
[tangent]Isn't via media Latin for "the ones that dither"?[/tangent]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Pancho, thank you.
You write:
quote:
Because Eastern Catholics have their own Rites they have their own way of expressing the beliefs they share with Western Catholics. They have no need to express it the exact same way as it's done in the Latin Church.
Indeed.
But how then in worship do Eastern Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
And are there not other significant differences in doctrine between east and West that lead to a difference in worship?
I guess the same thought could come up with Anglican Uniates and Rome. I mean some Anglcian churches have been aloud to carry on their Book of Common Prayer services - but what about their Calendars? They too wont have some of the biggie RC solemnities
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
TEC got rid of the filioque in the Liturgies for Trial Use (the "Green Book") that preceeded the adoption of the current 1979 BCP in which the filioque is restored. Should the filioque be definitively thrown out in the next prayerbook revision I would expect that a minority of parishes - Anglican liturgical traditionalists and more old fashioned Anglo-Catholics - won't conform to the "new" Creed sine filioque.
I don't mind the filioque in or out, but I do mind the word "power" added which is not in the original and is such a weak and watery word as well as an idea that Jesus was conceived not by the Holy Spirit, but by his "power", as indeed everything else was too. It is a weak and mitigating word, and I wonder why now one has jumped on our case for it yet.
I once knew an Orthodox family who were considering converting to an "Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome". They were arguing that the service was just the same, that the priest would was married, and indeed they had some distant relatives in the "united" Church.
After a couple of years of dithering, they decided to stay Orthodox because liturgy is not everything, the words might have been the same, but there was an certain undefinable something, an ethos I suppose, that felt "foreign" to them. This was in Romania, where most people are fiercely loyal Orthodox, at least once or twice a year.
The same problem is in many Anglican Churches. There maybe a breakaway under an African bishop or independent down the road using the same liturgy, 79, 28, missal, CW whatever, but does not allow women, or gays, or gay women, but though the words are the same, the ethos is quite different.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I don't mind the filioque in or out, but I do mind the word "power" added which is not in the original and is such a weak and watery word as well as an idea that Jesus was conceived not by the Holy Spirit, but by his "power", as indeed everything else was too. It is a weak and mitigating word, and I wonder why now one has jumped on our case for it yet.
"Power" is removed in the more modern versions (ELLC new versions).
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
But how then in worship do Eastern Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
And are there not other significant differences in doctrine between east and West that lead to a difference in worship?
I guess the same thought could come up with Anglican Uniates and Rome. I mean some Anglcian churches have been aloud to carry on their Book of Common Prayer services - but what about their Calendars? They too wont have some of the biggie RC solemnities [/QB]
The Ukrainian Greek Catholics celebrate the Conception of St. Anne on the 9th of December and celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos on August 15th. We use the same Liturgy for these feasts as do the Slavic Orthodox. We also follow the same calender as the Orthodox, for the most part. We do have a few saints and feast days they don't, but they have a few we don't too. We have been told time and time again that our liturgies should have nothing more and nothing less than the Orthodox. The only difference in a Divine Liturgy celebrated by an Eastern Catholic Church and its Orthodox equivalent should be the naming of the Pope in the litanies.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
OK, one last time and then I really, really, need to go...
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Pancho, thank you.
You write:
quote:
Because Eastern Catholics have their own Rites they have their own way of expressing the beliefs they share with Western Catholics. They have no need to express it the exact same way as it's done in the Latin Church.
Indeed.
But how then in worship do Eastern Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Well, if they're Maronites they celebrate the way Maronites do , if they follow the the Byzantine Rite they observe the Dormition of the Theotokos or the Conception of St. Anne ( as it's known in the East) much like their Eastern Orthodox brethren do, and so on, and so on.
quote:
And are there not other significant differences in doctrine between east and West And are there not other significant differences in doctrine between east and West...
Not among Catholics. Not between Eastern and Western Catholics. That's why we are in communion with each other. That's why we are all in communion with the Pope. That's why I can receive Holy Communion at a Ukrainian Catholic or Ethiopian Catholic church and even join those parishes if I wanted to.
