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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
But if these churches are in union with the Holy Father does he celebrate using there liturgies then?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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 ?

---

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 ?

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
Oh, to be able to explore your library!
 

---

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

...that lead to a difference in worship?

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't via media Latin for "the ones that dither"?

---

(I feel a change of signature coming on!)
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thanks Pete C . I was (and remain) curious about the status of such as the Melkites when the anathemas were revoked. And sooner or later, relationships with the Copts and othere pre-Chalcedonians will have to be addressed - esp as many Coptic theologians are now attributing the break to a misudertanding/mistranslation. (I have used "break") as a non-judgmental and non-theological term.)
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Interestingly, none of the Ukrainian Catholics that I know have a problem with the adjective "uniate" even of they prefer Byzantine Catholic".

As for Melkites, a colleague of mine was baptised in that tradition and her husband is Antiochan Orthodox ( better than committing incest and marrying one of her Melkite first cousins as she put it} and despite all the talk she and her mob are firmly in the Pope's camp despite being part of the Melkite Eparchy

m
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ostiarius:
Based on this construct, it seems to me that Communion is severed every time a Pope enters into his after-life. Would new Articles of Union be required with every change in Pontiff? Just wondering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Eastern Rite churches, thanks to recent proactive papal intervention, are beginning to stand up for themselves in the Anglophone world and not allow themselves or their members to be sat on by local Latin Rite bishops or priests e.g. chrismated children being refused communion. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference recently issued clear guidelines on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Eastern Rite churches, thanks to recent proactive papal intervention, are beginning to stand up for themselves in the Anglophone world and not allow themselves or their members to be sat on by local Latin Rite bishops or priests e.g. chrismated children being refused communion. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference recently issued clear guidelines on this.

---

I imagine this may potentially cause some awkwardness when Eastern Rite children communicate in Latin churches. 'Mummy, how come they can have communion and I can't?' Then this isn't the fault of the Eastern Rite people and, in my opinion, merely serves to highlight the mess of delaying communion by years, (and confirmation, for that matter).

---

Agreed.

If I understand Multipara's post correctly to mean chrismated Eastern Rite Catholic kids do not receive communion at Latin Rite masses it only highlights the point.

How can one lot of children be full members of the church from birth and others only have 'probationary licences'?

I would wish we Anglicans chrismated at birth.

Another good thing about Eastern Rite Catholics is that they are now much more assertive in ordaining married men as priests in the West.

Yet Latin Rite spokespeople still confute the priesthood and celibacy.


 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
...noting that any in-depth discussion of non-liturgical differences such as Closure of Communion and Infant Baptism would be more suitable for Purgatory or DH rather than these hallowed halls...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
*hostly alert probably not necessary*

No Sir P, I wasn't going anywhere near closed communion.

Chrismated kids generally don't seem to receive communion at a Western Rite Mass until their Western Rite peers do, more by convention than anything else. They all want to tog up on First communion Day, though!

m
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I agree with multipara's clarification; it is certainly the way I understood her original post.

And that practice is common in India, AFAICS. Once a young person receives first communion, he/she no longer sits with the boys/girls, but with the men/women.

[ 28. April 2010, 07:14: Message edited by: PeteC ]
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Multipara, you may be interested in this quote from Dr Andrew Kania - an Australian Ukrainian Greek Catholic and currently Director of Religious Education at Aquinas College Perth on the ignorance the average Australian often has of the simplest piece of Eastern Liturgy, the making of the sign of the cross:

