www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Orarion esoterica

Dear all,

(This definitely shows I have too much time on my hands!)

I was perusing the website of a manufacturer of Roman-Rite vestments (www.slabbinck.be [slabbinck.be]), when I came across the following:

http://www.slabbinck.be/catalog/fiche.phtml?id=9764

Apparently, a browser of their website had enquired as to whether Slabbinck designs eastern-rite vestments. They responded that they do not, but that they do manufacture "deacon stoles" in the byzantine style (presumably to be worn by Latin-Rite deacons, as the picture appears to indicate due to the western-style alb).

Now for my questions:

1. Is it permissible for deacons of the Roman Rite to wear such a stole (according to Roman-Rite norms)?

2. The stole as designed appears to be patterned after the orarions worn by Byzantine protodeacons and archdeacons. Would it be inappropriate for a Latin Rite deacon to wear such a stole from the standpoint that there is no honorific corresponding to protodeacon or archdeacon in the Latin Church (to my knowledge, at least)?

Anyone up for this?

Martin

dear Martin:

Christ is Risen!

Sure, I'll post a reply...

I tend to agree with you that it would be inappropriate.

However, from the Latin Church's point of view, I am not sure whether "permissible" is an apt or relevant term, since, from my limited contact with them, there seems to be a bit of a liturgical free for all in the Latin Church. So I am not sure that borrowing and adapting Byzantine vestments would seem to them inappropriate - though from MY point of view, I think it is highly inappropriate.

I just feel, if they like our "stuff", they should join our Church. If they want to remain in their Church, then they should use their own Church's stuff or at least not "steal" our Church's stuff.

I have seen sets of Latin presbyter vestments where the stole was not only worn outside the chasuble (doesn't bother me, mostly 'cause it's not my Church, so I have no jurisdiction to comment) but draped over the shoulders like an episcopal OMOPHOR!. That I found not only weird, but a use and misuse of another Church's liturgical form, voice, and culture.

Where I am really bothered is the misuse of icons by other Churches. If other Churches want to write/paint and use icons, I have no problem with that if they understand the theology of icons and write/paint them and worship with them as they should be used. But when people play fast and loose with icons, putting in objects and actions etc. that are foreign of the theology and praxis of iconography and when they do not venerate them, etc. then I feel they should not use them, but use other "art" forms more apt to their purpose rather than playing around with forms of worship that my Church holds sacred.

How's that for a response?

Nevertheless and despite everything, XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!

Herb

Herb,

As an RC, I tend to agree that some (many) RC clerics tend to play "fast and loose" with liturgical norms--but there are norms. I was glad to read the recently updated English version of the "General Instruction for the Roman Missal" which delineates more precisely the appropriate liturgical actions, postures, etc. (can be found at the USCCB website). The "stole-over-the-chasuble" is one trend that causes me to wince a bit (I saw a picture of an RC deacon with a deacon stole placed over his dalmatic--ouch!) But some contemporary chasubles are specifically designed so that the stole is worn over the chasuble, and I've seen the Holy Father wear such vestments (when he last visited the US, I believe).

The Roman Rite does permit more latitude in incorporating differing worship expressions, and this can be nice: I can recall attending several RC Masses during which the Prayer of the Faithful was chanted "a capella" in a Byzantine style. This (I believe) would be within the norms and appropriate, and not an example of syncretism.

Also, the icon of "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" is one that is cherished and venerated widely in the Roman church--although perhaps not venerated in a liturgical manner as in the Byzantine church.

Martin

Oh, and...

INDEED, HE IS RISEN!

I think the Latin Church tradition has great depths and wonders. Why not delve into them and revive and adapt them? We Byzantines are trying (albeit in fits and starts and not nearly as successfully or quickly as some of us would wish) to revive and live our ancient tradition in the here and now. Is this happening in the Latin Church - as a general movement? Is Gregorian Chant or Mozarabic Chant making a come-back?

Of course we have the advantage of having to live in the shadow of our mother Churches and big brother Churches, the Orthodox - against which to measure ourselves and to which to aspire. So it's always easier to have a clear beacon tby which to steer (and from whose experience one can learn).

Christ is Risen!

Herb

Alas, one does not hear much Gregorian chant or even sacred polphony at RC Masses these days--in English or Latin. This is a shame. (And this is coming from a "dyed-in-the-wool" Novus-Ordo kind of guy!)

Dear Martin, as an ordained subdeacon of the Byzantine tradition I would not presume to wear vestments of another tradition. Even if I was invited to be present at a Latin gathering, I would only vest according to my own tradition. This "mix and match" stuff is not liturgically correct or even aesthetically appealing.

And to add to what Subdeacon Randy has to say, I believe it is forbidden by the rubrics. I do know for a fact that when a clergyman of one rite takes part in a Liturgy of another rite, he is required to wear the vestments proper to his rite for that Liturgy. Don

imitation is the highest form of flattery

Don,

The "Liturgical Instructions" also stated the same thing.

Joe