Between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox perhaps there are differences but how significant they are is open to discussion. Some people think they can be reconciled, others think they can't but that's between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and another thread. On this thread you are asking about Catholics.
quote:
...that lead to a difference in worship?
The differences in worship are between Rites. Those Rites color the way a Catholic expresses his Catholic faith. A Byzantine Catholic inherits an expression of the Christian faith that took form in Constantinople and will approach and express his faith that way. I, a Latin Catholic, have inherited an expression of the Christian faith that took form in ancient Rome and I express and approach my faith in that particular way.
Even then there will be some broad similarities in the way we worship because we are both inheritors of the ancient Christians and they way they prayed and worshiped in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople.
quote:
I guess the same thought could come up with Anglican Uniates and Rome. I mean some Anglcian churches have been aloud to carry on their Book of Common Prayer services - but what about their Calendars? They too wont have some of the biggie RC solemnities
There was already a thread here about the Ordinariates a while back. Maybe you can search here or in Limbo for it.
1. Again, be careful of the word 'uniates'. I haven't seen any Anglican Use Catholics in the U.S. or people interested in the Ordinariates use that word for themselves. Usually, it's polite to use what people wish to be called.
2. The difference between the Eastern Catholics and the members of the Anglican Ordinariates, however they'll be called, is that Eastern Catholics are Eastern Catholics. The new Anglican Use Catholics (or however they'll call themselves) are and will be Western Catholics, Catholics of the Latin Church with their own ordinariates.
Whatever forms of worship the new ordinariates will use, it will be considered a variation (or Use) of the Roman Rite because the forms of worship used by Anglicans are derived by the traditions of worship in England which were variants of the Roman Rite.
3. It's up to them to decide how that's going to be but it hasn't been decided yet. Search for the older thread for some ideas of how it's going to be.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I guess the same thought could come up with Anglican Uniates and Rome. I mean some Anglcian churches have been aloud to carry on their Book of Common Prayer services - but what about their Calendars? They too wont have some of the biggie RC solemnities
There was already a thread here about the Ordinariates a while back. Maybe you can search here or in Limbo for it.
The Book of Divine Worship (here, large pdf) does not deprive Anglican Rite Roman Catholics of any Solemnities. In fact, it does not use the BCP79 calendar, but rather a Roman Catholic calendar.
This is natural, however, because the BCP79 (from which the BDW originates) is meant to fit within a 3-year lectionary system anyway. Might as well use the Roman Catholic Lectionary for Mass.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
If you take everything on board from this thread Eddy I suspect all you'll be seeing is trees, trees and more trees.
May I suggest you purchase a copy of Fr Robin Gibbons excellent recent CTS Explanations pamphlet 'The Eastern Churches: Understanding the Eastern Christian Churches'? Robin aka Dr Gibbons is an English Melkite priest of real learning.
One of the great things about Eastern Catholicism is that it is as Catholic as the Latin Rite but is not carrying the donkey load of Scholastic Philosophy on its back.
Rites and histories vary.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The issues here are fascinating. The various churches are in communion with the Pope, and the link with him seems to me to parallel the unity of the various Orthodox churches through the communion each bishop has with the others. In many ways, this goes back to the earliest days of the Church, perhaps extending forward to the anathemas of 1054. The churches in each location were in one sense independent, but linked through the communion of the bishops (sound familiar?).
Now, I appreciate that some of these churches, such as the Ukranian Catholic, did not exist in 1054, but what happened to those which did when the anathemas went flying? Did they remain in communion with Byzantium, or how did the communion cease? If it ceased, did it somehow revive upon the revocations?
The liturgy aspect is also extremely interesting. Madame and I find the sursum corda very moving, it being perhaps the only portion of the liturgy (apart from the Our Father) still common to both Eastern and Western Christianity - and by Eastern, I include those churches as far East as India, which trace their establishment back to St Thomas,as well as the Ethiopian church. It is a real indication of our ultimate unity beyond the differences which separate many of our day to day dealings.