The year is 1977, the scene, a Catholic Boys School in Western Australia. A Year Six (11 years of age) class in Religious Education is coming to its close, as with another school day. To conclude the class, the teacher, a devout Latin Catholic asks her pupils to stand and say a final prayer. As the teacher initiates the sign of the cross, she stops the class and draws their attention to one of the boys, who in her words: “Has crossed himself the wrong way!” Bringing the child to the front she asks him to repeat his indiscretion. Seeing a chance to instruct the entire class further, the teacher poses the question: “Can any person in this class see what this silly boy is doing wrong?” To which 30 hands respond in answer. Grabbing the pupil by the right arm the teacher proceeds to correct the boy, who resists. Vigorous laughter ensues. Stating that she will not dismiss the class until the recalcitrant has shown to everyone that he has learnt his lesson the teacher forces the boy’s hand open (which had been positioned with three fingers joined together, representing the Holy Trinity in Byzantine formulae), and draws on him the sign of the cross – left shoulder first then to the right. The boy in this story became in time the author of the article before you, and the sad event took place nearly two hundred years after the first Eastern Christian, a Ukrainian, came to Australia on the First Fleet in 1788. (See: Clark1962, p. 94)

As an adult I was exposed to even more examples of the lack of catholic understanding of the Church by many Roman Rite Catholics.

Knowledge and tolerance are a two way thing.

Andrew's articles are on the Australian Catholic Ukrainian website.

http://www.catholicukes.org.au/tiki-index.php?page=Dr+Andrew+Kania%27s+Articles
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Sir P, in my view (such as it is) Andrew K does have the inclination to beat the Ukie Catholic drum a bit too often for my liking; I've read more than a few of his articles in Catholica.com.au and his style irritates me not a little. For all the ill-educated (probably lay) RE teachers in WA who hadn't been told about the Orthodox way for making the sign of the Cross back in those benighted days (yes, 1977 ) there'd be plenty who would not have batted an eyelid.

just my 2 bob's worth,

m
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Fair enough, multipara.

I suspect there are Catholics like yourself (intelligent, well educated and cosmopolitan) and twits like the schoolteacher.

Alas, twits will always be with us.
 

---

Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
Yes, the Byzantine/Greek Catholic and Orthodox liturgies are supposed to be alike and as otyetsfoma said, the tiny Russian Greek Catholic Church (now really small groups of convert non-Russians not in Russia) obeys that. Few other Greek Catholics do.

(The Russian Greek Catholics: 100 years ago some Russian intellectuals converted themselves to Rome so the Pope set up this church to try to convert the rest of the Russian Orthodox.)

Today the strategy is corporate reunion, bringing whole churches under Rome, so Rome doesn't use the Greek Catholics to snag individual conversions but it accepts them of course, quietly.

When you know the rite and the cultures you can tell which is which. Lots of Ukrainian Catholics for example have long disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves with both old (statues, devotions such as the rosary) and new things (modern English language; the Ruthenians, the Ukes' Slav cousins, seem headed in that direction).

It's hard to describe but a lot of their churches feel like modern but relatively conservative Roman Catholic ones but with a few different externals. Some feel like nice (IMO) old-fashioned RC churches.

As the story from Australia says there's been a lot of ignorance and thus pressure from the majority Roman Riters adding to the latinisation. It also caused two schisms in the US when heavy-handedness from the Irish bishops (getting Rome to ban ordaining married men) made some Eastern Slav immigrants go to the Russians; most Russian Orthodox there, like in The Deer Hunter, are their descendants and originally not from Russia.

The Greek Catholics weren't supposed to add the filioque but did and now some are taking it back out. (Interestingly the official Greek version of the Creed in the RCC doesn't have it.)

Yes, the word 'Uniate' is out in knowledgeable religious discussions but in 25 years of knowing these people, specifically Ukrainian Catholics, I'd say you can call them anything but Russian Orthodox.

The Soviets banning their church in their home, the territory of Galicia not the whole Ukraine, with only the Orthodox church legal, adds to that. The story of the underground Ukrainian Catholic Church in those years, resurfacing to everybody's surprise in the late 1980s, is moving and heroic.

I'd say only converts to Greek Catholicism (from the Roman Rite etc.) call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'. A vocal minority online deny RC defined doctrine yet are Greek Catholics. Again Rome agrees with the OicwRs liturgically but...

