www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Westerm Rite Liturgy

As a corollary to my question on the TLM, I would like to know your opinions on the Orthodox Western Rite. I'm speaking here purely from a liturgical point of view. Accordingly I'd like to avoid any discussions of (or accusations of Uniatism). I'm particularly interested in the opinions of Orthodox Christians on this forum and the opinions of those who may consider themselves traditionalist Catholics.

The vast majority of WR Orthodox parishes use the Episcopalian liturgy ("St. Tikhon") right? Seems to impact them more than us self-described TradLats, or wannabe TradLats.

Logos Teen

I reckon some use the Sarum Rite. One is similiar to the 1529 Common Book of Prayer (Episcopalian) but the filioque is removed and an epiclesis is added and a few other things to make it proper.
not claiming to be the expert though.

The Western Rite was never intended to appeal to Catholics (much less Traditional Catholics), but to former Anglicans and Episcopalians.

In fact, when the WR was approved by the AOC, the Latin Liturgy was still (at least partialy) in use by Roman Catholics and the "Tridentine" version of the WR itself had many of the innovations that Traditional Catholics reject: calendar changes, holy week reforms, new rubrics, vernacular language, hymns used at high-protestant churches and other.

If you see the Tridentine WR and the 1965 Missal you'll find that they're very much the same:

http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
http://members.aol.com/frnicholas/liturgy.htm

I think that every atempt to attract people to the Church is good but I am very sure that the Byzantine Rite is better as a pastoral tool than the WR.

Compared to the Latin Mass, the WR has the advantage that it contains its text while being in the vernacular so it's "in the middle". Some said this is how the Roman Liturgy should have been reformed. For those who are admirers of the Traditional Latin Mass and Catholicism, the WR must be a great thing. I would really like to attend one of those liturgies someday-

I heard there's a project in Rome to re-habilitate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular to replace both the modern rite and the Old Latin Mass.

Of the Western Rites in the Orthodox Church, by far the best is the Gallican Liturgy as restored in France - it's Orthodox, beautiful, and with magnificent music. The scholarship which went into the restoration in the twentieth century is excellent.

Pyrohy referred to the "1529" Book of Common Prayer. This is impossible (the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer is dated 1549). It could be a slip of the pen for 1549, but it could also be a slip of the pen for 1929. Can the writer elucidate?

For English-language celebrations of the Tridentine Mass, one is inclined to suggest the English Missal, published by Knott both in an Altar edition and a hand edition. The language used is traditional sacral English, and music is available to match the texts.

Incognitus

From you lips to God's ears! Thank you for the link to the translation. What a marvellous liturgy. It is a shame that it has taken 36 years to realize the mistake that was made. The Latin Church had a treasure in the English translation already in use.

I wonder if the GIRM will also have to be revised to accomodate the more regular use of the Tridentine?

I predict that there will be a HUGE resurgence of interest in a vernacular use of the revised Tridentine liturgy...even on the part of Boomers who are nearing retirement.

Can you also imagine a revised rite combined with architecture like this?

A Church for 2010 [vocations.org]

Gordo

I don't really see a fully vernacular TLM coming into use, do y'all?

For one, the Holy Father has called for more use among Roman Catholics in the Mass, as did Vatican II, and he has even called for us to start praying more of our private prayers in Latin.

Latin is in danger of being forgotten by so many right now, I get the feeling it's going to be harped upon until it is right back in the thick of things.

Logos Teen

Believe it or not, Latin was not the only language of celebration of the Roman Mass before Vatican II. Church-Slavonic was allowed, classical Armenian was allowed, Persian was allowed, Mandarin was allowed on paper, although seldom used in practice - and Greek was allowed and occasionally in use. No doubt there are more that I am not aware of.

These languages all have a common feature - they are sacral languages which are at the same time accessible to people of the corresponding culture. The same is reasonably true of Jacobean English as found in the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the plays of Shakespeare, to name only three instances. So there is nothing in principle against a celebration of the 1962 Mass in that idiom. Few people actually speak that way, but people with a serious education in English are well able to understand it.

For that matter, one need not have all that much education. A modernist was once attempting to demonstrate how hopelessly "archaic" the Prayer-Book is and asked an illiterate verger what "indifferently" meant in the prayer that the magistrates might rightly and indifferently administer justice. Without hesitation, the verger replied that it means making no difference between one man and another - which is the precise, correct meaning. When someone else asked the verger what "impartially" meant, the verger had no idea.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

I think Croatian was allowed, too, during the first part of the 20th century.

Logos Teen

I think that was Old Slavonic text to a Latin Rite Mass and not modern Croation. Mohawk (?) I believe was used on the border with Canada.

ICXC
NIKA

It's my understanding that the national language in its reverent "King James" like version was allowed, very much as the GOA does, using the vernacular for the antiphons, the "didactic" parts of the liturgy and Greek for the most known prayers (Our Father, Glory Be..., Kyrie, Symbol of Faith, etc). The Roman Church had a dispensation to recite or sing the introits, gradual, etc. in the vernacular.

I have an Old Latin Missal in Spanish, that follows this usage, of course the language used is much closer to the New-Mexican (18'th Century Mexican Spanish that could still be heard around Taos and Santa Fe) than to the modern vernacular spoken in Mexico nowadays. This dialect was in use by the OCA translation until recent times (last time I went to their church the language was the modern vernacular except in some prayers).

If they get to standardize this, the results would be better, and it isn't a bad idea for us to adopt it too. Why don't you ask your pastors to use Slavonic in those prayers that all people know, and the rest in English?

Father, I'll get back to you on this.
But here [westernorthodox.com] is a good link.

One concern that I have from an Orthodox perspective is if it is even good praxis to authorize a Western Rite liturgy. This is particularly the case when it comes to the more Anglican Rite usage. Remenber that no matter how elevated Cramner's prose was his liturgy still had at its heart the negation of the Orthodox Catholic faith in the Holy Eucharist (the Black Rubric). Accordingly, the liturgy was essentially composed for heretical purposes.
As to the Sarum Rite, since we really do not know how it was celebrated, it's sort of liturgical Jurassic Park reviving it.

Au contraire, we do know how the Sarum Rite was celebrated, and in great detail too! Sources that survive are plentiful in number and copious in their precise prescriptions of what was to be done, by whom, with what, in what manner, and when.

I don't think anyone's actually compared the two, but I suspect that manuscript sources for the Sarum Liturgy in the 12-15th Centuries may be found in greater abundance than manuscript sources for the Byzantine Liturgy in the same period.

Father, you are correct, my mind slipped, it would have been the 1549 Book of Common prayer. Let me get back to you on my earlier memory recollection.