Finally, there has been a reference to the ethos of the individual churches being discussed. In many ways, this parallels the discussions in the Anglican Churches about acceptance of the offer of the Ordinariate. Like many others, I suspect, we are happy to honour the Pope as Patriarch of the West, as we do the other Patriarchs. But we still have our Anglican ethos, and prefer to honour them from that position.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I am not an eastern rite Catholic,but I do not think that Eastern rite Catholics necessarily want 'the biggies of the RC solemnities'.It's just not the way they think.they want the 'biggies of the Byzantine rite' if that is the rite through which their liturgical life is expressed.
Most rites celebrate these 'biggies' with liturgies of the day.I don't think there is any other way one can put it.
The Ukrainian church here in Edinburgh,uses liturgically the Julian calendar,which means that they celebrate the Birth of Christ on 7th January. The feasts of the Easter cycle are celebrated on the same days as the Eastern church which often varies from that of the Western church. The Assumption is celebrated on 15th August ,BUT that is not the 15th August of the Gregorian calendar.
In course of time some but not all of the Ukrainians have become integrated into the Latin rite,but Christmas and Easter are very special feasts which are celebrated on the traditional Ukrainian days.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In very broad terms the Ukrainian Catholic church came into being as a rite of the Catholic church ,when the Polish-Lithuanian state took over administartion of the area.I think it was by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in the 1500s that the bishops of that area found it politically (and possibly also religiously) expedient to declaree that there was no real doctrinal difference between their communities and those directly under Roman discipline.As their lands became part of a 'Roman Catholic' state and they were 'unified' politically with the Polish Lithuanian state they became 'unified' also religiously with the Polish Lithuanian state.YThat is why in essence the word 'Uniate' is not seen as a helpful term.
Of course in later times the 'Uniate' churches laso saw a political (and religious) expedient in distinguishing themselves (by Roman protection) from their bigger Russian brothers.
This is much simplified,but I think I have mentioned here certain key elements of the history of the Ukrainian Catholic church with its Byzantine rite.
Nowadays we tend to see Poland as a country which has been dominated by its more powerful neighbours,but at one time Poland was a powerful state in Eastern europe.After the disappearance of Poland from the map the are was taken over by Austria,also a Roman Catholic power.Again the Eastern rite Catholics were integrated into the Habsburg state.
Without going into all the details it's not too politically surprising if after the Second world War and the domination of the Soviet Union in the areas known as Western Ukraine,the Ukrainian Catholic church was 'dissolved' and more or less re-incorporated into Orthodoxy.With the demise of the Soviet Union it has re-emerged within these territories.Like many other religious questions it is a very difficult mix of culture,history,religion,politics,sense of self worth etc.etc.etc.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I dont know a lot about the East Churches. But I think some are not in communion with each other because of the difference in how they see Our Lord. But am I right that these churches have a Catholic version as well.
Now here I guess the liturgy changes in the Catholic version of the church, to avoid heresy.
I am goin to do so web searching and see if I can find out more and come back on this one.
[ 25. April 2010, 22:35: Message edited by: Eddy ]
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was in 1918, not the 15th Century.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
May I point out that no Eastern Catholic Church is in communion with the Pope (or the Holy Father). They are in communion with the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church) of which each pope is a temporary and temporal head.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Point taken PeteC, wherever you are now. Any thoughts on the balance of my post. I appreciate that churches such as the Ukranian Catholic are not exactly popular with their Orthodox neighbours, but what about the Melkites, and others in that ancient group. Are they in communion with both Rome and Constantinople?
An Sir Pellinore , any idea where in Sydney I might get a copy of the pamphlet you refer to, please?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I doubt very much that any of the Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches can be in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy. There are some which are not in communion with either, and a few which are in communion with the Anglican Communion. There are two churches here in Kerala which are in communion with the Catholic Church. These two, along with the Latin-Rite churches here (the Roman Catholic church) are the ones that I attend here, as is convenient to me. These two rites share a common mother-tongue and often join for major festivals (Christmas and Easter, e.g.) and social occasions. Membership may mingle as people move about, as it is much more convenient to attend a closer church than one a mile or two off, especially as transportation is usually by walking.
The flow chart at the end of this article may help unravel confusion.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Confused about the term Uniate. It is used all the time by the few Eastern Catholics with whom I'm in regular correspondence. That's how they refer to themselves - either that or "those of us in the Unia". Clearly the business of it seeing it as pejorative is not universal among Eastern Catholics.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