Eastern Catholics do have to sign onto all RC defined doctrine.

Of course the online Orthodoxen may say better than me but I'd say the Orthodox run on a smidgen of doctrine ('Creed, Jesus is true God and true man, Mother of God and icons, and we're done') but lots of customs. When they say they don't believe in purgatory or the Immaculate Conception they mean they have no defined doctrine on those subjects, yet they pray for the dead and call Mary all-pure (customs such as the service books).

The Ukrainian Catholics used to use Slavonic like the Russian Orthodox (but with a different accent) until about 30 years ago and now use Ukrainian and local languages such as English.

Ukrainian Catholicism: a few Russianisms like the Cyrillic alphabet, onion domes, icons and married priests to show you're not Polish but tons of Polishisms like clean-shaven priests and statues to show you're not Russian. And they're not Russian: they were part of Poland (who didn't treat them well) from the 1300s until Stalin annexed them to the USSR in WWII. The rest of the Ukraine is Russian.

Dual communion is in theory not possible because of the rival one-true-church claims of the Orthodox and RCC but among Arabs in Syria and Lebanon (the Greek Catholics are the Melkite Church) it's long been so among the laity.

The case of the Assyrian anaphora is interesting and I have no objection to the lack of words of institution: it's Christendom's oldest rite still in use and the intent is obviously Catholic.
 

---

Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
The coming RC ordinariates for ex-Anglo-Catholics aren't really a parallel to the Eastern Catholics because the people in them won't be having Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship services but cultural variants of the Roman Rite, for example like Roman Rite use in parts of the Church of England now. Also, the Eastern Catholic churches have their own bishops and canon law.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Using English isn't a Latinism. Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the liturgy into the language of the people they were evangelizing; they didn't make them learn Greek. Using antiquated or dead languages in the service isn't some wonderful thing. It's stupid. Using English in a congregation whose primary language is English has nothing to do with Rome. One of the early saints of Alaska called for the liturgy to be translated into English well before Vatican II (sorry, can't remember which saint).

You copycats!

[ 01. May 2010, 02:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Had to have been Innocent. I believe he also commanded Nicholas of Japan to learn Japanese and translate the liturgy into Japanese.
 

---

Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
I meant modern (contemporary, flat) English.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You mean the language that they actually speak. That's the one they should be allowed to worship in. We're not Pepys and Shakespeare. Sorry you don't like your own language. Kinda tough beans, huh?
 

---

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
Of course the online Orthodoxen may say better than me but I'd say the Orthodox run on a smidgen of doctrine ('Creed, Jesus is true God and true man, Mother of God and icons, and we're done') but lots of customs. When they say they don't believe in purgatory or the Immaculate Conception they mean they have no defined doctrine on those subjects, yet they pray for the dead and call Mary all-pure (customs such as the service books).

---

Surely you must have realised as you were typing there was no way that was going to get past unchallenged.

I wouldn't agree that we get by on a smidgin of doctrine, indeed that we "get by" on anything. We have our doctrine which we believe to be true. Just as some of it doesn't feature in other traditions so is something they don't have a defined position on and it would never occur to them to do so. I suppose the same is true of us where certain Roman Catholic teachings are concerned. However, in some cases, the objection is not simply that we kick up a fuss because we don't have a defined position on the particular subject ourselves but rather because of one or both of the possibilities that a) we see no reason to define such a thing and b) we see that the Roman Catholic definition conflicts with other elements of the Faith. Here is my attempt at explaining the latter of your examples.

That's all.
 

---

Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
But mousethief, as you probably know the longstanding custom throughout Eastern Christianity is like English-speakers using Coverdale, Cranmer and King James, an archaic form of the language. Greeks use mediæval Greek, not modern Greek; Russians and, until rather recently, Ukrainian Catholics, Slavonic, not Russian. And many Orthodox have always liked liturgical English; the Jordanville prayer book is written in it and the Antiochians still print the Hapgood service book (Isabel Hapgood, an Episcopalian who translated the Russian services about 100 years ago).

Eastern Catholics in English sound ICEL-ified, that is, a bit Novus Ordo-ey but with slightly better translations as the rites weren't radically revised and then paraphrased in the 1960s like the Roman. (Pope Benedict's new English version drops the paraphrase for translation; that problem's solved in the Roman Rite.)

Yes, Michael, I expected online Orthodox to challenge what I wrote.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
But mousethief, as you probably know the longstanding custom throughout Eastern Christianity is like English-speakers using Coverdale, Cranmer and King James, an archaic form of the language. Greeks use mediæval Greek, not modern Greek; Russians and, until rather recently, Ukrainian Catholics, Slavonic, not Russian. And many Orthodox have always liked liturgical English; the Jordanville prayer book is written in it and the Antiochians still print the Hapgood service book (Isabel Hapgood, an Episcopalian who translated the Russian services about 100 years ago).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
Yes, Michael, I expected online Orthodox to challenge what I wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
mousethief, you're entitled to your opinion.

---

 

---

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young fogey:
Michael, one can read either meaning of online Orthodox but that doesn't mean you're one of the bad ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
*hostly alert probably not necessary*

No Sir P, I wasn't going anywhere near closed communion.

Chrismated kids generally don't seem to receive communion at a Western Rite Mass until their Western Rite peers do, more by convention than anything else. They all want to tog up on First communion Day, though!

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
If the diocese of Rome is a Roman rite diocese (and it is) then it is only right that the bishop should celebrate according to the Roman rite.
On important occasions at papal Masses there are Byzantine rite priests who will chant the Gospel in Greek.
The present pope tried to adapt the pallium to an earlier and more Byzantine form.In time it was found to be impractical (I think) and he has reverted to a more Latin style pallium,though still a little different from the normal pallium granted by the pope to major archbishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
I seem to recall a televised papal mass from Rome many years ago: at the gospel an eastern rite deacon (from Grottaferrata I guess) chanted the gospel in greek with all the byzantine extras -sophia orthoi etcetera, but the rite was roman.

---

quote:

---

But don't Eastern and Western Rite priests/bishops sometimes concelebrate in each other's Rites? The very limited experience I have with such things would seem to indicate that the principal celebrant would be a priest/bishop of the Rite being celebrated. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
So I wonder just how an Eastern Catholic liturgy fares in St Peters Rome. Then I wonder if the Eastern Catholic churches are different inside to their sister Eastern orthodox ones. Maybe they have a wider range of icons and saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
Liturgies need building to suit them and it seems to me that Eastern orthodox liturgies have different church space than Western ones. They are decorated different too and have different furniture.

So I wonder just how an Eastern Catholic liturgy fares in St Peters Rome. Then I wonder if the Eastern Catholic churches are different inside to their sister Eastern orthodox ones. Maybe they have a wider range of icons and saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oblatus:
I've seen photos of some Eastern Catholic churches that have altars similar to Roman Catholic high altars ("wedding-cake" style) but perhaps with more and different items, and no ikonostasis between nave and sanctuary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Interestingly, none of the Ukrainian Catholics that I know have a problem with the adjective "uniate" even of they prefer Byzantine Catholic".
m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
I know that the Orthodox have a big thing about beards for their ministers. Is this the same in the Catholic Eastern churches as well?

Are there any elements of Western Catholic tradition - e.g. the hymn, that have crept into the eastern Catholic ways or do they try to keep themselves pure>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
I know that the Orthodox have a big thing about beards for their ministers. Is this the same in the Catholic Eastern churches as well?

Are there any elements of Western Catholic tradition - e.g. the hymn, that have crept into the eastern Catholic ways or do they try to keep themselves pure>

---

The Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy that I attended last year (actually in a church under the authority of +Parma, mentioned in the previous post) had pews, and they also had a sermon right after the Gospel reading. I'm not sure if this is an unusual place or not for a sermon in an Eastern Rite liturgy, but for some reason I didn't expect one there. The pews were quite unexpected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Astley:
At my parish, the sermon usually follows the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:
He is usually shown in a scene from a famous legend of his, a Roman soldier astride his horse and giving part of his cloak to a beggar, as in this painting by El Greco .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
In what sense,, Michael the 'proper place' - because thats where the books say it has to be, like the Missal does?

---

quote:

---

In his First Apology St Justin Martyr wrote:
On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray. (my emphasis).
Link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I think the ROCOR cathedral in New York is Our Lady of the Sign, but that might be a paraphrase rather than a direct translation of the Russian. I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
My point about 'Our Lady of Fatima' Eastern Catholic church was not about 'Our Lady of...' titles in Eastern Orthodox churches, but more about 'Our Lady of...(a leading Western Catholic shrine)...'. I'd thought that it would be unusual to have say, a Greek Orthodox Church dedicated in honor of 'Our Lady of Lourdes.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
The Liturgy was seriously weird though (by Western standards: I'm not being disparaging) and interminable, so I left soon after what appeared to have been the Gospel. Otherwise I might have MWd it.

---

See, this is just a bad witness. We already think you guys are spiritual lightweights. You just can't go around confirming our suspicions like this!
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We already think you guys are spiritual lightweights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't speak for the Eastern Catholics. The Orthodox celebrate Ascension as one of the Twelve Great Feasts, 40 days (always a Thursday) after Easter. We don't move festivals to Sundays. The only moving to speak of gets done when the Annunciation (a fixed feast) falls on one of the moveable feasts/fasts of Lent or Holy Week or Pascha. And that's so complicated I'm content to let the bigwigs figure it out.

---

quote:

---

the oldest liturgy in the Christian Church: the Liturgy of Saint James the Apostle, historically referred to as the Liturgy of Mar Mari and Mar Addai. It contains three different Canons which are utilised during the yearly calendar

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly true. But if the Annunciation falls in Holy Week, especially Good Friday, all Hell breaks loose.

---

There is a relatively new additional volume to The Order of Divine Services detailing how to construct the services for various Saints and feasts throughout the year in some considerable detail. For all of the days it includes that can possibly fall in the season of the Triodion or the Pentecostarion, this volume also gives the variations that would apply in each case. It really is meticulous. I note with a smile that any mention of the Annunciation is entirely absent from the book. I can only imagine that the compilers probably took one look at it and gave up before they even started.

My memory suggests, though, that malik3000 is right about the Annunciation not being transferred (it coincided with Holy Saturday 2 or 3 yers ago and I have a translation of a very lovely reflection written by Fr Sergei Bulgakov for when it collides with Great Friday). The complexities come more from practical questions of how to combine it with the moveable observances.
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
Thats interesting Michael Astley but I've not got how it relates to Eastern Catholic Liturgy. Are you saying this is what eastern Catholics do as well.

The Italo - Albanian Catholic Church from what I can understand seems to be Eastern Catholic but is their a Italo-Albanian Orthodox church?
It seems from the article that this church is in Communion with the Holy Father, in many places uses the Western Missal and also allows married clergy.

This is where I red about it.
 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
The liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Church described here says the Eastern Catholic church uses:

---

quote:

---

Throughout its long history, the Church has remained orthodox and patriarchal (in its worship, ecclesiastical form of government, polity, etc. not Papal (not under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church , the Patriarch of the West in Rome). This jurisdiction remains autocephalous (self-governing) to this day.

In 1902, the Metropolitan of India, with the encouragement of the Anglican Church missionaries from England, desired to bring this ancient church heritage into the west. A metropolitan was consecrated to do so. Through these efforts, in 1934, the Eastern Catholic Church came to these United States in the ministry of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Dr. Mar David of Edessa, O.H.S. (nee: Seine Durchlaucht, Prinz Stanislaus, Graf von Czernowitz). The present Metropolitan is His Beatitude, Metropolitan Dr. Mar Mikhael of Edessa, O.S.J. (Seine Durchlaucht, Fürst Heinrich XXVI Reuß).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly true. But if the Annunciation falls in Holy Week, especially Good Friday, all Hell breaks loose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
( and yes in certain circumstances the priests are allowed to marry)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
I don't really get it with this 'Greek Catholic Church in Italy'. Like the Eastern Catholic churches have an Orthodox parallel is the parallel of this one the Greek orthodox church or what?

---

quote:

---

It cant be because dont the Greek Catholics have there own Patriarch

---

quote:

---

and Forthview says these ones relate direct to the Holy Father.

---

quote:

---

Southern Italy and Sicily had a strong connection with Greece in antiquity and for many centuries there was a large Greek-speaking population there. In the early centuries of the Christian era, although most of the Christians were of the Byzantine tradition, the area was included in the Roman Patriarchate, and a gradual but incomplete process of latinization began.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
It seems v strange to me;

They are in Italy, they can use the Western rite, their priests can marry.

So can there be another RC church in a town using the Western rite but their priests can't marry.

---

quote:

---

How can the faithful tell them apart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
...
When I take Italians to a Church of Scotland they often ask me (that is of course those who are interested ) Che rito e ? (What rite is followed here ?) Even Italians not particularly interested in religion - the great majority - know that there are different rites which are used in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I wonder if the average Latin Catholic could get a handle on the bare simplicity of much Church of Scotland worship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I wonder if the average Latin Catholic could get a handle on the bare simplicity of much Church of Scotland worship?

---

A Catholic Mass can be quite plain and simple, and in the case of Italy it very often is. I'm not sure about the liturgy at St. Giles, but if it follows a standard Western pattern I would anticipate that the average Italian tourist would find it quite familiar to a simple parish church in Italy, but quite more musically-appealing, and quite a bit longer!

My own Lutheran church has more elaborate liturgy than the Roman Catholic Church, IMHO. We end up singing offertory verses, and up until recently we almost always sang a post-communion canticle (such as Nunc Dimittis). It is also relatively rare for Lutheran churches to do the Psalm cheat--with the people only saying/singing a refrain. Typically we all participate in the verses in one way or another.

---

There are places like the Cathedral in Milan where they do a good Ambrosian Rite (the indigenous one).

Italians have feeling and a sense of drama. Scots, well middle class Edinburgh ones from places like Colinton & Morningside, tend to be somewhat 'emotionally restrained' (That's putting it politely! ) and are very much into preaching (sometimes overlong).

Personally I have had no contact with Lutheran liturgy (I once knew a beautiful girl from Aachen, though, but this is definitely not the place ).

Seriously, John Foster, a beloved and sadly departed university tutor, whose field was Modern German History, told me (bear in mind we are talking late 1960s/early 1970s here) that there was what he called 'a sort of High Church Lutheranism which was very much like Low Church Anglicanism). The traditional Low Church Anglicans (pretty much extinct in Oz & the US of A I believe) were into very measured ceremonial (a bit like German pietists).

Bear in mind we were traditionally an English culture with heavy Irish overtones. Our Lutherans were primarily of German origin. I think many in the USA were of Scandinavian descent. So you would know everything and I nothing of Lutheran worship in the USA and so am grateful for what you said.

I also suspect American Lutheranism, like American Anglicanism, has changed from that in its countries of origin.

American Methodism seems 'higher church' than Oz/British Uniting Church/Methodism.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I went once to the High Kirk of St Giles in Edinburgh with an Italian friend.She said afterwards 'that was just like a Catholic Mass'
Of course there were for the 'conoscenti'many differences but the average Italian,even those who go to church regularly ,are not interested in liturgical minutiae.

St Giles and another Edinburgh church ,St Cuthbert's,for the good burghers of Colinton and
Morningside,are not typical church of Scotland 'kirks' but they are still part of the Church of Scotland.

I like St John's in Perth,cradle of the Reformation,where John Knox encouraged the parishioners to destroy all evidence of idolatry. It looks today in some ways,more Catholic than an average Catholic church.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Thanks for your elucidating comments, Forthview.

The Kirk seems to have moved more towards liturgy, ornamentation &c since the grand old days of John Knox & Jenny Geddes.

Scottish comedians always have a field day with sending up the posh Colinton accent. It is, of course, only a small segment of Edinburgh society who speak this way.

My first Headmaster was a Scot educated at Glenlmond College in Perth. Most Scots & others in the know find it amazing that many Fettesians, OGs and similar speak with an accent which would be more appropriate in the Home Counties than Edinburgh or Perth and Kinross.

I rather like the Scottish Episcopal Church which combines being genuinely 'High' and sensibly progressive.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
...

Slight tangent... someone mentioned Western-looking 'wedding cake' altars. Last Sunday I was in the Armenian Patriarchate church in Istanbul, which certainly had one. The whole church looked rather like a baroque-i-fied Wren church (think St Magnus the Martyr, with fewer statues). The Liturgy was seriously weird though (by Western standards: I'm not being disparaging) and interminable, so I left soon after what appeared to have been the Gospel. Otherwise I might have MWd it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
I don't know if there has been a pope yet who could speak Syriac or Aramaic let alone use them liturgically.

---

I'd imagine there have been several. If you subscribe to the strange theory that Simon Peter was the first Pope you can start with him Probably none for over 1500 years or so though.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And of course there is always Pope Shenouda, and his predecessors to consider. It's far too easy to forget the churches east of Rome...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I have had the pleasure to read a book (Calmness) by HH Pope Shenouda III and it was fabulous. I'm admittedly no expert in holiness but this book gave me the impression that he is indeed a very holy man.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have had the pleasure to read a book (Calmness) by HH Pope Shenouda III and it was fabulous. I'm admittedly no expert in holiness but this book gave me the impression that he is indeed a very holy man.

---

quote:

---

From the font of all knowledge and wisdom:
Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.[2] These six churches, while being in communion with each other, are hierarchically independent.

---

quote:

---

From Encyclopedia Coptica:
There are three main Liturgies in the Coptic Church: The Liturgy according to Saint Basil, Bishop of Caesarea; The Liturgy according to Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople; and The Liturgy according to Saint Cyril I, the 24th Pope of the Coptic Church. The bulk of Saint Cyril's Liturgy is from the one that Saint Mark used (in Greek) in the first century. It was memorized by the Bishops and priests of the church till it was translated into the Coptic Language by Saint Cyril. Today, these three Liturgies, with some added sections (e.g. the intercessions), are still in use; the Liturgy of Saint Basil is the one most commonly used in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

The Coptic church I understand isn't an official Orthodox church. Some of its teachings are different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
In the case of the Eastern Catholic Churches (those in Communion with the Holy Father), do they use the same rites as their equivalent Orthodox or Oriental church.

So in that fascinating bit Mousethief quotes about the Coptic Orthodox church is the Eastern Catholic church using the same three liturgies in that way?

Churches, of cause, are not just about liturgy. I guess, but have no real knowledge on this, that the Eastern Catholics and eastern Orthodox may differ on some ethical or moral teaching, as I guess the Orthodox Church and the RC Church are not always eye to eye on these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
Thank you Pancho, for that. I did suspect that it would be difficult to get the low down on whether the Coptic Catholics use the liturgies in the same way.[/URL]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
Thank you Pancho, for that. I did suspect that it would be difficult to get the low down on whether the Coptic Catholics use the liturgies in the same way.

This Coptic Church is the Evangelical Coptic Church, and the mind boggles...just as their are Eastern Catholic versions of the Orthodox churches are their Protestant / Evangelical equivalents as well.

This is an Armenian Evangelical Church. And here too.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0